Climate change will also cause biological changes,  such as increases in insect and disease infestations, shifts in species  distribution and abundance, and changes in the timing of natural events  (referred to as phenological changes), among others. Some of these changes are already occurring. These challenges include (1) the lack of priority  given to addressing the effects of climate change within their agencies,   (2) limited guidance from headquarters about whether or how to address  the effects of climate change in management actions and planning efforts,  and (3) insufficient site-specific information to plan for and manage the  effects of climate change on the federal resources they oversee. Resource managers in all of the workshop groups agreed that they have a  wide range of responsibilities and that, because none of the agencies have  designated climate change as a priority, the managers focus first on near- term activities that they are specifically required to undertake, leaving less  time and resources for longer-term issues such as climate change. Limited Guidance Constrains Resource Managers’ Efforts to Plan for and Manage Potential Climate Change Effects

Resource managers have limited guidance from their agencies about  whether or how to address the effects of climate change in management  actions and planning efforts, according to agency headquarters officials  and resource managers from our workshop and case studies. Under these  circumstances, resource managers are uncertain about what actions, if any,  they should take with regard to addressing or preparing for the effects of  climate change. Interior issued an  order in 2001 directing its agencies, including BLM, FWS, and NPS, to  consider and analyze, among other things, potential climate change effects  in management plans and activities developed for public lands. He said that BLM is establishing policy  and technical committees to address necessary actions and develop  guidance to address climate change in agency management practices. Headquarters officials at FWS and NPS said that, although they have not  developed specific guidance, they operate in a manner consistent with  Interior’s 2001 order in their general planning activities. However, National Marine Sanctuary Program  headquarters officials said that the agency is establishing a working group  to determine what actions it should and can afford to take to address the  effects of climate change. FS headquarters officials said that, although  they have not provided specific guidance on addressing the effects of  climate change, the agency’s planning process is designed to identify  emerging issues, such as climate change, and respond in ways to promote  the sustainability of the nation’s land and water resources. Without these models, they said that most of their options for dealing with  climate change are limited to reacting to already-observed effects on their  units, making it difficult to plan for future changes. Resource managers at the workshop said that they generally lack detailed  inventories and monitoring systems to provide an adequate baseline  understanding of the plant and animal species that currently exist on the  resources they manage. However, federal resource management agencies have not  yet made climate change a high priority. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Carolina  Billy Causey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Florida   Brian Czech, U.S. For example, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),  Forest Service (FS), U.S. In this report, we use the term “federal resources” to refer to federal lands  managed by BLM, FS, FWS, and NPS, and to national marine sanctuaries  and one marine national monument managed by NOAA; the term  “ecosystem” to refer to a system of interacting living organisms together  with their physical environment; the term “resource managers” to refer to  individuals who manage federal resources; the term “physical effects” to  refer to observable changes in the physical condition of some part of a  natural system, including, among others, extreme weather events—that is,  weather events that are rare at a particular place (this may vary from place  to place); the term “biological effects” to refer to changes in the interaction  among organisms living in a given ecosystem; and the phrase “economic  and social goods and services” to refer to economic resources, such as  revenue-producing industries, including forestry and fishing, among others,  and social or cultural resources, such as recreational activities, scenic  views, and historical artifacts, among others. Climate Change and Federal Lands Workshop Proceedings, November 2 and 3, 2006

	Background

This appendix summarizes the results of an expert workshop convened by  GAO, in collaboration with the National Academies’ Board on Atmospheric  Sciences and Climate, on November 2 and 3, 2006, to solicit experts’ views  on (1) the potential vulnerabilities of four ecosystem types—coasts and  oceans, forests, fresh waters, and grasslands and shrublands—to climate  change and (2) the challenges to and approaches for addressing climate  change on federally managed lands and waters associated with these four  ecosystem types. There are rapidly developing models to project sea level rise.
Why GAO Did This Study

Climate change has implications for the vast land and water resources managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest Service (FS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and National Park Service (NPS). These resources generally occur within four ecosystem types: coasts and oceans, forests, fresh waters, and grasslands and shrublands. GAO obtained experts' views on (1) the effects of climate change on federal resources and (2) the challenges managers face in addressing climate change effects on these resources. GAO held a workshop with the National Academies in which 54 scientists, economists, and federal resource managers participated, and conducted 4 case studies.

What GAO Found

According to experts at the GAO workshop, federal land and water resources are vulnerable to a wide range of effects from climate change, some of which are already occurring. These effects include, among others, (1) physical effects, such as droughts, floods, glacial melting, and sea level rise; (2) biological effects, such as increases in insect and disease infestations, shifts in species distribution, and changes in the timing of natural events; and (3) economic and social effects, such as adverse impacts on tourism, infrastructure, fishing, and other resource uses. Experts at the GAO workshop also identified several challenges that resource managers face in addressing the observed and potential effects of climate change in their management and planning efforts. In particular, BLM, FS, FWS, NOAA, and NPS have not made climate change a priority, and the agencies' strategic plans do not specifically address climate change. Resource managers focus first on near-term, required activities, leaving less time for addressing longer-term issues such as climate change. In addition, resource managers have limited guidance about whether or how to address climate change and, therefore, are uncertain about what actions, if any, they should take. In general, resource managers lack specific guidance for incorporating climate change into their management actions and planning efforts. Without such guidance, their ability to address climate change and effectively manage resources is constrained. While a broad order developed in January 2001 directed BLM, FWS, and NPS to consider and analyze potential climate change effects in their management plans and activities, the agencies have not yet provided specific direction to managers on how they are to implement the order. A BLM official stated at an April 2007 hearing that BLM is establishing policy and technical committees to address necessary actions and develop guidance to address climate change in agency management practices. FWS and NPS officials said that their agencies have not developed specific guidance but believe that they are operating in a manner consistent with the 2001 order. While NOAA and FS have not provided specific guidance to their resource managers, NOAA officials said that the agency is establishing a working group to determine what actions to take to address climate change effects. FS officials said that FS planning processes are designed to identify and respond to emerging issues such as climate change. Finally, resource managers do not have sufficient site-specific information to plan for and manage the effects of climate change on the federal resources they manage. In particular, the managers lack computational models for local projections of expected changes and detailed inventories and monitoring systems for an adequate baseline understanding of existing local species. Without such information, managers are limited to reacting to already-observed climate change effects on their units, which makes it difficult to plan for future changes.