National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Climate Program Office and National Climate Assessment

The Climate Program Office (CPO) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) assembles, produces, and supports a wide range of tools, research, and other scientific resources related to climate change. Among other uses, CPO’s work “underpins and supports the development of the quadrennial U.S. National Climate Assessment, which was mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990.” (15 U.S.C. 2921 et seq.).

The Global Change Research Act establishes the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), a collaboration across 15 federal agencies to “coordinate federal research and investments in understanding and responding to the forces shaping the global environment, both human an natural.” The Global Change Research Act requires USGCRP to prepare an assessment on a four-year cycle which:

  1. “integrates, evaluates, and interprets the findings of the [Global Change Research Program] and discusses the scientific uncertainties associated with such findings;
  2. analyzes the effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity; and
  3. analyzes current trends in global change, both human-inducted and natural, and projects major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years.” (15 U.S.C. 2936).

In March 2024, the USGCRP began the process of assembling the Sixth National Climate Assessment, which is expected to be published in “late 2027/early 2028.”

Biden Administration (2021-2025)

Launch of Sixth National Climate Assessment

In March 2024, the USGCRP began the process of assembling the Sixth National Climate Assessment, which is expected to be published in “late 2027/early 2028.”  

Fifth National Climate Assessment (2023)

The Fifth National Climate Assessment was published in November 2023. The Fifth Assessment builds on the assessment processes established with the Fourth assessment, and "documents observed and projected vulnerabilities, risks, and impacts associated with climate change across the United States and provides examples of response actions underway in many communities."

First Trump Administration (2017-2021)

Fourth National Climate Assessment (2017-2018)

The Fourth National Climate Assessment was released in two volumes -- Volume I, published in 2017 (also called the "Climate Science Special Report") and Volume II, published in 2018.

Volume I (the Climate Science Special Report), was designed to be an "authoritative assessment" of physical climate science, with a particular focus on the United States. 

Volume II built on the physical science discussed in Volume I to assess "the human welfare, societal, and environmental elements of climate change and variability for 10 regions and 18 national topics, with particular attention paid to observed and projected risks, impacts, consideration of risk reduction, and implications under different mitigation pathways."

Disbanding the NOAA Federal Advisory Committee for the National Climate Assessment

On August 21, 2017, the Trump Administration announced that it would not renew the charter of the Federal Advisory Panel for the National Climate Assessment (NCA). NOAA established the 15-person Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment in 2015 to “advise on the engagement of stakeholders and on sustained assessment activities and the quadrennial NCA report.” The Committee’s charter expired on August 20, 2017.

For more information, visit U.S. Government Disbands Climate-Science Advisory Committee (Scientific American, Aug. 20, 2017)

Obama Administration (2009-2017)

NOAA Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment

On July 31, 2015, NOAA established the Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment to provide advice on the agency’s sustained National Climate Assessment activities. (80 Fed. Reg. 45643, July 31, 2015). The committee was designed to ensure the representation of a range of non-government expertise in the National Climate Assessment process.

Third National Climate Assessment (2014)

The Third National Climate Assessment, entitled "Climate Change Impacts in the United States," was published in 2014. This report summarized the science of climate change, along with its current and projected future impacts on America. Alongside the report, the USGCRP published a brochure identifying twelve high-level synthesis findings about the scale, causes, and impacts of climate change on the United States.

Second National Climate Assessment (2009)

The Second National Climate Assessment, entitled Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, was published in 2009. This report summarized the science of climate change, along with its current and projected future impacts on America. Further, this report:

  • "identified key climatic vulnerabilities of particular regions and sectors, in the context of other changes in the Nation’s environment, resources, and economy,"
  • "identified potential measures to adapt to climate variability and change;" and
  • "identified the highest priority uncertainties about which further study is needed to understand climate impacts, vulnerabilities, and America's ability to adapt."

Critical Habitat Designation for Species Endangered or Threatened by Climate Change

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) charges the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce with implementing most of the Act’s provisions. The Secretary of Commerce, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service, generally administers the sections of the ESA that relate to marine species, while the Secretary of the Interior, through the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, administers the sections of the ESA that relate to other species.

Alongside protecting endangered and threatened species directly, the ESA also requires the agencies to identify and protect “critical habitat” for species that are listed as “endangered” or “threatened.” Under ESA, “critical habitat” includes:

  • (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the [endangered or threatened] species, at the time it is listed [. . .] on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and
  • (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species […] upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. (16 U.S.C. 1532(5))

On April 5, 2024, NOAA and FWS issued a final rule rescinding and revising significant parts of the Trump Administration’s 2019 rule limiting critical habitat designations (89 Fed. Reg. 24300, Apr. 5, 2024). Among other changes, this regulation removed the Trump-era regulatory language that allowed NOAA and FWS to refuse to designate critical habitat where species were primarily threatened by large-scale factors like climate change. As the agencies explained, removing this regulatory limitation better matched Congress’s intent in passing the ESA, and helped “advance the conservation of endangered species and threatened species, particularly in the face of the ongoing climate crisis.”

Biden Administration (2021-2025)

Regulation Reversing Trump Administration’s 2019 Limits on Critical Habitat Designations

On April 5, 2024, NOAA and FWS issued a final rule rescinding and revising significant parts of the Trump Administration’s 2019 rule limiting critical habitat designations (89 Fed. Reg. 24300, Apr. 5, 2024). Among other changes, this regulation removed the Trump-era regulatory language that allowed NOAA and FWS to refuse to designate critical habitat where species were primarily threatened by large-scale factors like climate change. As the agencies explained, removing this regulatory limitation better matched Congress’s intent in passing the ESA, and helped “advance the conservation of endangered species and threatened species, particularly in the face of the ongoing climate crisis.”

For related litigation, see "Litigation against the 2019 "Critical Habitat" Rule" in "Litigation" below.

Regulation Reversing Trump Administration’s 2020 Limits on Critical Habitat Designations

On June 24, 2022, NOAA and FWS issued a final rule rescinding the Trump Administration’s 2020 rule limiting critical habitat designations. (87 Fed. Reg. 37757, June 24, 2022). The agencies explained that, following EO 13990 (described below), they had reviewed the 2020 regulation, and found that it was highly unclear. More critically, the agencies found that “the definition and statements made in the December 2020 final rule are in tension with the conservation purposes of the [ESA] because they could inappropriately constrain the Services’ ability to designate areas that meet the definition of “critical habitat” under the [ESA].”

For related litigation, see "Litigation against the 2020 "Habitat" Rule" in "Litigation" below.

Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis

On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990 (Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis). Among other directives, EO 13990 directed all departments and agencies to immediately review agency actions taken between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, consider suspending, revising, or rescinding agency actions that conflict with important national objectives, including promoting and protecting public health and the environment, and to immediately commence work to confront the climate crisis.

First Trump Administration (2017-2021)

Regulation Further Limiting Critical Habitat Designations

On December 16, 2020, NOAA and FWS issued a final rule as a “deregulatory” action under EO 13771 (discussed below), which added a definition of “habitat” to the ESA regulations. This revised definition provided that, “[f]or the purposes of designating critical habitat only, habitat is the abiotic and biotic setting that currently or periodically contains the resources and conditions necessary to support one or more life processes of a species.” (85 Fed. Reg. 81411, Dec. 16, 2020). This regulation was enacted, with only minor modifications, despite comments arguing that the revised definition “may preclude identifying as habitat areas that experience rapid changes in ecology driven by habitat loss and fragmentation or areas that may develop over time, as a result of changing or shifting conditions due to climate change, to the point that they can support the species.” (85 Fed. Reg. 81411, 81418, Dec. 16, 2020).

This rulemaking was subject to significant litigation. (See "Litigation against the 2020 "Habitat" Rule" in "Litigation" below).

Regulation Reversing Obama-Era Rule for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat

On August 27, 2019, NOAA and the FWS issued a final rule amending the ESA regulations to reinstate the restriction that areas outside of the geographical area currently occupied by a species could be designated as critical habitat only when a designation limited to its present range "would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.’’ (84 Fed. Reg. 45020, Aug. 27, 2019). NOAA and FWS further amended the regulations to prohibit the Secretary of Interior from designating critical habitat within an unoccupied area unless there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area contains one or more physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. Additionally, the revisions provided that regulators could refuse to designate critical habitat if “threats to the species’ habitat stem solely from causes that cannot be addressed through management actions” under the ESA – that is, global threats like climate change.

The revisions also alter the threshold for designating a species as "threatened."  When considering whether to list a species as threatened under the ESA, NOAA and the FWS analyze whether that species is likely to become endangered within the “foreseeable future.” As amended, the ESA regulations now define “foreseeable future” to extend “only so far into the future as the Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species’ responses to those threats are likely.” 

This rulemaking was subject to significant litigation. (See "Litigation against the 2019 "Critical Habitat" Rule" in "Litigation" below).

Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

On January 30, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) instructing agencies to identify two regulations to repeal for every new regulation issued and to ensure that the total incremental cost of all new regulations is no greater than zero. 

Obama Administration (2009-2017)

Regulation Implementing Changes to the Regulations for Designating Critical Habitat

On February 11, 2016, NOAA and FWS issued a final rule amending the regulations implementing the ESA. (81 Fed. Reg. 7414, Feb. 11, 2016). These amendments clarified and revised procedures for designating critical habitat to protect endangered or threatened species.

These amendments were spurred, in part, by “anticipat[ion] that critical habitat designations in the future will likely increasingly use the authority to designate specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing.” (81 Fed. Reg. 7414, 7435, Feb. 11, 2016) In the original notice of proposed rulemaking, NOAA and FWS gave an example of the impact climate change might have on critical habitat designation:

“An example may clarify this situation: A butterfly depends on a particular host plant. The host plant is currently found in a particular area. The data show the host plant's range has been moving up slope in response to warming temperatures (following the cooler temperatures) resulting from climate change. Other butterfly species have been documented to have shifted from their historical ranges in response to changes in the range of host plants. Therefore, we rationally conclude that the butterfly's range will likely move up slope, and we would designate specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the butterfly at the time it was listed if we concluded this area was essential based on this information.” (79 Fed. Reg. 27066, 27073, May 12, 2014)

While the final rule did not expand the agencies’ authority under the ESA, NOAA and FWS noted that the rule would “allow[] for sufficient flexibility to address the effects of climate change in a critical habitat designation . . . provided that the Services can explain why the areas meet the definition of “critical habitat.”

Litigation

Litigation against the 2020 "Habitat" Rule

On January 14, 2021, one day before the rule took effect, seven environmental groups challenged it, filing suit against the Services in Federal district court in Hawaii. (Conservation Council for Hawai’i v. Bernhardt) On January 19, 2021, 19 States filed suit in the Northern District of California challenging the habitat definition rule in the Northern District of California. (California v. Haaland) Parties in both cases agreed to long-term stipulated stays in the litigation to allow the Biden Administration to revisit the 2020 rule.

Litigation against the 2019 "Critical Habitat" Rule

On August 21, 2019, seven environmental organizations filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of California challenging amendments to the ESA regulations. On September 25, 2019, seventeen states, the District of Columbia, and New York City filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of California challenging amendments to the regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The plaintiffs asserted that the amendments violated the ESA’s plain language and purpose, as well as “its legislative history, numerous binding judicial precedents interpreting the ESA, and its precautionary approach to protecting imperiled species and critical habitat,” including by limiting designation of unoccupied critical habitat, “particularly where climate change poses a threat to species habitat.” 

On July 5, 2022, the court issued a decision vacating the 2019 rule, without reaching the merits of the case. On September 21, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit temporarily stayed the effect of the July 5th decision pending the District Court's resolution of motions seeking to alter or amend that decision. On October 14, 2022, FWS and NOAA notified the District Court that they anticipated revising the 2019 rule. Subsequently, on November 14 and 16, 2022, the District Court issued orders remanding the 2019 regulations to FWA and NOAA without vacating them, to allow the Biden Administration to revise the 2019 rule.

For a consolidated overview of all litigation against this rule in the Northern District of California, see Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland.

Fishery Management Councils

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (MSA) established eight Regional Fishery Management Councils to manage fisheries in federal waters. (16 U.S.C. 1852). These Councils are charged with establishing fisheries management plans and setting sustainable catch limits "that may not exceed the fishing level recommendations of its scientific and statistical committee" or an established "peer review process." (16 U.S.C. 1852(h)(6)). Councils are broadly charged with ensuring the sustainability of fisheries.

Fishery Management Councils are not directly part of the Department of Commerce, but NOAA supports the Councils by conducting the nomination process and training new members, among other actions.

Biden Administration (2021-2025)

Working Paper on MSA Reauthorization

The Council Coordination Committee (CCC) maintains a working paper to describe consensus positions and the range of Regional Fishery Management Council perspectives on key issues being considered as part of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) reauthorization process. This working paper was most recently updated on May 31, 2022, and contains extensive discussion of the impact of climate change on fisheries management and the operation of the Fisheries Councils themselves.

Council Coordination Committee Consensus Position on Climate Change & Regional Action Plans For Climate Science 

In November 2021, the Council Coordination Committee adopted a Consensus Position highlighting the risk climate change poses to fisheries management, and the need for regional action plans and scientific resources. 

Individual Council Resources

Individual Regional Fisheries Councils have published a range of resources and reports relating to fisheries management and climate change.