This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-113 
entitled 'Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could 
Help Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions' which was 
released on October 22, 2009. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Chairman, Select Committee on Energy Independence and 
Global Warming, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

October 2009: 

Climate Change Adaptation: 

Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government Officials Make More 
Informed Decisions: 

Climate Change Adaptation: 

GAO-10-113: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-10-
113], a report to the Chairman, Select Committee on Energy Independence 
and Global Warming, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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. 

What GAO Found: 

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. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that within the Executive Office of the President the 
appropriate entities, such as the Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ), develop a national adaptation plan that includes setting 
priorities for federal, state, and local agencies. CEQ generally agreed 
with our recommendations. 

View GAO-10-113 or key components. To view the e-supplement online, 
click on [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-114SP]. For 
more information, contact John B. Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or 
stephensonj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Federal, State, Local, and International Efforts to Adapt to Climate 
Change: 

Federal, State, and Local Officials Face Numerous Challenges When 
Considering Climate Change Adaptation Efforts: 

Federal Efforts to Increase Awareness, Provide Relevant Information, 
and Define Responsibilities Could Help Government Officials Make 
Decisions about Adaptation: 

Governmentwide Planning and Collaboration Could Assist Adaptation 
Efforts: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix III: Information on Selected Federal Efforts to Adapt to a 
Changing Climate: 

Appendix III: Summary of Federal, State, and Local Officials' Responses 
to Web-Based Questionnaire: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Council on Environmental Quality: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Current and Projected Impacts of Climate Change in the United 
States: 

Table 2: Percentage of Challenges Related to Awareness and Priorities 
Rated as Very or Extremely Challenging: 

Table 3: Percentage of Challenges Related to Information Rated as Very 
or Extremely Challenging: 

Table 4: Percentage of Challenges Related to the Structure and 
Operation of the Federal Government Rated as Very or Extremely 
Challenging: 

Table 5: Percentage of Potential Federal Government Actions Related to 
Awareness and Priorities Rated as Very or Extremely Useful: 

Table 6: Percentage of Potential Federal Government Actions Related to 
Information Rated as Very or Extremely Useful: 

Table 7: Percentage of Potential Federal Government Actions Related to 
the Structure and Operation of the Federal Government Rated as Very or 
Extremely Useful: 

Table 8: All Officials' Rating of Challenges Related to Awareness and 
Priorities: 

Table 9: All Officials' Rating of Challenges Related to Information: 

Table 10: All Officials' Rating of Challenges Related to the Structure 
and Operation of the Federal Government: 

Table 11: All Officials' Rating of Potential Federal Government Actions 
Related to Awareness and Priorities: 

Table 12: All Officials' Rating of Potential Federal Government Actions 
Related to Information: 

Table 13: All Officials' Rating of Potential Federal Government Actions 
Related to the Structure and Operation of the Federal Government: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Tallman Island Water Pollution Control Plant, Queens, New 
York City: 

Figure 2: New York City Department of Parks and Recreation Green Roofs 
at Five Borough Technical Services Facility: 

Figure 3: Rain Garden in King County, Washington: 

Figure 4: A Living Shoreline, Annapolis, Maryland: 

Figure 5: Salt Marsh in Somerset County, Maryland: 

Figure 6: The Thames Barrier, London, United Kingdom: 

Abbreviations: 

CDC: enters for Disease Control and Prevention: 

CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality: 

CIG: Climate Impacts Group: 

DEFRA: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: 

DEP: Department of Environmental Protection: 

DNR: Department of Natural Resources: 

DNRP: Department of Natural Resources and Parks: 

DOT: U.S. Department of Transportation: 

EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

FWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 

GCM: General Circulation Model: 

Interior: U.S. Department of the Interior: 

NAPA: National Adaptation Programme of Action: 

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

NIH: National Institutes of Health: 

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 

NPCC: New York City Panel on Climate Change: 

NRC: National Research Council: 

RISA: Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments: 

UKCIP: United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme: 

USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

USGCRP: U.S. Global Change Research Program: 

USGS: U.S. Geological Survey: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

October 7, 2009: 

The Honorable Edward Markey: 
Chairman: 
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

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.[Footnote 1] 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). 

Table 1: Current and Projected Impacts of Climate Change in the United 
States: 

Category: Temperature; 
Current and projected impacts: * 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. 

Category: Precipitation; 
Current and projected impacts: * 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. 

Category: Precipitation; 
Current and projected impacts: * 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. 

Category: Extreme weather events; 
Current and projected impacts: * 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. 

Category: Storms; 
Current and projected impacts: * The destructive energy of Atlantic 
hurricanes has increased in recent decades. The intensity of these 
storms is likely to increase in this century. 

Category: Storms; 
Current and projected impacts: * In the eastern Pacific, the strongest 
hurricanes have become stronger since the 1980s, even while the total 
number of storms has decreased. 

Category: Storms; 
Current and projected impacts: * Cold season storm tracks are shifting 
northward, and the strongest storms are likely to become stronger and 
more frequent. 

Category: Sea levels; 
Current and projected impacts: * Sea level has risen along most of the 
U.S. coast over the last 50 years and will likely rise more in the 
future. 

Category: Sea levels; 
Current and projected impacts: * Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly 
and this decline is very likely to continue. 

Source: Adapted from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, 2009. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 2] 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.[Footnote 3] 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.[Footnote 4] 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.[Footnote 5] 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. 

Federal, State, Local, and International Efforts to Adapt to Climate 
Change: 

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. 

Many Federal Agencies Are Beginning to Take Steps to Adapt to Climate 
Change: 

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.[Footnote 6] 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.[Footnote 7] 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.[Footnote 8] 

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.[Footnote 9] 
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.[Footnote 
10] 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.[Footnote 11] 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.[Footnote 12] 
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.[Footnote 
13] 

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.[Footnote 14] 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.[Footnote 15] 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.[Footnote 16] 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.[Footnote 
17] 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.[Footnote 18] 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.[Footnote 19] 

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. 

Certain State and Local Governments Are Developing and Implementing 
Climate Change Adaptation Measures: 

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.[Footnote 20] 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.[Footnote 21] A general review of state and local government 
adaptation planning efforts is available in two recent reports issued 
by nongovernment research groups.[Footnote 22] 

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. 

New York City, New York: 

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.[Footnote 
23] 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.[Footnote 24] 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. 

Figure 1: Tallman Island Water Pollution Control Plant, Queens, New 
York City: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Source: GAO. 

The Tallman Island Water Pollution Control Plant, located on the bank 
of the East River, is vulnerable to flooding due to storm surges and 
sea level rise.

[End of figure] 

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. 

Figure 2: New York City Department of Parks and Recreation Green Roofs 
at Five Borough Technical Services Facility: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Source: GAO. 

Sedum (left) and native plants (right) are used in the green roof at 
the Five Borough Technical Services Facility. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 25] 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.[Footnote 26] 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. 

King County, Washington: 

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.[Footnote 27] 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.[Footnote 28] 
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.[Footnote 29] 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.[Footnote 30] 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.[Footnote 31] 

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. 

Figure 3: Rain Garden in King County, Washington: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Source: King County Department of Transportation Road Services 
Division. 

This rain garden, which is under construction, treats roadway runoff 
using natural vegetation and certain types of soil. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 32] 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. 

Maryland: 

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.[Footnote 33] 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.[Footnote 34] As part of this 
effort, DNR chaired an Adaptation and Response Working Group, which 
issued a report on sea level rise and coastal storms.[Footnote 35] 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).[Footnote 36] 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.[Footnote 37] 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. 

Figure 4: A Living Shoreline, Annapolis, Maryland: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Source: GAO. 

This living shoreline uses marsh plants and other natural features to 
protect the shore from erosion. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 38] 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. 

Figure 5: Salt Marsh in Somerset County, Maryland: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Source: GAO. 

Salt marshes in Somerset County provide important habitat to migrating 
waterfowl and other species;they are at risk of inundation due to sea 
level rise. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 39] For example, an interactive mapping application 
called Shoreline Changes Online allows users to access historic 
shoreline data to determine erosion trends.[Footnote 40] 

Some Countries Have Begun to Adapt to Climate Change: 

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.[Footnote 41] 
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.[Footnote 42] Australia recently issued guidance 
to local governments about expected climate change projections, 
impacts, and potential responses.[Footnote 43] 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.[Footnote 44] In addition, the 2006 Stern Review of the economics of 
climate change helped accelerate the national government's efforts to 
adapt.[Footnote 45] 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.[Footnote 46] 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.[Footnote 47] 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). 

Figure 6: The Thames Barrier, London, United Kingdom: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Source: GAO. 

Bottom: Thames Barrier piers (the gates are underwater between the 
piers); top: a Thames Barrier gate rotated out of the water.

[End of figure] 

Text Box: 

The Thames Barrier is a flood control system designed by the Greater 
London Council to respond to severe floods in 1953. The Thames Estuary 
2100 plan, which was released for public comment on March 31, 2009, was 
undertaken to determine whether London’s flood control infrastructure, 
including the Thames Barrier, can continue to protect London given the 
projections for sea level rise and expected development. The 
Environment Agency, which operates the barrier, relied on models of sea 
level rise to determine that continuation of current operations with 
some marginal improve-ments, such as using the barrier’s gates’ ability 
to “over-rotate,” combined with other measures throughout the 
floodplain, would be sufficient at this time. The plan includes a 
monitoring component and a schedule to take further action later this 
century. 

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.[Footnote 48] 

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.[Footnote 49] 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. 

Federal, State, and Local Officials Face Numerous Challenges When 
Considering Climate Change Adaptation Efforts: 

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. 

Competing Priorities Make It Difficult to Use Limited Funds on 
Adaptation Efforts: 

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. 

Table 2: Percentage of Challenges Related to Awareness and Priorities 
Rated as Very or Extremely Challenging: 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of funding for 
adaptation efforts; 
Total responses[A]: 179; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 83.8. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Non-adaptation 
activities are higher priorities; 
Total responses[A]: 180; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 71.1. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of clear 
priorities for allocating resources for adaptation activities; 
Total responses[A]: 181; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 70.2. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of public 
awareness or knowledge of adaptation; 
Total responses[A]: 184; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 61.4. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of a specific 
mandate to address climate change adaptation; 
Total responses[A]: 182; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 57.7. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of awareness or 
knowledge of adaptation among government officials; 
Total responses[A]: 182; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 57.7. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of clarity about 
what activities are considered adaptation; 
Total responses[A]: 181; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 55.2. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Difficult to define 
adaptation goals and performance metrics; 
Total responses[A]: 181; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 55.8. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of qualified staff 
to work on adaptation efforts; 
Total responses[A]: 181; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 50.3. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered 
each question using numerical ratings, ranging from (1) not at all 
challenging through (5) extremely challenging, out of the 187 
respondents that completed the questionnaire. 

[B] The percentage column represents the number of officials rating 
each challenge as (4) very challenging or (5) extremely challenging 
divided by the total number of numerical ratings submitted by officials 
for (1) not at all challenging through (5) extremely challenging. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 50] 

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.[Footnote 51] 

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.[Footnote 52] 

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.[Footnote 53] 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. 

Lack of Site-Specific Information Limits Adaptation Efforts: 

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. 

Table 3: Percentage of Challenges Related to Information Rated as Very 
or Extremely Challenging: 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Justifying the current 
costs of adaptation efforts for potentially less certain future 
benefits; 
Total responses[A]: 179; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 79.3. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Size and complexity of 
future climate change impacts; 
Total responses[A]: 180; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 76.7. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Translating available 
climate information (e.g., projected temperature, precipitation) into 
impacts at the local level (e.g., increased stream flow); 
Total responses[A]: 182; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 74.7. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Availability of climate 
information at relevant scale (i.e., downscaled regional and local 
information); 
Total responses[A]: 179; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 74.3. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Understanding the costs 
and benefits of adaptation efforts; 
Total responses[A]: 180; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 70. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of information 
about thresholds (i.e., limits beyond which recovery is impossible or 
difficult); 
Total responses[A]: 175; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 64.6. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Making management and 
policy decisions with uncertainty about future effects of climate 
change; 
Total responses[A]: 184; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 64.1. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of baseline 
monitoring data to enable evaluation of adaptation actions (i.e., 
inability to detect change); 
Total responses[A]: 181; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 62.4. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of certainty about 
the timing of climate change impacts; 
Total responses[A]: 180; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 57.2. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Accessibility and 
usability of available information on climate impacts and adaptation; 
Total responses[A]: 182; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 53.3. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Size and complexity of 
current climate change impacts; 
Total responses[A]: 179; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 48.6. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered 
each question using numerical ratings, ranging from (1) not at all 
challenging through (5) extremely challenging, out of the 187 
respondents that completed the questionnaire. 

[B] The percentage column represents the number of officials rating 
each challenge as (4) very challenging or (5) extremely challenging 
divided by the total number of numerical ratings submitted by officials 
for (1) not at all challenging through (5) extremely challenging. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 54] 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?"[Footnote 55] 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.[Footnote 56] 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.[Footnote 
57] 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."[Footnote 58] 

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.[Footnote 59] 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.[Footnote 60] 
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.[Footnote 61] Without such information, it 
was difficult for managers to determine whether observed changes were 
within the normal range of variability. 

Adaptation Efforts Are Constrained by a Lack of Clear Roles and 
Responsibilities: 

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. 

Table 4: Percentage of Challenges Related to the Structure and 
Operation of the Federal Government Rated as Very or Extremely 
Challenging: 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: 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); 
Total responses[A]: 178; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 69.7. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: The authority and 
capability to adapt is spread among many federal agencies (i.e., 
institutional fragmentation); 
Total responses[A]: 176; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 58. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of federal 
guidance or policies on how to make decisions related to adaptation; 
Total responses[A]: 176; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 52.3. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Existing federal 
policies, programs, or practices that hinder adaptation efforts; 
Total responses[A]: 150; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 42.7. 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Federal statutory, 
regulatory, or other legal constraints on adaptation efforts; 
Total responses[A]: 152; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 36.2. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered 
each question using numerical ratings, ranging from (1) not at all 
challenging through (5) extremely challenging, out of the 187 
respondents that completed the questionnaire. 

[B] The percentage column represents the number of officials rating 
each challenge as (4) very challenging or (5) extremely challenging 
divided by the total number of numerical ratings submitted by officials 
for (1) not at all challenging through (5) extremely challenging. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 62] 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.[Footnote 63] 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.[Footnote 64] 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.[Footnote 65] 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.[Footnote 66] 

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.[Footnote 67] 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."[Footnote 68] 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." 

Federal Efforts to Increase Awareness, Provide Relevant Information, 
and Define Responsibilities Could Help Government Officials Make 
Decisions about Adaptation: 

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. 

Federal Training and Education Initiatives Would Assist Adaptation 
Efforts: 

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. 

Table 5: Percentage of Potential Federal Government Actions Related to 
Awareness and Priorities Rated as Very or Extremely Useful: 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Development of regional or local educational workshops for relevant 
officials that are tailored to their responsibilities; 
Total responses[A]: 182; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 74.7. 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Development of lists of "no regrets" actions (i.e., actions in which 
the benefits exceed the costs under all future climate scenarios); 
Total responses[A]: 181; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 73.5. 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Development of a list of potential climate change adaptation policy 
options; 
Total responses[A]: 181; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 71.3. 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Creation of a campaign to educate the public about climate change 
adaptation; 
Total responses[A]: 184; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 70.1. 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Training of relevant officials on adaptation issues; 
Total responses[A]: 182; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 69.8. 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Creation of a recurring stakeholder forum to explore the interaction of 
climate science and adaptation practice; 
Total responses[A]: 184; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 64.7. 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Prioritization of potential climate change adaptation options; 
Total responses[A]: 183; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 61.7. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered 
each question using numerical ratings, ranging from (1) not at all 
useful through (5) extremely useful, out of the 187 respondents that 
completed the questionnaire. 

[B] The percentage column represents the number of officials rating 
each potential action as (4) very useful or (5) extremely useful 
divided by the total numerical ratings submitted by officials for (1) 
not at all useful through (5) extremely useful. 

[End of table] 

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. 

Federal Actions to Provide and Interpret Site-Specific Information 
Would Help Officials Implement Adaptation Efforts: 

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. 

Table 6: Percentage of Potential Federal Government Actions Related to 
Information Rated as Very or Extremely Useful: 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Development of state and local climate change impact and vulnerability 
assessments; 
Total responses[A]: 183; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 80.3. 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Identification and sharing of best practices; 
Total responses[A]: 157[C]; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 80.3. 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Development of processes and tools to help officials access, interpret, 
and apply available climate information; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 80.0. 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Development of regional climate change impact and vulnerability 
assessments; 
Total responses[A]: 182; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 77.5. 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Creation of a federal service to consolidate and deliver climate 
information to decision makers to inform adaptation efforts; 
Total responses[A]: 176; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 60.8. 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Development of an interactive stakeholder forum for information 
sharing; 
Total responses[A]: 184; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 56.5. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered 
each question using numerical ratings, ranging from (1) not at all 
useful through (5) extremely useful, out of the 187 respondents that 
completed the questionnaire. 

[B] The percentage column represents the number of officials rating 
each potential action as (4) very useful or (5) extremely useful 
divided by the total numerical ratings submitted by officials for (1) 
not at all useful through (5) extremely useful. 

[C] As previously noted, 187 respondents completed our questionnaire 
overall. While the number of responses for each individual question 
generally ranged from 183 to 186, only 159 respondents answered this 
question. See appendix III for more details. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 69] 
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. 

Congress and Federal Agencies Could Encourage Adaptation Efforts by 
Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities: 

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. 

Table 7: Percentage of Potential Federal Government Actions Related to 
the Structure and Operation of the Federal Government Rated as Very or 
Extremely Useful: 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Development of a national adaptation fund to provide a consistent 
funding stream for adaptation activities; 
Total responses[A]: 179; Percentage who rated as very or extremely 
useful[B]: 84.4. 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Development of a national adaptation strategy that defines federal 
government priorities and responsibilities; Total responses[A]: 181; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 71.3. 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Review of existing programs to identify and modify policies and 
practices that hinder adaptation efforts; Total responses[A]: 180; 
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 67.8. 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Issuance of guidance, policies, or procedures on how to incorporate 
adaptation into existing policy and management processes; Total 
responses[A]: 180; Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 
65.6. 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Development of a climate change extension service to help share and 
explain available information; Total responses[A]: 181; Percentage who 
rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 59.1. 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?: 
Creation of a centralized government structure to coordinate adaptation 
funding; Total responses[A]: 166; Percentage who rated as very or 
extremely useful[B]: 53.6. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered 
each question using numerical ratings, ranging from (1) not at all 
useful through (5) extremely useful, out of the 187 respondents that 
completed the questionnaire. 

[B] The percentage column represents the number of officials rating 
each potential action as (4) very useful or (5) extremely useful 
divided by the total numerical ratings submitted by officials for (1) 
not at all useful through (5) extremely useful. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 70] 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.[Footnote 71] 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.[Footnote 72] 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.[Footnote 73] 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."[Footnote 74] Several respondents cautioned 
that federal guidance related to adaptation should be flexible enough 
to allow state and local governments to adapt their own approaches. 

Governmentwide Planning and Collaboration Could Assist Adaptation 
Efforts: 

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.[Footnote 75] 
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.[Footnote 76] 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.[Footnote 
77] 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.[Footnote 78] Based on our prior work, key practices that can help 
agencies enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts 
include[Footnote 79] 

* defining and articulating a common outcome; 

* agreeing on roles and responsibilities; 

* establishing compatible policies, procedures, and other means to 
operate across agency boundaries; 

* 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.[Footnote 80] 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. 

Conclusions: 

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. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

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. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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 
[hyperlink, 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. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

John B. Stephenson: 
Director Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

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).[Footnote 81] 

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.[Footnote 82] 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.[Footnote 83] 

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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Information on Selected Federal Efforts to Adapt to a 
Changing Climate: 

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.[Footnote 84] 

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. 

See the following list for the departments and agencies included in the 
supplement to this report: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

* Agricultural Marketing Service: 

* Agricultural Research Service: 

* Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: 

* Economic Research Service: 

* Farm Service Agency: 

* Forest Service: 

* Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

U.S. Department of Commerce: 

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 

U.S. Department of Defense: 

* Office of the Secretary of Defense: 

* Army: 

* Navy: 

* Air Force: 

* Marine Corps: 

* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: 

U.S. Department of Energy: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: 

* Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 

* National Institutes of Health: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 

* Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

U.S. Department of the Interior: 

U.S. Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development: 

U.S. Department of Transportation: 

* Office of Transportation Policy: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

National Science Foundation: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Summary of Federal, State, and Local Officials' Responses 
to Web-Based Questionnaire: 

Table 8: All Officials' Rating of Challenges Related to Awareness and 
Priorities: 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: 

Lack of funding for adaptation efforts; 
(1) Not at all: 0; 
(2) Slightly: 4; 
(3) Moderately: 25; 
(4) Very: 43; 
(5) Extremely: 107; 
Not applicable: 1; 
Don't know/no response: 3; 
Total responses[A]: 183; 
Average[B]: 4.41. 

Non-adaptation activities are higher priorities; 
(1) Not at all: 4; 
(2) Slightly: 15; 
(3) Moderately: 33; 
(4) Very: 62; 
(5) Extremely: 66; 
Not applicable: 5; 
Don't know/no response: 1; 
Total responses[A]: 186; 
Average[B]: 3.95. 

Lack of clear priorities for allocating resources for adaptation 
activities; 
(1) Not at all: 3; 
(2) Slightly: 12; 
(3) Moderately: 39; 
(4) Very: 71; 
(5) Extremely: 56; 
Not applicable: 2; 
Don't know/no response: 3; 
Total responses[A]: 186; 
Average[B]: 3.91. 

Lack of public awareness or knowledge of adaptation; 
(1) Not at all: 0; 
(2) Slightly: 20; 
(3) Moderately: 51; 
(4) Very: 83; 
(5) Extremely: 30; 
Not applicable: 0; 
Don't know/no response: 2; 
Total responses[A]: 186; 
Average[B]: 3.67. 

Lack of awareness or knowledge of adaptation among government 
officials; 
(1) Not at all: 2; 
(2) Slightly: 17; 
(3) Moderately: 58; 
(4) Very: 74; 
(5) Extremely: 31; 
Not applicable: 0; 
Don't know/no response: 2; 
Total responses[A]: 184; 
Average[B]: 3.63. 

Difficult to define adaptation goals and performance metrics; 
(1) Not at all: 1; 
(2) Slightly: 21; 
(3) Moderately: 58; 
(4) Very: 66; 
(5) Extremely: 35; 
Not applicable: 0; 
Don't know/no response: 5; 
Total responses[A]: 186; 
Average[B]: 3.62. 

Lack of qualified staff to work on adaptation efforts; 
(1) Not at all: 5; 
(2) Slightly: 25; 
(3) Moderately: 60; 
(4) Very: 44; 
(5) Extremely: 47; 
Not applicable: 0; 
Don't know/no response: 5; 
Total responses[A]: 186; 
Average[B]: 3.57. 

Lack of a specific mandate to address climate change adaptation; 
(1) Not at all: 18; 
(2) Slightly: 24; 
(3) Moderately: 35; 
(4) Very: 50; 
(5) Extremely: 55; 
Not applicable: 2; 
Don't know/no response: 2; 
Total responses[A]: 186; 
Average[B]: 3.55. 

Lack of clarity about what activities are considered adaptation; 
(1) Not at all: 3; 
(2) Slightly: 19; 
(3) Moderately: 59; 
(4) Very: 79; 
(5) Extremely: 21; 
Not applicable: 2; 
Don't know/no response: 2; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 3.53. 

[End of table] 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered 
each question out of the 187 respondents that completed the 
questionnaire. 

[B] The average column represents the average of the numerical ratings 
submitted by officials for (1) not at all challenging through (5) 
extremely challenging. 

Table 9: All Officials' Rating of Challenges Related to Information: 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: 

Size and complexity of future climate change impacts; 
(1) Not at all: 1; 
(2) Slightly: 8; 
(3) Moderately: 33; 
(4) Very: 65; 
(5) Extremely: 73; 
Not applicable: 1; 
Don't know/no response: 4; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 4.12. 

Justifying the current costs of adaptation efforts for potentially less 
certain future benefits; 
(1) Not at all: 1; 
(2) Slightly: 7; 
(3) Moderately: 29; 
(4) Very: 76; 
(5) Extremely: 66; 
Not applicable: 2; 
Don't know/no response: 4; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 4.11. 

Translating available climate information (e.g., projected temperature, 
precipitation) into impacts at the local level (e.g., increased stream 
flow); 
(1) Not at all: 3; 
(2) Slightly: 13; 
(3) Moderately: 30; 
(4) Very: 62; 
(5) Extremely: 74; 
Not applicable: 1; 
Don't know/no response: 2; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 4.05. 

Availability of climate information at relevant scale (i.e., downscaled 
regional and local information); 
(1) Not at all: 4; 
(2) Slightly: 15; 
(3) Moderately: 27; 
(4) Very: 66; 
(5) Extremely: 67; 
Not applicable: 0; 
Don't know/no response: 4; 
Total responses[A]: 183; 
Average[B]: 3.99. 

Understanding the costs and benefits of adaptation efforts; 
(1) Not at all: 0; 
(2) Slightly: 5; 
(3) Moderately: 49; 
(4) Very: 78; 
(5) Extremely: 48; 
Not applicable: 2; 
Don't know/no response: 3; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 3.94. 

Making management and policy decisions with uncertainty about future 
effects of climate change; 
(1) Not at all: 2; 
(2) Slightly: 14; 
(3) Moderately: 50; 
(4) Very: 68; 
(5) Extremely: 50; 
Not applicable: 0; 
Don't know/no response: 1; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 3.82. 

Lack of information about thresholds (i.e., limits beyond which 
recovery is impossible or difficult); 
(1) Not at all: 7; 
(2) Slightly: 17; 
(3) Moderately: 38; 
(4) Very: 66; 
(5) Extremely: 47; 
Not applicable: 3; 
Don't know/no response: 7; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 3.74. 

Lack of baseline monitoring data to enable evaluation of adaptation 
actions (i.e., inability to detect change); 
(1) Not at all: 7; 
(2) Slightly: 17; 
(3) Moderately: 44; 
(4) Very: 78; 
(5) Extremely: 35; 
Not applicable: 1; 
Don't know/no response: 2; 
Total responses[A]: 184; 
Average[B]: 3.65. 

Lack of certainty about the timing of climate change impacts; 
(1) Not at all: 3; 
(2) Slightly: 16; 
(3) Moderately: 58; 
(4) Very: 68; 
(5) Extremely: 35; 
Not applicable: 0; 
Don't know/no response: 3; 
Total responses[A]: 183; 
Average[B]: 3.64. 

Accessibility and usability of available information on climate impacts 
and adaptation; 
(1) Not at all: 6; 
(2) Slightly: 25; 
(3) Moderately: 54; 
(4) Very: 64; 
(5) Extremely: 33; 
Not applicable: 0; 
Don't know/no response: 2; 
Total responses[A]: 184; 
Average[B]: 3.51. 

Size and complexity of current climate change impacts; 
(1) Not at all: 6; 
(2) Slightly: 22; 
(3) Moderately: 64; 
(4) Very: 56; 
(5) Extremely: 31; 
Not applicable: 1; 
Don't know/no response: 4; 
Total responses[A]: 184; 
Average[B]: 3.47. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered 
each question out of the 187 respondents that completed the 
questionnaire. 

[B] The average column represents the average of the numerical ratings 
submitted by officials for (1) not at all challenging through (5) 
extremely challenging. 

[End of table] 

Table 10: All Officials' Rating of Challenges Related to the Structure 
and Operation of the Federal Government: 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when 
considering climate change adaptation efforts?

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); 
(1) Not at all: 4; 
(2) Slightly: 16; 
(3) Moderately: 34; 
(4) Very: 54; 
(5) Extremely: 70; 
Not applicable: 2; 
Don't know/no response: 5; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 3.96. 

The authority and capability to adapt is spread among many federal 
agencies (i.e., institutional fragmentation); 
(1) Not at all: 4; 
(2) Slightly: 23; 
(3) Moderately: 47; 
(4) Very: 66; 
(5) Extremely: 36; 
Not applicable: 2; 
Don't know/no response: 7; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 3.61. 

Lack of federal guidance or policies on how to make decisions related 
to adaptation; 
(1) Not at all: 11; 
(2) Slightly: 22; 
(3) Moderately: 51; 
(4) Very: 53; 
(5) Extremely: 39; 
Not applicable: 3; 
Don't know/no response: 6; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 3.49. 

Existing federal policies, programs, or practices that hinder 
adaptation efforts; 
(1) Not at all: 8; 
(2) Slightly: 31; 
(3) Moderately: 47; 
(4) Very: 30; 
(5) Extremely: 34; 
Not applicable: 3; 
Don't know/no response: 31; 
Total responses[A]: 184; 
Average[B]: 3.34. 

Federal statutory, regulatory, or other legal constraints on adaptation 
efforts; 
(1) Not at all: 14; 
(2) Slightly: 33; 
(3) Moderately: 50; 
(4) Very: 29; 
(5) Extremely: 26; 
Not applicable: 4; 
Don't know/no response: 29; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 3.13. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered 
each question out of the 187 respondents that completed the 
questionnaire. 

[B] The average column represents the average of the numerical ratings 
submitted by officials for (1) not at all challenging through (5) 
extremely challenging. 

[End of table] 

Table 11: All Officials' Rating of Potential Federal Government Actions 
Related to Awareness and Priorities: 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate? 

Development of regional or local educational workshops for relevant 
officials that are tailored to their responsibilities; 
(1) Not at all: 3; 
(2) Slightly: 7; 
(3) Moderately: 36; 
(4) Very: 64; 
(5) Extremely: 72; 
Don't know/no response: 2; 
Total responses[A]: 184; 
Average[B]: 4.07. 

Development of lists of "no regrets" actions (i.e., actions in which 
the benefits exceed the costs under all future climate scenarios); 
(1) Not at all: 4; 
(2) Slightly: 13; 
(3) Moderately: 31; 
(4) Very: 60; 
(5) Extremely: 73; 
Don't know/no response: 5; 
Total responses[A]: 186; 
Average[B]: 4.02. 

Creation of a campaign to educate the public about climate change 
adaptation; 
(1) Not at all: 1; 
(2) Slightly: 19; 
(3) Moderately: 35; 
(4) Very: 60; 
(5) Extremely: 69; 
Don't know/no response: 0; 
Total responses[A]: 184; 
Average[B]: 3.96. 

Development of a list of potential climate change adaptation policy 
options; 
(1) Not at all: 2; 
(2) Slightly: 12; 
(3) Moderately: 38; 
(4) Very: 73; 
(5) Extremely: 56; 
Don't know/no response: 4; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 3.93. 

Training of relevant officials on adaptation issues; 
(1) Not at all: 3; 
(2) Slightly: 14; 
(3) Moderately: 38; 
(4) Very: 69; 
(5) Extremely: 58; 
Don't know/no response: 2; 
Total responses[A]: 184; 
Average[B]: 3.91. 

Creation of a recurring stakeholder forum to explore the interaction of 
climate science and adaptation practice; 
(1) Not at all: 3; 
(2) Slightly: 21; 
(3) Moderately: 41; 
(4) Very: 70; 
(5) Extremely: 49; 
Don't know/no response: 2; 
Total responses[A]: 186; 
Average[B]: 3.77. 

Prioritization of potential climate change adaptation options; 
(1) Not at all: 9; 
(2) Slightly: 19; 
(3) Moderately: 42; 
(4) Very: 70; 
(5) Extremely: 43; 
Don't know/no response: 3; 
Total responses[A]: 186; 
Average[B]: 3.65. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered 
each question out of the 187 respondents that completed the 
questionnaire. 

[B] The average column represents the average of the numerical ratings 
submitted by officials for (1) not at all useful through (5) extremely 
useful. 

[End of table] 

Table 12: All Officials' Rating of Potential Federal Government Actions 
Related to Information: 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government 
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate? 

Development of state and local climate change impact and vulnerability 
assessments; 
(1) Not at all: 2; 
(2) Slightly: 9; 
(3) Moderately: 25; 
(4) Very: 56; 
(5) Extremely: 91; 
Don't know/no response: 1; 
Total responses[A]: 184; 
Average[B]: 4.23. 

Development of regional climate change impact and vulnerability 
assessments; 
(1) Not at all: 0; 
(2) Slightly: 5; 
(3) Moderately: 36; 
(4) Very: 60; 
(5) Extremely: 81; 
Don't know/no response: 3; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 4.19. 

Development of processes and tools to help officials access, interpret, 
and apply available climate information; 
(1) Not at all: 0; 
(2) Slightly: 7; 
(3) Moderately: 30; 
(4) Very: 72; 
(5) Extremely: 76; 
Don't know/no response: 0; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 4.17. 

Identification and sharing of best practices; 
(1) Not at all: 0; 
(2) Slightly: 7; 
(3) Moderately: 24; 
(4) Very: 65; 
(5) Extremely: 61; 
Don't know/no response: 2; 
Total responses[A]: 159[C]; 
Average[B]: 4.15. 

Creation of a federal service to consolidate and deliver climate 
information to decision makers to inform adaptation efforts; 
(1) Not at all: 11; 
(2) Slightly: 20; 
(3) Moderately: 38; 
(4) Very: 41; 
(5) Extremely: 66; 
Don't know/no response: 9; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 3.74. 

Development of an interactive stakeholder forum for information 
sharing; 
(1) Not at all: 1; 
(2) Slightly: 23; 
(3) Moderately: 56; 
(4) Very: 58; 
(5) Extremely: 46; 
Don't know/no response: 1; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 3.68. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered 
each question out of the 187 respondents that completed the 
questionnaire. 

[B] The average column represents the average of the numerical ratings 
submitted by officials for (1) not at all useful through (5) extremely 
useful. 

[C] As previously noted, 187 respondents completed our questionnaire 
overall. While the number of responses for each individual question 
generally ranged from 183 to 186, only 159 respondents answered this 
question. 

[End of table] 

Table 13: All Officials' Rating of Potential Federal Government Actions 
Related to the Structure and Operation of the Federal Government: 

Development of a national adaptation fund to provide a consistent 
funding stream for adaptation activities; 
(1) Not at all: 7; 
(2) Slightly: 8; 
(3) Moderately: 13; 
(4) Very: 38; 
(5) Extremely: 113; 
Don't know/no response: 5; 
Total responses[A]: 184; 
Average[B]: 4.35. 

Development of a national adaptation strategy that defines federal 
government priorities and responsibilities; 
(1) Not at all: 4; 
(2) Slightly: 12; 
(3) Moderately: 36; 
(4) Very: 65; 
(5) Extremely: 64; 
Don't know/no response: 4; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 3.96. 

Review of existing programs to identify and modify policies and 
practices that hinder adaptation efforts; 
(1) Not at all: 1; 
(2) Slightly: 19; 
(3) Moderately: 38; 
(4) Very: 65; 
(5) Extremely: 57; 
Don't know/no response: 5; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 3.88. 

Issuance of guidance, policies, or procedures on how to incorporate 
adaptation into existing policy and management processes; 
(1) Not at all: 2; 
(2) Slightly: 15; 
(3) Moderately: 45; 
(4) Very: 78; 
(5) Extremely: 40; 
Don't know/no response: 4; 
Total responses[A]: 184; 
Average[B]: 3.77. 

Development of a climate change extension service to help share and 
explain available information; 
(1) Not at all: 8; 
(2) Slightly: 20; 
(3) Moderately: 46; 
(4) Very: 54; 
(5) Extremely: 53; 
Don't know/no response: 3; 
Total responses[A]: 184; 
Average[B]: 3.69. 

Creation of a centralized government structure to coordinate adaptation 
funding; 
(1) Not at all: 24; 
(2) Slightly: 20; 
(3) Moderately: 33; 
(4) Very: 44; 
(5) Extremely: 45; 
Don't know/no response: 19; 
Total responses[A]: 185; 
Average[B]: 3.40. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered 
each question out of the 187 respondents that completed the 
questionnaire. 

[B] The average column represents the average of the numerical ratings 
submitted by officials for (1) not at all useful through (5) extremely 
useful. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Council on Environmental Quality: 

Executive Office Of The President: 
Council On Environmental Quality: 
Washington, D.C. 20603: 

John B. Stephenson: 
Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street N.W.: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Stephenson,

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Government 
Accountability Office's report, "Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic 
Federal Planning Could Help Government Officials Make More Informed 
Decisions." We circulated the report to the Climate Change Adaptation 
inter-agency committee for review and comment. The committee includes 
representatives from more than twelve agencies. We have also provided 
technical comments under separate cover. 

We agree that adaptation is a critical area for federal government 
activity and think this report is a timely review of the subject. 
Overall, we agree with the main recommendation, that leadership and 
coordination is necessary within the federal government to ensure an 
effective and appropriate adaptation response. Further, we agree that 
this will help to catalyze the local, state and regional activities 
that are so critical to adaptation. 

We have three main areas of concern with the report. First, we believe 
that the relative inexperience of the federal government on adaptation 
combined with the survey methodology used in this report may produce 
misleading results. Second, we believe that the report confuses the 
issue of cost/benefit analysis and scientific uncertainty. Third, we 
think the overall report does not focus enough on implementation 
challenges and recommendations.

Methodology: 

The report uses a survey methodology to assess relative roles and tasks 
for the federal government on adaptation. Survey respondents were 
selected from both within and outside the federal government, and all 
had experience with adaptation. However, the report also 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. This is reinforced by 
the significant differences in some survey responses between 
respondents within the federal government, and those with presumably 
greater adaptation experience, outside of the federal government. 

As a result, some of the survey findings appear to be questionable. For 
example, the survey found that developing a list of no-regrets actions 
would be a valuable product for the federal government to produce. 
While no-regrets actions are a critical part of adaptation, the 
variability and local nature of adaptation makes a federally produced 
list of no-regrets actions very difficult and possibly of limited 
utility. Therefore, while the survey results are an accurate reflection 
of respondents thinking, they do not necessarily paint the best roadmap 
for federal government action. 

Cost/Benefit and Uncertainty: 

The report identifies "justifying current costs with limited 
information about future benefits" as a challenge to adaptation policy. 
The discussion of this challenge focuses on the scientific uncertainty 
inherent in climate projections as the main stumbling block for 
cost/benefit analysis. The section does not include other challenges 
identified in the survey, such as "understanding costs and benefits" of 
adaptive actions, or the challenge of prioritizing adaptation against 
other near-term actions. The survey written comments point out that 
given the scientific uncertainty on impacts, cost/benefit analysis is 
particularly important. In these cases, cost/benefit analysis is a 
separate concern to scientific uncertainty. 

Our interpretation of these survey responses is that while scientific 
uncertainty is a concern and challenge for adaptation planning and 
implementation, there is also difficulty doing cost/benefit analysis. 
This difficulty could be addressed through providing decision-maker 
tools, like scenario analyses, and tools that help to quantify the cost 
and benefits of inaction and action. 

Planning vs. Implementation: 

The recommendation focuses on 4 components of a national strategic 
adaptation plan: priorities, roles and responsibilities, information 
and planning. These are critical elements of a national strategy on 
adaptation, and respond to the main challenges identified in the 
report. 

However, the report does not analyze the primary barriers or challenges 
to implementation, nor does make any recommendations on implementing 
adaptation. Experience to date on adaptation suggests that planning is 
critical, but that it does not guarantee implementation. Many of the 
challenges described in the survey could apply equally to 
implementation (e.g., public awareness) and some were specifically 
focused on implementation (e.g., funding). But implementation 
challenges are neither discussed nor developed in the report. Simply 
fulfilling the recommendations on planning will not be sufficient to 
help the US adapt to climate change. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this report prior to its 
publication. 

Sincerely,

Signed by: 
Maria Blair: 
Deputy Associate Director for Climate Change Adaptation: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes:  

[1] Major greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2); methane (CH4); 
nitrous oxide (N2O); and synthetic gases such as hydrofluorocarbons 
(HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). 

[2] Statement of Dr. John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science and 
Technology, Executive Office of the President before the Committee on 
Agriculture, United States Senate (Washington, D.C., July 22, 2009). 

[3] See, e.g., National Climate Service Act of 2009, H.R. 2306, 111th 
Congress (2009); American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, H.R. 
2454, 111th Congress (2009); National Climate Service Act of 2009, H.R. 
2407, 111th Congress (2009). 

[4] Information on selected federal efforts to adapt to climate change 
is provided in a supplement to this report (see GAO-10-114SP). 

[5] Not all officials responded to every question. 

[6] Secretarial Order No. 3289 (Sep. 14, 2009). 

[7] The Executive Order required the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
U.S. Department of Defense, EPA, Interior, and the U.S. Department of 
Commerce to submit draft reports. Draft reports are available at 
[hyperlink, http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/]. 

[8] The Role of Federal Lands in Combating Climate Change: Hearing 
Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands of 
the House Committee on Natural Resources, 111th Cong. 7-12 (2009) 
(written statement of Abigail Kimbell, Chief, U.S. Forest Service). 
Also, on January 16, 2009, the Forest Service issued guidance for 
addressing climate change considerations in land management planning 
and project implementation. 

[9] For more information about Interior's Climate Change Task Force, 
see [hyperlink, http://www.usgs.gov/global_change/doi_taskforce.asp]. 

[10] The Climate Change Science Program is now referred to as the 
United States Global Change Research Program. For report citation, see 
S.H. Julius, J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. 
Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott, 
Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive 
Ecosystems and Resources, Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment 
Product 4.4 (SAP 4.4), a report for the U.S. Climate Change Science 
Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 2008. 

[11] M.L. Corn, R.W. Gorte, G. Siekaniec, M. Bryan, D. Cleaves, K. 
O'Halloran, Global Climate Change and Federal Lands: Two Cases, a 
presentation hosted by the Congressional Research Service, 2009. 

[12] In technical comments to this report, Interior pointed out that 
there are significant links between federal land and natural resource 
management and infrastructure design and operation. According to 
Interior, proper management of lands and natural resources can help 
protect human infrastructure and can be an adaptation strategy for 
human infrastructure in and of itself. For example, restoring coastal 
wetlands can help protect human infrastructure against storm surges, 
rising sea level, and erosion. 

[13] EPA developed this guide in conjunction with NOAA, Rhode Island 
Sea Grant, and the International City/County Management Association. 
See [hyperlink, http://coastalsmartgrowth.noaa.gov/]. 

[14] M. J. Savonis, V.R. Burkett, and J.R. Potter (eds.), Impacts of 
Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and 
Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I, Synthesis and Assessment 
Product 4.7 (SAP 4.4), a report for the U.S. Climate Change Science 
Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, U.S. Department 
of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2008. 

[15] GAO, Climate Change: Financial Risks to Federal and Private 
Insurers in Coming Decades Are Potentially Significant, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-285] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 
16, 2007). 

[16] J.L. Gamble (ed.), K.L. Ebi, F.G. Sussman, T.J. Wilbanks, Analyses 
of the Effects of Global Change on Human Health and Welfare and Human 
Systems, Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.6 (SAP 4.6), a report for 
the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global 
Change Research, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 
D.C., 2008. 

[17] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Pub. L. 
No. 110-181, § 951, 122 Stat. 290 (2008). 

[18] USAID, Adapting to Climate Variability and Change: A Guidance 
Manual for Development Planning (August 2007) and Adapting to Coastal 
Climate Change: A Guidebook for Development Planners (May 2009). 

[19] In technical comments to this report, Interior also cited other 
programs that can assist in international adaptation, including (1) the 
Famine Early Warning System, which uses remote sensing to monitor 
floods and droughts in Africa, the Americas, and Afghanistan (USGS); 
(2) wildland fire cooperation with Mexico, Canada, Australia, and New 
Zealand (Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, FWS, Bureau 
of Indian Affairs); (3) integrated water resource management, dam 
operations and safety, irrigation, flood control, water conservation in 
arid ecosystems, and hydrologic monitoring in Africa, Asia, and the 
Middle East (Bureau of Reclamation, USGS); (4) 30 sister park 
relationships with 20 countries that facilitate technical exchange and 
joint monitoring of protected ecosystems; (5) ecosystem monitoring, 
conservation of migratory and shared species with Mexico and Canada 
(FWS, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, USGS); and (6) 
conservation grants for elephants, rhinoceros, tigers, great apes, 
marine turtles, neotropical migratory birds, and waterfowl habitat 
(FWS). 

[20] National Research Council of the National Academies, Panel on 
Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee 
on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Informing Decisions in a 
Changing Climate (Washington, D.C., 2009). 

[21] California Natural Resources Agency, 2009 California Climate 
Adaptation Strategy, Discussion Draft. 

[22] See Terri L. Cruce, Adaptation Planning: What U.S. States and 
Localities are Doing, a special report prepared for the Pew Center on 
Global Climate Change, November 2007 (updated August 2009), available 
at [hyperlink, http://www.pewclimate.org/working-papers/adaptation] and 
The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the 
Environment, A Survey of Climate Change Adaptation Planning 
(Washington, D.C., 2007), available at [hyperlink, 
http://www.heinzctr.org/publications/meeting_reports.shtml]. In 
addition, see Susanne C. Moser, Good Morning, America! The Explosive 
U.S. Awakening to the Need for Adaptation, a special report prepared at 
the request of the NOAA Coastal Services Center and the California 
Energy Commission, May 2009, available at [hyperlink, 
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/publications/need-for-adaptation.pdf]. 

[23] Local Law No. 17 (2008) of City of New York, § 2. 

[24] New York City Department of Environmental Protection Climate 
Change Program, with contributions by Columbia University's Center for 
Climate Systems Research and HydroQual Environmental Engineers & 
Scientists, P.C., Report 1: Assessment and Action Plan--A Report Based 
on the Ongoing Work of the DEP Climate Change Task Force (New York 
City, N.Y., 2008). 

[25] Columbia Earth Institute, Climate Change and a Global City: the 
Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change Metro East 
Coast, a special report prepared at the request of the U.S. Global 
Change Research Program, July 2001. 

[26] The first of these documents has been released. See NPCC, Climate 
Risk Information (New York City, N.Y., 2009). 

[27] Lia Ossiander and Kevin Rennert, "Impacts of Climate Change on 
Washington State: Summary of Plenary Sessions" (prepared for The Future 
Ain't What it Used to Be: Planning for Climate Disruption conference in 
2005, sponsored by King County, Seattle, Wash., October 2005). 

[28] King County Ordinance 15728 (Apr. 25, 2007). The district is 
funded by a countywide ad valorem property tax levy of 10 cents per 
$1,000 assessed value. 

[29] King County, 2007 Climate Plan (Seattle, Wash., 2007). 

[30] See King County Exec. Order No. PUT 7-8 (Mar. 22, 2006) (Executive 
Order on Land Use Strategies for Global Warming Preparedness); King 
County Exec. Order No. PUT 7-7 (Mar. 22, 2006) (Executive Order on 
Environmental Management Strategies for Global Warming Preparedness); 
King County Exec. Order No. PUT 7-10-1 (Aug. 31, 2007) (Evaluation of 
Climate Change Impacts through the State Environmental Policy Act). 

[31] King County, King County Comprehensive Plan 2008 (October 2008). 

[32] University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, The Washington 
Climate Change Impacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington's Future in a 
Changing Climate (Seattle, Wash., 2009). 

[33] Maryland Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Response 
Working Group, Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Maryland's 
Vulnerability to Climate Change Phase I: Sea Level Rise and Coastal 
Storms (Annapolis, Md., 2008). 

[34] Maryland Commission on Climate Change, Climate Action Plan 
(Annapolis, Md., 2008). 

[35] Maryland Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Response 
Working Group, Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Maryland's 
Vulnerability to Climate Change Phase I: Sea Level Rise and Coastal 
Storms. 

[36] 2008 Md. Laws 304, codified at Md. Envir. § 16-201. 

[37] 2008 Md. Laws 119, codified at Md. Nat. Res. § 8-1807. Critical 
areas are determined by local jurisdictions and approved by the 
Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays, 
but the initial planning area included all waters and lands under the 
Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coastal Bays and their tributaries and all 
land and water areas within 1,000 feet beyond the landward boundaries 
of state or private wetlands and heads of tides. 

[38] Wanda Diane Cole, Maryland Eastern Shore Resource Conservation & 
Development Council, Sea Level Rise: Technical Guidance for Dorchester 
County, a special report prepared at the request of the Maryland 
Department of Natural Resources, March 2008; URS and RCQuinn 
Consulting, Inc., Somerset County Maryland Rising Sea Level Guidance, a 
special report prepared at the request of Somerset County, Maryland, 
Annapolis, Md., 2008; and CSA International Inc., Sea Level Rise 
Response Strategy Worcester County, Maryland, a special report prepared 
at the request of Worcester County, Maryland Department of 
Comprehensive Planning, September 2008. 

[39] See [hyperlink, http://shorelines.dnr.state.md.us]. Maryland 
Shorelines Online is a coastal hazards Web portal, centralizing 
information and data on shoreline and coastal hazards management in 
Maryland. 

[40] See [hyperlink, http://shorelines.dnr.state.md.us/sc_online.asp]. 

[41] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: 
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II 
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2007). 

[42] Government of Canada, From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a 
Changing Climate 2007 (Ottawa, Ontario, 2008). 

[43] Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Climate Change 
Adaptation Actions for Local Government (Canberra, Australia, 2009). 

[44] London Climate Change Partnership. London's Warming: The Impacts 
of Climate Change on London (London, United Kingdom, November 2002). 

[45] Nicholas Stern, Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change 
(October 2006). 

[46] Michael Pitt, Pitt Review: Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods 
(June 2008). 

[47] Climate Change Act 2008, ch. 27 (Eng.) 

[48] The UK Climate Projections (UKCP09) provide climate information 
for the United Kingdom up to the end of this century. See [hyperlink, 
http://ukcp09.defra.gov.uk/]. 

[49] Your Home in a Changing Climate: Retrofitting Existing Homes for 
Climate Change Impacts, a special report prepared at the request of the 
Three Regions Climate Change Group, February 2008. 

[50] S.H. Julius, J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. 
Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. 
Scott, Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive 
Ecosystems and Resources, Final Report, SAP 4.4. 

[51] Differences by level of government (federal, state, and local) 
that are reported are for illustrative purposes and may not be 
statistically different. We present selected examples where the 
difference between federal, state, or local responses is greater than 
15 percent and the difference presents useful context for the overall 
results. There were other differences by level of government that are 
not presented in this report. 

[52] National Research Council of the National Academies, Panel on 
Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee 
on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Informing Decisions in a 
Changing Climate. 

[53] GAO, Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for 
Addressing the Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-863] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 
7, 2007). 

[54] About 77 percent of the officials who responded to our 
questionnaire rated the "size and complexity of future climate change 
impacts" as very or extremely challenging, whereas only about 49 
percent of the officials rated the "size and complexity of current 
climate change impacts" similarly. 

[55] While noting that it may be appealing to delay adaptation actions 
given uncertainty associated with where, when, and how much change will 
occur, the report also states that delay may leave the nation poorly 
prepared to deal with the changes that do occur and may increase the 
possibility of impacts that are irreversible or otherwise very costly. 
See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Preparing for an 
Uncertain Climate--Volume I, OTA-O-567 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Government Printing Office, October 1993). 

[56] National Research Council of the National Academies, Panel on 
Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee 
on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Informing Decisions in a 
Changing Climate. 

[57] Government of Canada, From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a 
Changing Climate 2007 (Ottawa, Ontario, 2008). 

[58] A General Circulation Model (GCM) is a global, three-dimensional 
computer model of the climate system which can be used to simulate 
human-induced climate change. GCMs are highly complex and they 
represent the effects of such factors as reflective and absorptive 
properties of atmospheric water vapor, greenhouse gas concentrations, 
clouds, annual and daily solar heating, ocean temperatures, and ice 
boundaries. The most recent GCMs include global representations of the 
atmosphere, oceans, and land surface. 

[59] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-863]. 

[60] National Research Council of the National Academies, Panel on 
Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee 
on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Informing Decisions in a 
Changing Climate. 

[61] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-863]. 

[62] National Research Council of the National Academies, Panel on 
Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee 
on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Informing Decisions in a 
Changing Climate. 

[63] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-863]. 

[64] Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. 
Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. 
Scott, Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive 
Ecosystems and Resources, Final Report, SAP 4.4. 

[65] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-285]. 

[66] As mentioned, FEMA is currently conducting a study on the impact 
of climate change on the National Flood Insurance Program, which will 
be completed in March 2010. According to FEMA, this study will provide 
policy options and recommendations regarding the effects of climate 
change on the National Flood Insurance Program. At USDA, the Risk 
Management Agency has contracted with a research group to provide a 
technical report on climate change impacts on the Federal Crop 
Insurance Corporation and develop a program impact model. The 
contractor has submitted preliminary results and the final report is 
due by December of this year. Using information contained in the report 
and other information, the Risk Management Agency will evaluate how it 
can adapt the crop insurance program to accommodate potential climate 
change scenarios. 

[67] In 2004, NRC defined adaptive management as a process that 
promotes flexible decision making in the face of uncertainties, as 
outcomes from management actions and other events become better 
understood. See GAO, Yellowstone Bison: Interagency Plan and Agencies' 
Management Need Improvement to Better Address Bison-Cattle Brucellosis 
Controversy, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-291] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 7, 2008). Adaptive management can be used to 
reduce the adverse effects of climate change on ecosystems. See C. 
Parmesan and H. Galbraith, Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change in 
the U.S. (2004). However, significant challenges confront those wishing 
to apply the technique to complex problems, such as addressing the 
effects of climate change on land use designations in land management 
plans prepared under the National Forest Management Act or the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. See R. Gregory et. al., 
"Deconstructing Adaptive Management: Criteria for Applications to 
Environmental Management," Ecological Applications, vol. 16, no. 6 
(December 2006). Indeed, adaptive management "may be most difficult to 
implement in precisely those circumstances in which it is most needed." 
Id. 

[68] Karkkainen, "Collaborative Ecosystem Governance: Scale, 
Complexity, and Dynamism," 21 Va. Envtl. L.J. 189, (2008): 243-35. 
Karkkainen's advice to lawyers who are unsettled by this apparent 
conflict is "let's get over it." Id. at 235. 

[69] National Research Council of the National Academies, Panel on 
Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee 
on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Informing Decisions in a 
Changing Climate. 

[70] See [hyperlink, http://www.csrees.usda.gov/Extension/] for more 
information about USDA's extension service. 

[71] GAO, Climate Change: Expert Opinion on the Economics of Policy 
Options to Address Climate Change, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-08-605] (Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2008). 

[72] Columbia Earth Institute, Climate Change and a Global City: The 
Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change Metro East 
Coast, a special report prepared at the request of the U.S. Global 
Change Research Program, July 2001. 

[73] The Clean Air Partnership, Cities Preparing for Climate Change: A 
Study of Six Urban Regions (May 2007). 

[74] King County, King County Comprehensive Plan 2008. 

[75] GAO, A Call For Stewardship: Enhancing the Federal Government's 
Ability to Address Key Fiscal and Other 21st Century Challenges, GAO-08-
93SP (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 17, 2007). 

[76] GAO, Alaska Native Villages: Limited Progress Has Been Made on 
Relocating Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-551] (Washington, D.C.: June 
3, 2009), and [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-
863]. 

[77] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 
21, 2005), and Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency 
Coordination, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-00-
106] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2000). 

[78] GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal 
Government, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-325SP] 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2005). 

[79] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15]. 

[80] GAO, Management Reform: Elements of Successful Improvement 
Initiatives, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD-00-
26] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15, 1999). 

[81] We did not receive a submission from the Smithsonian Institution. 

[82] Not all officials responded to every question. 

[83] Three officials from levels of government other than federal, 
state, or local--such as a regional level--also responded to the 
questionnaire. 

[84] The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) coordinates and 
integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and 
their implications for society. We did not receive a submission from 
the Smithsonian Institution. In addition to the agencies that 
participate in USGCRP, we also obtained a summary of current and 
planned adaptation-related efforts from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 
because of prior GAO adaptation-related work on its National Flood 
Insurance Program. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: