EPA/600/R-15/087
DRAFT September 2015
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE External Review Draft
SEPA
Stormwater Management in Response to Climate
Change Impacts: Lessons from the Chesapeake
Bay and Great Lakes Regions
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Center for Environmental Assessment
Washington, DC
-------
DISCLAIMER
This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review
under applicable information quality guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It does not represent and should not be
construed to represent any Agency determination or policy.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 ii DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ix
PREFACE x
AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS xi
EXECUTIVE SUM MARY xii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. A Changing Climate 1
1.2. Genesis of This Report 3
1.3. Roadmap to the Rest of This Report 4
2. DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHOPS, ASSESSMENTS, AND RESEARCH COLLABORATIONS 5
2.1. Stormwater Responses to Land Use and Climate Change in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed (Workshops) 7
2.1.1. Workshop Goals 7
2.1.2. Main Topics Addressed and/or Activities Undertaken 8
2.1.3. Contribution 8
2.2. Preparing Stormwater Systems for Climate Change—A Workshop for Lake
Erie Basin Communities (Workshop) 9
2.2.1. Goals 9
2.2.2. Main Topics Addressed and/or Activities Undertaken 9
2.2.3. Contribution 9
2.3. Planning for Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region (Needs
Assessment and Workshops) 10
2.3.1. Goals 11
2.3.2. Main Topics Addressed and/or Activities Undertaken 11
2.3.3. Contribution 12
2.4. Supporting Climate and Coastal Resilience Planning in the Western Lake
Erie Basin (Workshop) 12
2.4.1. Goals 13
2.4.2. Main Topics Addressed and/or Activities Undertaken 13
2.4.3. Contribution 13
2.5. Evaluating Stormwater Solutions for Ohio Collaborative Research Project 14
2.5.1. Goals 14
2.5.2. Main Topics Addressed and/or Activities Undertaken 14
2.5.3. Contribution 14
2.6. Economic Assessment of Green Infrastructure Strategies for Climate
(Assessment) 15
2.6.1. Goals 15
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 iii DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
2.6.2. Main Topics Addressed and/or Activities Undertaken 15
2.6.3. Contribution 16
2.7. Great Lakes Adaptation Assessment for Cities (GLAA-C) (Workshops) 16
2.7.1. Goals 17
2.7.2. Main Topics Addressed and/or Activities Undertaken 17
2.7.3. Contribution 19
2.8. Forwarding Adaptation in the Great Lakes Region (Workshop) 19
2.8.1. Goals 19
2.8.2. Main Topics Addressed and/or Activities Undertaken 20
2.8.3. Contribution 20
3. PRIMARY MESSAGES 21
3.1. Incorporating Climate Change into Planning 21
3.2. Building Local Capacity 30
3.3. Identifying and Communicating Costs and Benefits of Green
Infrastructure 36
3.4. Implementation within Current Governance Structure 40
3.5. Conclusions 43
4. REFERENCES 44
Appendix A: Summary of Resources Identified in This Report 47
Appendix B: Project Teams and Participants 54
B.l. Stormwater Responses to Land Use and Climate Change in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed (Workshops) 54
B.l.l. For More Information 54
B.1.2. Acknowledgements 54
B.2. Preparing Stormwater Systems for Climate Change—A Workshop for Lake
Erie Basin Communities (Workshop) 55
B.2.1. For More Information 55
B.2.2. Acknowledgments 55
B.3. Planning for Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region (Needs
Assessment and Workshops) 56
B.3.1. For More Information 56
B.3.2. Acknowledgments 56
B.4. Supporting Climate and Coastal Resilience Planning in the Western Lake
Erie Basin (Workshop) 58
B.4.1. For More Information 58
B.4.2. Acknowledgements 58
B.5. Evaluating Stormwater Solutions for Ohio Collaborative Research Project 59
B.5.1. For More Information 59
B.5.2. Acknowledgements 59
B.6. Economic Assessment of Green Infrastructure Strategies for Climate
(Assessment) 60
B.6.1. For More Information 60
B.6.2. Project Team 60
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 iv DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
B.6.3. City Partners 60
B.7. Great Lakes Adaptation Assessment for Cities (GLAA-C) (Workshops) 61
B.7.1. For More Information 61
B.7.2. Acknowledgements 61
B.8. Forwarding Adaptation in the Great Lakes Region (Workshop) 62
B.8.1. For More Information 62
B.8.2. Acknowledgements 62
Appendix C: Novel Adaptation Approaches: Green Infrastructure and Low-Impact
Development 63
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 v DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
LIST OF TABLES
1. Overview of workshops, assessments, and research collaborations 5
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 vi DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Percent changes in the amount of precipitation falling during very heavy
events (defined as the heaviest 1% of all daily events) from 1958 to 2012 for
each region 1
2. Projected change in seasonal precipitation for 2071-2099 (compared to
1970-1999) under an emissions scenario that assumes continued increases
in emissions (A2) 2
3. Permeable pavements reduce runoff. Source: EPA 63
4. Street planters collect and absorb runoff. Source: EPA 63
5. Climate change workshop locations in the Chesapeake region. EPA and
partners hosted workshops in York County, Pennsylvania; Baltimore,
Maryland; and Stafford County, Virginia 3
6. Climate change workshop locations in the Great Lakes region. NOAA and
partners hosted workshops in Monroe and Ann Arbor, Michigan; Cleveland
and Toledo, Ohio; Green Bay, Wisconsin; and Duluth, Saint Paul, and
Minneapolis, Minnesota 4
7. Communities in Chesapeake Bay watershed that hosted stormwater
responses to land use and climate change workshops: Stafford County,
Virginia; Baltimore, Maryland; and York County, Pennsylvania 7
8. Workshop participants in Baltimore discuss the potential impacts of
increased precipitation-driven flooding in the Cherry Hill neighborhood 8
9. Preparing stormwater systems for climate change workshop in Monroe,
Michigan 9
10. Planning for climate change in the Great Lakes region workshop locations:
Cleveland, Ohio; Green Bay, Wisconsin; and Duluth, Minnesota 10
11. Supporting climate and coastal resilience planning in the western Lake Erie
basin—Coastal Climate Adaptation and Resilience Workshop in Toledo, Ohio 12
12. Economic assessment of green infrastructure strategies for climate in Toledo,
Ohio, and Duluth, Minnesota 15
13. Great Lakes adaptation assessment for cities (GLAA-C) workshops in Ann
Arbor, Michigan, and Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota 16
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 vii DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
14. Climate change impacts and adaptation strategies: Extreme precipitation in
the City of Ann Arbor (concentric circles activity example) 18
15. Forwarding adaptation in the Great Lakes region—Workshop in Ann Arbor,
Michigan 19
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 viii DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
ACE
ADA
ASAP
ASFPM
CT NEMO
EPA
FEMA
GIS
GLAA-C
GLISA
ICLUS
IHM
ICLEI
IPCC
ISC
LID
LGAC
MS4
NCA
NERR
NOAA
ODNR
OW
ROI
SWC
SWMM-CAT
TMDL
WICCI
WIP
YCPC
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
EPA's Air, Climate, and Energy research program
Americans with Disabilities Act
American Society of Adaptation Professionals
Association of State Floodplain Managers
Connecticut Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Emergency Management Agency
geographic information system
Great Lakes Adaptation Assessment for Cities
Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments Center
Integrated Climate and Land Use Scenarios
Immaculate Heart of Mary
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Institute for Sustainable Communities
low-impact development
Local Government Advisory Committee
municipal separated storm sewer system
National Climate Assessment
National Estuarine Research Reserve
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
EPA's Office of Water
return on investment
EPA's National Stormwater Calculator
Storm Water Management Model Climate Adjustment Tool
total maximum daily load
Wisconsin Climate Change Impacts
Watershed Implementation Plan
York County Planning Commission
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 ix DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Air,
Climate, and Energy (ACE) research program, located within the Office of Research and
Development, with support from ICF International. One of the goals of the ACE research
program is to provide scientific information and tools to support EPA's strategic goal of taking
action on climate change in a sustainable manner. This report supports that goal by providing
insights gleaned from workshops and assessments EPA and National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) held with local planners on ways to further the adoption of climate
change adaptation practices in stormwater management. Documentation from the workshops
formed the basis for assessing common challenges and opportunities across the Chesapeake
Bay and Great Lakes regions. The intended audiences for this report are local and state
planners and managers engaged in the development and implementation of stormwater
management policies and practices, and scientists (particularly those in EPA's Office of Water
and regional offices) working on climate change adaptation specific to stormwater control.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 x DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS
AUTHORS:
Susan Asam, Contractor, ICF International
Dana Spindler, Contractor, ICF International
Susan Julius, EPA
Britta Bierwagen, EPA
CONTRIBUTORS:
Tashya Allen, The Baldwin Group, Inc. at NOAA Office for Coastal Management
Lori Cary-Kothera, NOAA Office for Coastal Management
Heather Elmer, Chagrin River Watershed Partners, Inc.
Elizabeth Gibbons, University of Michigan Climate Center
Brandon Krumwiede, The Baldwin Group, Inc. at NOAA Office for Coastal Management
Patrick Robinson, University of Wisconsin Green Bay
Brent Schleck, NOAA and University of Minnesota Sea Grant
Angela Wong, Contractor, ICF International
INTERNAL REVIEWERS:
Jason Berner, EPA Office of Water
Dianne McNally, EPA Region 3
Karen Metchis, EPA Office of Water
Jennie Saxe, EPA Region 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
A Joint Effort Developed by:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Coastal Services Center; Lake
Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve; Old Woman Creek National Estuarine
Research Reserve
• The Climate Center of the Graham Sustainability Institute at the University of Michigan
• ICF International, under Contract EP-C-14-001
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 xi DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides specific examples of tools, data, methods, and actions to help
stormwater managers and community environmental decision makers incorporate climate
change into their management plans. Climate changes (e.g., the amount, timing, and intensity
of rain events), along with land use changes (e.g., development), can affect the amount of
stormwater runoff to be managed. Local decision makers have stated a need for more
information on how they can adapt local stormwater management planning and stormwater
control to account for these changes.
To address this need, recent workshops and other community-level efforts funded by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) were held across the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes regions.
These collaborations with local communities resulted in jointly derived insights into how
climate change practitioners can most effectively work with communities to increase the
resiliency (adaptation) of stormwater systems to the impacts of climate and land use change.
In particular, discussions focused on opportunities to implement green infrastructure, such as
rain gardens that collect and absorb runoff from rooftops, sidewalks, and streets, low-impact
development, and other alternative management strategies.
The report includes a synopsis of the fundamental ideas that emerged from these
efforts to inform stormwater managers, local climate change or sustainability coordinators, or
anyone charged with implementing climate change adaptation plans. Challenges, potential
near-term solutions, and long-term needs are organized into four topic areas:
Incorporating climate change into planning
Several challenges were encountered in trying to find and apply relevant climate change
information into planning; they included issues of scale and uncertainty in climate and
land use change projections. Near-term opportunities to overcome these challenges
were identified, and included better use of existing historical data and exploration of
climate change scenarios to plan for future uncertainty. Scenarios are plausible
alternative futures that represent a range of potential changes in climate, in contrast to
predictions or forecasts. In the longer term, efforts can be made to improve or enhance
data collection to support future decision making.
Building local capacity
Local capacity to plan for, design, construct, and permit green infrastructure and other
alternative management strategies to increase resilience is necessary. Planning and
implementing these types of solutions in the near-term requires that local-level
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 xii DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
professionals have greater opportunities to expand their knowledge and greater ability
to coordinate across agencies and jurisdictions. In the longer-term, more novel
watershed-scale solutions will be needed such as regional stormwater model ordinances
and federal- or state-level regulatory changes.
Identifying and communicating costs and benefits of green infrastructure
Stormwater managers currently have limited economic information on implementing
green infrastructure projects and find it challenging to both quantify the benefits and
articulate them to others. Local-level decision makers need better and more accessible
information on the costs and benefits of green infrastructure and other climate change
adaptation strategies. There is particular need for more guidance and protocols that
account for the full time period of expected (direct) benefits, as well as ancillary benefits
(co-benefits), such as provision of habitat, community beautification, and other quality-
of-life factors. Near-term opportunities include better training on the full value of green
infrastructure and how to integrate it into other projects, such as highway
improvements, redevelopment projects, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-
compliant sidewalk access construction. Long-term needs include tools to help quantify
costs and benefits and to document and collect data related to actual costs.
Implementation within current governance structure
Existing priorities and regulatory requirements can be a barrier to managers voluntarily
including climate change into their planning and decision making. A shift towards
incorporating green infrastructure into site design can be spurred by market forces such
as incentives that change business or residential demand (e.g., business or homeowner
rebates), and regulatory changes. Implementing novel solutions may require proactive
interagency or interjurisdictional coordination in both the near term and long term.
Greater public awareness and acceptance of these new approaches also helps achieve
project success.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 xiii DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. A Changing Climate
Climate stressors such as increasing temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and
extreme events are already affecting water resources. As the climate continues to change,
water resources will be affected in different ways across the country. Some regions may
experience periods of drought and
water shortages, while others may
experience more frequent heavy
precipitation events (see Figure 1), and
others may experience alternating
drought and heavy precipitation events.
In addition to the regional diversity of
precipitation trends, significant seasonal
differences in precipitation rates are
expected (see Figure 2). While many
areas anticipate an increase in
precipitation in the spring and winter, if
that is accompanied by a decrease in
precipitation in the summer, the result
could be a reduction in water
availability when it is most needed and
an abundance of water when it is least
needed.
Stormwater management is
planned based on local weather and climate. However, climate changes, such as the amount,
timing, and intensity of rain events, in combination with land development, can significantly
affect the amount of stormwater runoff that needs to be managed. In some regions of the
country, the combination of climate and land use change may make existing stormwater-
related flooding worse, while other areas may be minimally affected. These changing conditions
have implications for stormwater management as local decision makers look to improve
existing infrastructure and build new stormwater systems.
Observed Change in Very Heavy Precipitation
Cfiange ¦{%!>
<0 0-9 10-1$ 20-29 30-3
Figure 1. Percent changes in the amount of precipitation
falling during very heavy events (defined as the heaviest
1% of all daily events) from 1958 to 2012 for each region.
Figure taken from Melillo et al., 2014.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 1 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Project0d Precipitation Change by Season
Higher Emissions (Alt
Winler
Summer
Precjpcafton Changs (*)
-30 -a) -ig u M 30
Figure 2. Projected change in seasonal precipitation
for 2071-2099 (compared to 1970-1999) under an
emissions scenario that assumes continued increases
in emissions (A2), Figure taken from Melillo et al.,
2014.
drought-flood conditions.
Addressing climate-driven
changes in runoff can be done through
altering or modifying stormwater
practices and land use management
decisions. Unfortunately, the process of
incorporating climate change into
existing planning processes can be
difficult and daunting for local decision
makers because of constrained budgets
and staff availability, and an absence of
climate change expertise. Better and
more readily accessible information is
needed on how to incorporate climate
change into stormwater management
planning. Effective management
planning will require details on how and
where impacts will be experienced, and
information on costs and performance
of stormwater management practices.
New and enhanced management
practices hold promise for controlling
climate change related events such as
heavier downpours and oscillating
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 2 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
FENHS YLI/AAIJA
1.2. Genesis of This Report
This report grew out of work done by EPA to
assess potential climate change impacts in the
Chesapeake Bay region for the 2014 National Climate
Assessment (NCA) (Melillo et a I2014). After
completing this assessment, EPA conducted three
local-level workshops in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed on stormwater management and climate
change adaptation to contribute to the NCA
objective of promoting "an ongoing, sustainable
national assessment of global change impacts and
adaptation." The project team selected the sites for
the workshops based on (1) the communities' level
of concern about changing future precipitation
(often informed by already observed changes) and
(2) their willingness to engage in a dialogue
regarding the impacts, adaptation options, and
related challenges associated with climate and land-
use change and the implications for water quality,
precipitation-driven flooding, and stormwater
management. Following the workshops, EPA
reached out to others conducting stormwater and climate change workshops, and to a National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-led needs assessment entitled Planning for
Climate Change in the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin (Nelson et al., 2013), and other related
efforts in the Great Lakes region to compare notes on lessons learned (see Figures 5 and 6).
This report provides a compilation of the fundamental ideas that emerged across all of these
efforts.
an ami a
Figures. Climate change workshop
locations in the Chesapeake region. EPA
and partners hosted workshops in York
County, Pennsylvania; Baltimore,
Maryland; and Stafford County, Virginia.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 3 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
JWCWJflAW
kVJ-SCD AISJAl
t*i» HdMgU
JL1.W0.1S
JHIJUJV&0 TA
1.3. Roadmap to the Rest of This Report
The following sections provide
brief descriptions of each of the EPA
and NOAA workshops, assessments,
and research collaborations (see
Section 2); insights gained from these
activities (see Section 3); a summary of
resources identified in this report,
compiled into a single table (see
Appendix A); and listings of the project
teams and participants involved in each
of the workshops, assessments, and
research collaborations (see Appendix
B). The efforts described in this report
(including associated tools, resources,
and programs) are not intended to be
comprehensive but rather illustrative of
the types of resources and efforts
io m
Figure 6. Climate change workshop locations in the Great Lakes
region. NOAA and partners hosted workshops in Monroe and Ann
Arbor, Michigan; Cleveland and Toledo, Ohio; Green Bay, Wisconsin;
and Duluth, Saint Paul, and Minneapolis, Minnesota.
available and underway; there are many other significant and successful efforts around the
country that are not included in this report.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 4 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
2. DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHOPS, ASSESSMENTS, AND RESEARCH
COLLABORATIONS
Each workshop, assessment, and research collaboration was conducted in partnership
with local decision makers and managers to learn together how climate change information can
be made more helpful and useful in stormwater planning efforts. Lessons learned were
assessed across these efforts and the primary topics discussed in Section 3 emerged from this
assessment. These workshops, assessments, and research collaborations are summarized in
Table 1 below, followed by longer descriptions of each.
Table 1. Overview of workshops, assessments, and research collaborations
Identifier
Title
Sponsor
Types of
Participants
Location
Date
Type of
Effort
1
Stormwater
Responses to
Land Use and
Climate
Change in
the
Chesapeake
Bay
Watershed
EPA
Federal and
local
government,
academia,
nonprofit
Stafford,
VA;
Baltimore,
MD; York,
PA
April-June,
2013
Workshop
2
Preparing
Stormwater
Systems for
Climate
Change—a
workshop for
Lake Erie
basin
communities
Michigan Sea
Grant, Old
Woman Creek
NERR, GLA A-C,
IHM
Federal and
local
government,
academia,
nonprofit
Monroe,
Ml
October
2013
Workshop
3
Planning for
Climate
Change in
the Great
Lakes Region
NOAA
State and
federal
agencies,
academia,
nonprofit
Cleveland,
OH; Green
Bay, Wl;
Duluth, MN
August-
September,
2011
Needs
Assessment
and
Workshops
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 5 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Tablel. Overview of workshops, assessments, and research collaborations
(continued)
Identifier
Title
Sponsor
Types of
Participants
Location
Date
Type of
Effort
4
Supporting
Climate and
Coastal
Resilience
Planning in
the Western
Lake Erie
Basin
NOAA
Local
government,
state and
federal
agencies,
nonprofit,
academia
Toledo, OH
June, 2013
Workshop
5
Evaluating
Stormwater
Solutions for
Ohio
Collaborative
Research
Project
Chagrin River
Watershed
Partners, Inc.
State and
federal
agencies,
academia
Ohio
2011-2015
Collaborative
Research
6
Economic
Assessment
of Green
Infrastructur
e Strategies
for Climate
NOAA
Federal
agencies,
consultants,
nonprofit,
local
government
Toledo,
OH;
Duluth, MN
2012-2014
Economic
Assessment
7
Great Lakes
Adaptation
Assessment
for Cities
U of Michigan,
Kresge
Foundation,
GLISA
Local
government,
nonprofit,
academia
St. Paul,
MN;
Minneapoli
s, MN; Ann
Arbor, Ml
May-
September
2013
Workshops
8
Forwarding
Adaptation
in the Great
Lakes Region
ISC, GLAA-C,
Kresge
Foundation
Local
government,
nonprofits,
academia
Ann Arbor,
Ml
November
2012
Workshop
NERR = National Estuarine Research Reserve, IHM = Immaculate Heart of Mary, GLISA = Great
Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments Center, GLAA-C = Great Lakes Adaptation
Assessment for Cities
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 6 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
2.1. Stormwater Responses to Land Use and Climate Change in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
(Workshops)
Stafford County, Virginia: April 25, 2013
City of Baltimore, Maryland: May 20, 2013
York County, Pennsylvania: June 20, 2013
The EPA's Office of Research arid
Development collaborated with the Chesapeake
Bay Program's Local Government Advisory
Committee (LGAC) and Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee to host three one-day
workshops to assist local planners and stormwater
managers in considering climate change impacts.
The workshops followed the development of a
case study of climate change impacts in the
Chesapeake Bay developed for the 2014 NCA and
contributed to the NCA objective to promote "an
ongoing, sustainable national assessment of global
change impacts and adaptation."
Workshop participants included local
(county or city) staff and decision makers (e.g.,
land use planners, engineers, water managers, stormwater managers); local researchers
investigating the impacts of climate and land use changes; representatives from nonprofit
organizations and associations; and representatives of selected state and federal programs
related to water quality.
2.1.1. Workshop Goals
1. Explore the impacts of climate and land use change in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
and the implications for water quality, precipitation-driven flooding, and stormwater
management.
2. Explore stormwater management adaptations to climate and land use changes in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, particularly green infrastructure or other LID strategies.
3. Identify information gaps and other barriers preventing local consideration and
implementation of green infrastructure or other LID strategies to help control
stormwater (see Appendix C for a discussion of these approaches).
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 7 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
PEHHSfLVAfHA
Figure 7. Communities in Chesapeake
Bay watershed that hosted stormwater
responses to land use and climate change
workshops: Stafford County, Virginia;
Baltimore, Maryland; and York County,
Pennsylvania.
-------
2.1.2. Main Topics Addressed and/or Activities Undertaken
The interactive workshop included presentations and mapping exercises that provided
participants with the opportunity to begin identifying concerns and solutions specific to
neighborhoods within their city or county. Historic and observed changes in the precipitation
patterns were presented for each city based on
data that had been collected at a nearby
airport. The data were used to initiate a
conversation about local conditions in the
region and how they might change under
climate change. The workshop sessions
covered a discussion of the existing planning
context, constraints, and opportunities;
presentations on projected land use change and
climate change; participatory mapping
exercises to pinpoint the areas with challenges
(in terms of water quantity, flooding, and
degraded water quality under current and
projected conditions); and an exploration of
green infrastructure and LID solutions as well as barriers to more widespread adoptions of
these approaches.
2.1.3. Contribution
The facilitated workshop discussions were valuable on two levels: (1) participants
identified some specific constraints and opportunities they face in day-to-day management of
stormwater and the adoption of green infrastructure and LID solutions and (2) the project team
observed how information on future climate and land use changes could be made most useful
to local planners.
Figures. Workshop participants in Baltimore
discuss the potential impacts of increased
precipitation-driven flooding in the Cherry Hill
neighborhood.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 8 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
2.2. Preparing Stormwater Systems for
Climate Change—A Workshop for Lake
Erie Basin Communities (Workshop)
Monroe, Michigan: October 1.0, 2013.
The Immaculate Heart of Mary (IHM) Sisters
hosted a workshop for communities in the Lake Erie
basin to explore how to prepare stormwater systems for
climate change. The workshop was hosted and
developed in collaboration with Michigan Sea Grant, Old
Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve
(NERR), and Great Lakes Adaptation Assessment for
Cities (GLAA-C). The workshop brought together
technical staff that assist or work for municipalities and
utility providers in the Lake Erie basin.
2.2.1. Goals
The purpose of this workshop was twofold: (1) to increase the level of understanding
about anticipated changes in precipitation patterns, and (2) to disseminate information about
potential strategies to increase stormwater system resilience to the predicted impacts of
climate change. The workshop invited participation from regional technical staff.
2.2.2. Main Topics Addressed and/or Activities Undertaken
The workshop provided an overview of the existing regional climate and anticipated
changes in temperature, precipitation patterns, and storms in the Great Lakes region. The
Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments Center (GLISA) delivered climate information
tailored specifically for decision making in the western Lake Erie basin. Experts in stormwater
management from regional planning authorities, consultancies, utility companies, and
watershed groups provided case study presentations on their work, successes, and challenges.
Presentations highlighted green, gray, and blue infrastructure approaches to stormwater
management. Break-out sessions included panel discussions on innovative financing for
stormwater upgrades and improvements, how to take advantage of regulations to incentivize
action, and how to integrate new stormwater management approaches into everyday practice.
2.2.3. Contribution
The workshop provided opportunities for attendees to learn emerging approaches to
addressing stormwater management and flooding through green, gray, and blue
Figure 9. Preparing stormwater
systems for climate change workshop
in Monroe, Michigan.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 9 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
infrastructure1; how to assess the value of green infrastructure projects; and how to finance
green and gray infrastructure improvements. Additionally, participants had an opportunity to
meet with peers from communities throughout the region and share ideas and experiences on
this pressing challenge.
2.3. Planning for Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region (Needs
Assessment and Workshops)
Cleveland, Ohio: August 10, 2011
Green Bay, Wisconsin: September 13, 2011
Duluth, Minnesota: September 22, 2011
The NOAA
Great Lakes Regional
Team, Old Woman
Creek NERR, Lake
Superior NERR,
University of
Wisconsin
Environmental
Resources Center,
and Great Lakes Sea
Grant Network
worked
collaboratively with a
diverse partner
network to assess,
evaluate, and implement strategies for increasing Great Lakes coastal communities' ability to
respond to climate change (Nelson et al., 2011; Nelson et a I., 2013). The formative research
stage for this effort involved a regional needs assessment that identified community-based
needs related to climate adaptation. The assessment examined a multitude of factors including
perceptions and attitudes regarding climate change, perceived barriers and benefits to climate
adaptation planning, the need for training, and preferred training formats. The research was
conducted in two phases with funding from the NOAA Sea Grant Climate Engagement Project
and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
1Green infrastructure is natural land- and plant-based ecological treatment systems that manage rainwater runoff.
Gray infrastructure is the conventional piped drainage systems most typically used for rainwater control. Blue
infrastructure is high efficiency technologies installed and retrofitted within existing gray or green infrastructure.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 10 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
X)NNG£ Ll TA
Cj-fr h'drU
WJ5C0W5.IW
¦s-* MfrArpiTi
Ltfri CVfh
Figure 10. Planning for climate change in the Great Lakes region workshop
locations: Cleveland, Ohio; Green Bay, Wisconsin; and Duluth, Minnesota.
-------
The needs assessment informed the development of three regional climate adaptation
workshops funded through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The Planning for Climate
Impacts workshops presented the latest scientific research and forecast models regarding the
impacts a changing climate could have on communities and ecosystems in the Great Lakes
region. The workshops focused on actions communities can take today to prepare and adapt to
the impacts of a changing climate. Based on a successful national model developed by the
NERR System through its Coastal Training Program, the workshops were informed by the needs
assessment and tailored to the Great Lakes region with extensive input from local planning
teams. Based upon this input, the workshop curriculum was customized to address issues and
the needs of planners and other professionals addressing land use, public health, stormwater,
emergency preparedness, and natural resource management issues across the Great Lakes
region.
2.3.1. Goals
The goal of the needs assessment was to collect sufficient information about the
knowledge, skills, interest, attitudes, and/or abilities of Great Lakes coastal community
planners, stormwater managers, and natural resource managers to design effective training
that increases the ability of these groups to confront and adapt to the impacts of climate
change.
The goal of the workshops was to build local and regional climate planning capacity in
the Great Lakes region. Specifically, the workshops were intended to: (1) increase participant
understanding of climate science, local and regional climate projections and likely impacts,
benefits of planning for changes in climate, and tools to assist with framing and overcoming
barriers to adaptation planning; (2) create opportunities for networking and dialogue related to
potential climate change adaptation strategies and regional examples of climate-integrated
planning and adaptation; and (3) gather participant input on additional training and information
related to climate change.
2.3.2. Main Topics Addressed and/or Activities Undertaken
To ensure that training meets priority needs and provides accessible and applicable
tools and resources, the organizations involved conducted a needs assessment (a
comprehensive front-end evaluation of the climate change adaptation training and information
needs of the Great Lakes coastal communities). The needs assessment engaged nearly 700
stakeholders across the basin through interviews, focus groups, and an online survey.
At the workshops, experts provided an overview of the latest climate science,
information about climate planning processes and strategies, and examples of available
planning tools and resources. The workshops included an interactive session that offered an
introduction to assessing climate vulnerabilities locally. Post-workshop surveys indicated that
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 11 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
87% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that participating in the workshop was a good
use of their time; furthermore, 91% reported some, a lot, or a great deal of climate adaptation
knowledge gain from attending the workshop.
2.3,3. Contribution
The needs assessment and specialized training increased the knowledge base of Great
Lakes coastal communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change. The project and
workshops also serve as a replicable model for the Great Lakes region and beyond.
2.4. Supporting Climate and Coastal Resilience Planning in the Western Lake
Erie Basin (Workshop)
Toledo, Ohio: June 19-20, 2013
This workshop sought to increase coastal
climate adaptation capacity and resilience in the
western Lake Erie basin. It was convened by the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Ohio
Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Old
Woman Creek NERR, ODNR Division of Wildlife,
ODNR Office of Coastal Management, NOAA,
University of Wisconsin Environmental Resources
Center, Association of State Floodplain Managers
(ASFPM), Friends of Old Woman Creek, Ohio State
University, Ohio Sea Grant College Program, The
Nature Conservancy, and Michigan Sea Grant.
Workshop participants included professionals
interested in enhancing their community's or
agency's ability to plan for coastal hazards and
improve coastal resilience, individuals involved in
local, state, and tribal planning and decision
making related to land use, public health, stormwater, community and economic development,
emergency preparedness, and natural resource management attended the event. Key
collaborators included the Lucas County Soil and Water Conservation District, Toledo-Lucas
County Sustainability Commission, City of Toledo, American Planning Association, Coastal States
Organization, National Association of Counties, Midwest Regional Climate Center, Illinois-
Indiana Sea Grant, American Rivers, National States Geographic Information Council, University
of Michigan Graham Sustainability Institute, and GLISA. In addition, the City of Toledo, Old
Woman Creek NERR, University of Michigan Graham Sustainability Institute, University of
h'drM
v.l C.H.I a AN
Cj-V*
QH)Q
Figure 11. Supporting climate and coastal
resilience planning in the western Lake Erie
basin—Coastal Climate Adaptation and
Resilience Workshop in Toledo, Ohio.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 12 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Wisconsin-Extension, and NOAA Coastal Services Center cohosted a workshop on June
20 related to climate change adaptation and potential next steps for Toledo.
2.4.1. Goals
1. Create opportunities for networking and dialogue among professionals from Toledo, OH
with others from the western Great Lakes region who focus on coastal hazards.
2. Increase the ability of participants to effectively address coastal hazards through the use
of online tools.
3. Improve awareness of climatic variability, understanding of climatic uncertainty, and
methods for dealing with climatic uncertainty.
4. Provide an opportunity for participants to learn about and interact with the online Great
Lakes Coastal Resilience Planning Guide (www.greatlakesresilience.org).
5. Gather participant feedback regarding applicability and effectiveness of the Great Lakes
Coastal Resilience Planning Guide.
6. Gather participant input on additional coastal planning issues that participants would
like addressed and relevant case studies for inclusion in the planning guide.
2.4.2. Main Topics Addressed and/or Activities Undertaken
The workshop on June 19 included plenary presentations related to the Great Lakes
Coastal Resilience Planning Guide, climate trends in the western Lake Erie basin, potential
regional climate change impacts, and strategies and tools for adapting to climate change.
Breakout sessions covered topics in four tracks: (1) adaptation planning in the western Lake Erie
basin; (2) developing western Lake Erie case studies for the Great Lakes Coastal Resilience
Planning Guide; (3) climate change adaptation tools and resources; and (4) climate change
communication, engagement, and action.
The June 20 workshop discussed ways the City of Toledo can adapt to climate change.
The discussion included debriefing related to the content shared during the June 19 Climate
Adaptation and Coastal Resilience workshop breakout sessions, learning how several
communities are acting to implement climate change adaptation, and beginning a discussion to
determine how Toledo can move forward to implement adaptation actions.
2.4.3. Contribution
The workshops launched a regional dialogue on the cross-disciplinary impacts of climate
change and furthered City of Toledo dialogue related to integrating adaptation strategies into
its internal policies and programs. The project also increased familiarity with online tools and
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 13 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
resources that can assist with adaptation planning and enhancing coastal resilience. Participant
input was used to further refine and develop resources available through the planning guide.
2.5. Evaluating Stormwater Solutions for Ohio Collaborative Research
Project
2011-2015
This project is developing science-based tools to promote the implementation of LID
stormwater control measures that reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff on Ohio's coastal
communities and Lake Erie. This has been accomplished through design, construction,
monitoring, and modeling of stormwater control measures with input from a group of
stormwater professionals to ensure the research conducted is relevant to manager and policy
maker needs. The project team includes the Chagrin River Watershed Partners, Old Woman
Creek NERR, Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Soil and Water Resources, Erie
Soil and Water Conservation District, the Consensus Building Institute, and North Carolina State
University. The project is funded by the NERR Science Collaborative.
2.5.1. Goals
This project is quantifying the runoff reduction performance of LID systems on poorly
draining soils typical of conditions in northern Ohio and working to develop credits and
incentives to support effective LID implementation. Project activities are designed to provide
concrete answers to questions about design, construction, and maintenance of LID practices
that are preventing designers, contractors, and municipal officials from adopting LID practices
in Ohio.
2.5.2. Main Topics Addressed and/or Activities Undertaken
A group of stormwater engineers, regulators, utility program managers, and watershed
organizations has provided feedback to help guide design, construction, and monitoring of
pervious pavement and bioretention systems at six sites in northern Ohio. Monitoring results
are being used to assess hydrologic performance and validate models to predict LID system
effectiveness undercurrent and projected future climate conditions. The project is developing
tools to promote effective LID implementation, including case studies of LID design,
construction, maintenance and performance; model codes; design standards and guidance; and
training to help engineers, reviewers, and permitting agencies determine whether LID
stormwater systems are appropriate for site conditions, meet state and local requirements, and
can be used as a climate adaptation strategy.
2.5.3. Contribution
This project is providing information about what can be expected from green
infrastructure performance on poorly draining soils typical of northern Ohio under current and
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 14 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
future climate conditions, identifying future research needs related to LID performance in Ohio,
and promoting dialogue among diverse stormwater professionals.
2.6. Economic Assessment of Green Infrastructure Strategies for Climate
(Assessment)
Toledo, Ohio and Duluth, Minnesota: 2012-2014
The project team
worked closely with the
communities of Toledo, Ohio
and Duluth, Minnesota, to
characterize existing flooding
damage associated with
extreme precipitation events,
and to consider land use policy
options and green
infrastructure methods for
reducing damages from these
events. Based on preferred
options identified by each
community, the team modeled
and assessed the benefits of reducing flooding through the implementation of green
infrastructure.
2.6.1. Goals
The purpose of this study was to assess the economic benefits of green infrastructure as
a method of reducing the negative effects of flooding in Duluth, Minnesota and Toledo, Ohio. A
secondary purpose of the study was to develop an analytical framework that can be applied in
other communities to (1) estimate predicted changes in future precipitation; (2) assess how a
community may be impacted by flooding with increased precipitation; (3) consider the range of
available green infrastructure and land use policy options to reduce flooding; and (4) identify
the benefits that can be realized by implementing green infrastructure.
2.6.2. Main Topics Addressed and/or Activities Undertaken
Two pilot projects were conducted to assess the benefits of green infrastructure in the
4,746-acre Silver Creek watershed in Toledo, Ohio, and the 4,275-acre Chester Creek watershed
in Duluth, Minnesota (ERG, 2014). While both watersheds are of similar size and have a history
of extreme flooding, they are very different in terms of population density, topography, land
use, and the types of flood damages that occur. Thus, these two watersheds represent a range
%
Figure 12. Economic assessment of green infrastructure strategies
for climate in Toledo, Ohio, and Duluth, Minnesota.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 15 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
of flooding issues likely to occur within the Great Lakes region, and the methodology used here
can be transferred to other communities facing similar challenges. Study steps included:
• Understanding the hydrology and hydraulics of the watershed.
• Considering potential future changes in climate and in land use and potential impacts of
those changes on hydrology and hydraulics.
• Assessing damages associated with current and future flooding (baseline conditions).
• Considering challenges specific to the watershed and selecting green infrastructure
options that can be implemented to reduce flooding over the study period (2012 to
2014).
2.6,3. Contribution
This project enabled two communities to identify green infrastructure as a viable option
to reduce peak discharge from extreme events. It also provided a methodology for
communities dealing with riverine flooding events that want to identify the costs and benefits
of using green infrastructure to reduce the impacts of flooding.
2.7. Great Lakes Adaptation Assessment for Cities (GLAA-C) (Workshops)
Saint Paul, Minnesota; May 21, 2013
Minneapolis, Minnesota: May 23, 2013
Ann Arbor, Michigan: September 24, 2013
Through the
support of the University
of Michigan Graham
Sustainability Institute and
the Kresge Foundation,
and in collaboration with
GLISA, the GLAA-C project
piloted a unique approach
to urban adaptation
premised on bringing
together researchers and
practitioners to develop
actionable climate
adaptation programs for
cities in the Great Lakes
WJ5CDWSJA
Figure 13. Great Lakes adaptation assessment for cities (GLAA-C)
workshops in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Saint Paul and Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
KIHIT&O ta
>0 rt'A
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 16 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
region. Now a program within the University of Michigan Climate Center, GLAA-C project staff
works with cities in the region to develop and implement climate adaptation strategies in these
cities.
The work of GLAA-C is supported by six University of Michigan faculty members whose
backgrounds include public health, public policy, governance, urban planning, and climate
science. By incorporating research from all of these fields into climate adaptation solutions for
cities, GLAA-C aims to create replicable programs to tackle the interconnected challenges that
climate change presents.
The cities of Saint Paul, Minneapolis, and Ann Arbor hosted workshops for staff to begin
identifying the highest priority community vulnerabilities related to climate change. Bringing
together staff from various city departments—including Public Works, Health, Environmental
Management, Emergency Preparedness, Water Resources, and Energy Management—helped
to continue building support and cohesion across each city for climate adaptation efforts.
2.7.1. Goals
The purpose of these meetings was to begin identifying how the function of each city
would be impacted by anticipated changes in climate. By introducing anticipated climate
changes for each city, meeting participants were able to explore how those changes would
affect their ability to perform their responsibilities, identify key resources that were needed to
prepare for each anticipated change, and in some cases prioritize strategies and actions for
climate adaptation. While each city developed its own unique set of workshop goals, in most
cases, the goals generally included: (1) identifying where long-term expected changes (25, 50,
70 years) overlap with current infrastructure investments and (2) engaging in cross-unit
discussions of likely impacts, existing strategies, and ideas on areas where to focus staff and
fiscal investments.
2.7.2. Main Topics Addressed and/or Activities Undertaken
These workshops brought together staff from departments across the participating
cities to identify areas of existing vulnerability to flooding, heat waves, and other climate
impacts. Participants identified and prioritized strategies to address these vulnerabilities. The
majority of the workshop time was used in small group discussions identifying how potential
climate changes could lead to impacts to city service delivery and discussing how these impacts
could be mitigated or avoided through the adoption of new adaptation strategies or expansion
of existing strategies.
Throughout the series of workshops different tools were employed to foster small group
discussions. Participants engaged in community mapping, wherein they used maps of the cities
to identify where current threats to infrastructure and services exist; they used concentric circle
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 17 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
activities which asked each group to place a selected impact in the center of a concentric circle
and consider how this climate change might trigger a series of impacts across a city's service areas
and infrastructure. Each layer of the circle should add onto the impact identified in the layer
before. The concentric circle activity is an activity tool that helps participants see how the
impacts that their service area may experience are related to other service areas in the city (see
Figure 14). Finally, each community completed a worksheet of what strategies and resources
they would need to deploy to cope with various impacts.
EXTREME
PRECIPITATION
af\/\c6 Deliver
\mpacts
Key Impacts
-Rightsizing .
infrastructure
•Toxic
runoff to
storm water
. and river
I" Increase grey
water use
climate
change
Increased
costs to
treat
drinking
water
• Resident
property
damage
' Localized
flooding
Standing water
* Increase
rainwater
capture and
reuse
Increased costs to
dean up flooded
basements
Sanitary sewer
overflows
Evacuation
Planning
Delayed emergency
response
* Promote conservation to
green roots for commercial
and industrial buildings
Support future funding for
greenbelt land purchases
around Ann Arbor
Figure 14. Climate change impacts and adaptation strategies: Extreme precipitation in the City of
Ann Arbor (concentric circles activity example).
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 18 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
2.7.3. Contribution
Each of these workshops provided an opportunity for city staff to learn from one
another and also to learn about ongoing climate adaptation efforts across the region. These
workshops put the spotlight on the needs of the city itself. In addition, by dedicating time and
resources to the development and networking of city staff, the workshops built a foundation
for integrating climate adaptation efforts into the daily responsibilities of city staff within each
community.
2.8. Forwarding Adaptation in the Great Lakes Region (Workshop)
Ann Arbor, Michigan: November 7-9, 2012
The purpose of this three-day workshop was
to bring together practitioners from cities across the
Great Lakes region, as teams, to discuss the
potential impacts, available resources, and existing
barriers posed by climate change in the region. This
workshop employed a Sustainable Leadership
Academy Model (ISC, 2015) used by the Institute for
Sustainable Communities to build the capacity of
communities to advance, accelerate, and scale up
local solutions to the challenges of climate
protection and sustainable development. This
model offers participants a highly engaged team
environment where they have opportunities
throughout the conference to meet in "team
huddles" and consider how to apply the lessons they are learning to their work.
2.8.1. Goals
• Build a community for municipal practitioners in the Great Lakes region.
• Introduce mid-sized and small communities to anticipated climate change impacts for
the region.
• Provide a valuable experience to city staff members to encourage them to build a
long-term engagement with the University of Michigan's Climate Center and the
Graham Sustainability Institute's GLAA-C project.
LJ-V* H'JrM
~ .HUD
WDiAjvA
Figure 15. Forwarding adaptation in the
Great Lakes region—Workshop in Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 19 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
2.8.2. Main Topics Addressed and/or Activities Undertaken
This conference covered a range of topics from addressing public health to managing
urban tree canopies and preparing ports and marinas for more severe storms. A major impact
from climate change in the Great Lakes region is increased precipitation, and issues with water
quality from erosion, combined sewer overflow events, and contaminated water sources are of
major concern. These issues took up a significant amount of time at the conference.
2.8.3. Contribution
This conference provided many communities in the region with a baseline
understanding of climate change impacts and provided an opportunity to identify regional
colleagues who are struggling with similar challenges. For the GLAA-C project, this event was a
building block for the next two years of work. This event confirmed the need to focus on mid-
sized to small cities.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 20 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
3. PRIMARY MESSAGES
The fundamental ideas emerging from these varied efforts are discussed below. They
have been grouped into the following topic areas:
• Incorporating climate change into planning
• Building local capacity
• Identifying and communicating costs and benefits of green infrastructure
• Implementing changes within the current governance structure
Within each of these topic areas, some specific challenges are presented along with
observations drawn from discussions with local-level participants. Potential near-term
solutions and long-term needs are also presented. A summary table of the example tools and
resources mentioned throughout this report is available in Appendix A. Numbers provided in
brackets refer to the particular workshops, assessments, and research collaborations (described
and numbered in Table 1 and Section 2) from which the observations emerged. Participants
and partners shared their observations at the local level and identified potential solutions
during the EPA- and NOAA-led efforts. The observations and potential solutions were then
grouped under common challenges that support the fundamental ideas described in this
section.
3.1. Incorporating Climate Change into Planning
Local decision makers readily identified a need for better and more accessible climate
change information to incorporate changing future conditions into their planning efforts.
Project teams encountered several expected challenges in trying to find and apply relevant
information to planning efforts (e.g., issues of scale and uncertainty in climate and land use
change projections). It is apparent, however, that historical data can be more effectively mined
and utilized in the near term than it is currently, such as using heavy precipitation events or
extreme storm events in the past as analogues for potential future changes (e.g., 100 year
storm events in the past that become 10 year events in the future or 500 year events in the
past that become 50 year events). Planning for climate change can also be approached by
planning for relevant endpoints (e.g., changes in the hydrologic cycle, such as heavier
precipitation events, earlier snowmelt, and so forth). In the longer term, data collection efforts
that start now can help inform future planning. Additionally, new planning approaches and
mindsets may be needed to take action in the face of uncertainties. Major challenges, local-
level observations, potential near-term solutions, and long-term needs are outlined below.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 21 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Challenge Climate change data often are not available at the desired geographic and/or
temporal scale and may be relevant to endpoints of greatest concern to
decision makers.
Observations Stormwater managers perceive a need for better projections of local
from the precipitation patterns.
Local Level Rainfall varies based on local conditions and microclimates. For example,
Peach-Bottom Township in York County, Pennsylvania, often receives
significantly more rainfall than other neighboring townships in the county. A
municipal water infrastructure manager participating in a focus group
conducted under the Nelson et al. (2013) effort noted that "...in our little tiny
area we put up three rain gauges. So in 5 square miles... we might have three
distinct weather patterns." Spatially, regional climate projections do not
provide precise, downscaled data for rainfall shifts at the level of particular
townships. Temporally, climate change projections are often generated for
annual or seasonal changes while stormwater managers frequently make
decisions based on 24-hour precipitation events. Seasonal projections provide
more fine-scaled information than annual averages, which can be valuable to
ensure sufficient water supply. However, seasonal projections do not inform
decision makers about the intensity of specific events. Additionally, managers
may be underutilizing climate change data that can be found in tools such as
EPA's National Stormwater Calculator (SWC) (U.S. EPA, 2014a, b), and Storm
Water Management Model Climate Adjustment Tool (SWMM-CAT) (U.S. EPA,
2014c, d), as well as available information that could serve as a reasonable
alternative to precise downscaled projections (e.g., analogue storm events,
proximities to thresholds, system sensitivities to weather patterns). See Brown
and Wilby (2012) for a discussion of alternatives. (Workshops 1, 3, and 5;
Projects 6 and 7)
Local conditions and concerns vary regarding which events result in the
greatest impediment to effective stormwater management. In Baltimore, MD,
heavy rain events cause flooding in areas with back-logged stormwater
maintenance. In York County, 15-minute squalls or intense downpours
overload the stormwater systems that were built for 24-hour storms. Several
communities expressed concern that flash floods are viewed as a management
failure rather than an act of nature such as a hurricane or 20-year flood.
(Workshop 1)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 22 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Observations Long-term climate projections are relevant to short-term infrastructure
from the decisions; making this link is necessary to affect local action. Climate change
Local Level projections are typically on the 20-100 year timescale while decisions about
(continued) infrastructure are made on the 1-20 year time frame. However, although
infrastructure may be intended for a 20-year life span, it often exceeds the
intended life span by decades. (Workshops 1 and 3; Project 6)
Stormwater codes have been created based on historical data. Infrastructure
is built to handle the 2-year 24-hour event. County engineers are not ready to
change the codes to address changing precipitation patterns or the impacts of
intense brief storms without evidence that such changes are established
sufficiently to be reflected in the long term historical record. (Workshops 1, 3,
and 4; Project 5)
Potential Mine existing data sources to ensure that decisions are based on the best
Near-Term available data. (Workshops 1, 3, and 7; Projects 5 and 6)
Solutions ^ |_oca| decision makerS are often working with old data. Simply updating
storm standards to match current precipitation patterns can result in a
marked improvement.
• Accurate historical climate information can help serve as a bridge to
discussions regarding future climate projections (which are less certain and
may be less readily received by skeptical planners and decision makers).
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center provides historical climate
information.
• To understand future climate changes, techniques that use historic data,
such as analogue events or other sensitivity and threshold information in the
historic record, can be used as illustrations (e.g., see the IPCC
[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report Climate Change 2001:
Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Section 3.5
(https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/). EPA's SWC and SWMM-CAT
provide regional downscaled climate projections. EPA is also developing a
web application for visualizing and downloading climate model output (the
Global Change Explorer will be available at http://globalchange.epa.gov).
• There are resources that show historical and future trend lines (e.g., via
GLISA at http://glisa.umich.edu/resources). Sometimes the visual that
results from combining historical and future trends (i.e., the gradual
increase) can motivate action.
• Land use has a tremendous effect on climate change impacts on stormwater
management; managers can incorporate land use change maps into
planning discussions. EPA's Integrated Climate and Land Use Scenarios
(ICLUS) project can serve as a resource
(http://www.epa.gov/ncea/global/iclus/).
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 23 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Potential Consider what stormwater managers are planning for as a starting point to
Near-Term the discussion (rather than starting with a discussion of climate change
Solutions projections). Then, engage decision makers to seek agreement on a threshold
(continued) (e.g., the community will prepare forX storm) that is informed by historic data
and reflects the risk tolerance of the community (e.g., what level of damage or
disruption the community can tolerate at different costs). (Workshops 1, 3, and
7; Projects 5 and 6)
Communicate the overlap of "short-term" infrastructure lifetimes with longer
term climate changes. If better understood, it may motivate local planners to
consider climate change when making infrastructure decisions. (Workshops 1
and 3; Project 6)
Use scenarios to develop a set of possible futures, rather than seeking
consensus on a particular projection. In addressing future precipitation
changes in stormwater management, decision makers may need assistance
determining which climate change scenarios to evaluate, where to get
appropriate climate data, and assessing whether the climate projections
coincide with locally driven concerns. (Workshops 1, 3, and 7; Projects 5 and 6)
Demonstrate the use of dynamical downscaling on research projects at the
site scale. Decision makers can use local resources for climate change data
from researchers at organizations within the area, such as universities, state
meteorological agencies, and other organizations that may be involved in
downscaling of climate change scenarios. (Workshops 1, 3, and 7; Projects 5 and
6)
Long-Term Stormwater managers and geographic information system (GIS) staff can
Needs develop a "wish-list" of data that should be collected to improve
understanding of changes (e.g., data at small and consistent intervals such as
10- or 15-minute increments). Begin now to collect needed local data (e.g.,
establish and maintain more local weather gauges and monitoring stations).
Partners in the community or neighboring jurisdictions may also be interested in
pooling resources to develop or improve data sets. (Workshop 1)
Consider the role that regulation at the state level can play in spurring action.
If appropriate, seek to encourage or shape the development of such
regulations. (Workshops 1, 3, and 4; Project 5)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 24 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Challenge Projections of future climate change and land use change are uncertain.
Observations Stormwater managers want to know with certainty what they are planning for
from the and perceive uncertainty as a barrier to action. A stormwater manager
Local Level participating in a focus group conducted under the Nelson et al. (2013) effort
noted that "What's hard is that people are going to ask the inevitable question,
'what am I planning for? More rain? Less rain? More snow? Less snow?"'In a
survey conducted under the same effort, "85% of the Great Lakes benchmark
group indicated that the level of uncertainty about the impacts of climate
change was a barrier to climate planning" (Nelson et al., 2013). (Workshops 1
and 3)
Climate models are complex; numerous variable inputs can produce a range of
projections. Climate models typically use the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (Nakicenovic and
Swart, 2000) as inputs. More recently, these scenarios have been updated and
are referred to as Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) (Van Vuren et
al., 2011). These scenarios reflect different levels of greenhouse gas emissions
and result in a range of climate model outputs. These complexities can be
daunting to stormwater managers seeking information about what to plan for in
the future. (Workshops 1, 3, and 4; Project 5)
Different regions face similar challenges but varying sources of uncertainty
due to unique conditions. For example:
• There is uncertainty in regional annual precipitation projections for the
Chesapeake Bay region, likely due to the bay's location (positioned between
subtropical areas expected to become drier and higher-latitude regions
expected to become wetter) (Najjar et al., 2010). (Workshop 1)
• In the Great Lakes region, the climate is driven by large regional weather
patterns and the Great Lakes themselves. In most cases, lake-land climate
interactions are not well understood (and global and regional models do not
fully account for the effects of the Great Lakes). Direct application of
climate projections is difficult and discussions of uncertainty can be
complicated. (Workshop 7)
Climate change will interact with other existing stressors. Future land use, in
particular, will significantly impact the effectiveness of stormwater
management. The economy, cultural preferences, transportation decisions,
and other factors drive development patterns. It is difficult to project changes
in land use and climate change; both are highly uncertain. (Workshops 1, 3, and
4; Project 6)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 25 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Assemble existing data sets with information such as historic land use,
planned development, topography, and location of floodplains. They are
often sufficient to support a near-term conversation about how stormwater
management may need to change to accommodate changes in climate.
(Workshops 1, 3, and 4; Project 6)
Use land use build-out models (projections of the amount and location of
development that may occur in a specified area as permitted by current land
development ordinances) to understand the maximum allowable use (which
will inform stormwater managers regarding projected increases in impervious
surfaces and the associated stormwater management needs). (Workshops 1, 3,
and 4; Project 6)
Long-Term Seek partnerships that can contribute to the field of knowledge. For example,
Needs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been helping communities better
understand hydrologic modeling (U.S. ACE, 2015) and Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) helps with preparedness planning for extreme
events (FEMA, 2015). Communities can work with universities to make sure
that research is applicable to local needs. Such partnerships can be fruitful
when there are several crucial players working with the data to identify
solutions (check local university websites for potential resources and
partnering opportunities). (Workshops 1, 3, and 4; Project 5)
Develop regional scenarios (complete with uncertainty bounds) that can be
used by communities across a region, minimizing the need for individual
communities to spend limited resources to determine which climate model
results are appropriate to their planning needs (see SFWMD, 2011 for example
of regional climate and sea level rise scenarios produced for south Florida
counties and municipalities by the South Florida Water Management District).
(Workshops 1, 3, and 7)
Address the likely need to facilitate a change in thinking to enable action in
the face of uncertainties that have not been traditionally considered in
decision making but now should be. There will likely never be a tool to predict
storm events with precision. Communities will need to develop new ways of
thinking and planning, such as analyzing decisions by their robustness over a
range of potential changes, employing risk management techniques, using
principles that maximize minimum losses or minimize maximum losses, and
other approaches for decision making under uncertainty. (Workshops 1 and 3)
Potential
Near-Term
Solutions
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 26 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Challenge Reliable and up-to-date land use data is critical to understanding how changes
in precipitation-driven flooding will impact stormwater management.
Observations Existing land use data used for planning may be outdated or incomplete. Land
from the use projections are typically grounded in an understanding of the existing and
Local Level planned development. The format, availability and quality of data varies widely
across communities. (Workshop 1)
• Stafford County, VA recently updated the impervious surface layer that was
last updated in 2000. Prior to the update, the best available data had been
14-years old and did not reflect the 35% population growth the county had
experienced.
• Each of the 72 jurisdictions in York County, PA define development zones
independently and thus it is a challenge to amalgamate zoning for the
County and make collective decisions.
Use land use build-out models to understand the maximum likely
development in a region. This can help stormwater managers consider the
potential needs associated with projected increases in impervious surfaces.
Example resources include EPA's Integrated Climate and Land Use Scenarios
(ICLUS) project and EPA's Impervious Surface Growth Model (ISGM).
(Workshops 1, 3, and 4; Project 6)
Routinely re-evaluate accuracy of land use maps (especially in areas
experiencing rapid development) to make sure the best available data about
the extent and location of impervious surfaces is used. (Workshop 1)
Long-Term Consider updates to data management practices to facilitate use of the best
Needs and most recent data. (Workshop 1)
Expand staff expertise in GIS or other data management processes (via
training, new hires, or sharing of staff across the county or a group of
municipalities). (Workshop 1)
Potential
Near-Term
Solutions
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 27 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Challenge Communication, Coordination, and Education
Observations There is a need for greater interdepartmental cooperation at the municipal
from the level. During workshops in Green Bay, Wisconsin; Duluth, Saint Paul, and
Local Level Minneapolis, Minnesota; Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Baltimore, Maryland,
participants discussed how climate change is a cross-sector issue that affects all
aspects of government work. However, in many communities, staff is focused
on the needs of their department (e.g., zoning, stormwater management, land
use planning) and may miss opportunities to work across departments to find
solutions. This challenge was identified as a major finding in the needs
assessment described in Nelson et al. (2013) and echoed both in interviews and
during the workshops. (Workshops 1, 4, and 7; Project 6)
One-off meetings can serve as a launching point for continued collaboration.
Across all of the efforts described in this report, participants cited the
convening of people from different departments, agencies, and organizations
(and the associated conversations that ensued) as one of the greatest benefits.
The connections made at a single meeting can extend beyond that event. For
example, some of the Toledo, Ohio workshop participants later formed the
Northeast Ohio Climate Change Adaptation Workgroup. The group is seeking to
jointly pursue grants and coordinate in other ways. (Workshops 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and
8; Projects 5 and 6)
Sharing and communicating positive examples of adaptation strategies,
especially at the local level, can help leverage successes. In many
communities, local examples may not be readily available. Organizers at the
Duluth and Green Bay workshops offered examples from other areas (e.g.,
Philadelphia, Virginia) to provide inspiration for local action. The Wisconsin
Climate Change Impacts (WICCI) developed a manual for adaptation strategies
that was distributed to all of the participants from Wisconsin and Minnesota.
(Workshop 4; Project 6)
There is a need for additional adaptation training at the local level. Nelson et
al. (2013) identified decision-maker training as one of the top 10 needs that
emerged from the needs assessment that engaged nearly 700 professional
planners, stormwater managers, natural resource managers, public health
officials, and emergency managers across the region. In response to a survey
"45% of Great Lakes benchmark respondents were 'very interested' in
obtaining climate change knowledge and planning skills in a fact sheet format,
44% through one day intermediate training workshops, and 40% through
websites. The format for which the highest percentage of respondents were
'not interested at all' was multiday advanced training courses (29%)" (Nelson et
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 28 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
al., 2013). This need for training was repeated during the Toledo and Monroe,
Michigan workshops. (Workshop 3; Project 6)
Potential Create opportunities for staff to exchange experiences and ideas for programs
Near-Term (e.g., interdepartmental meetings, workshops, webinars, online forums).
Solutions Ensure that senior management is on-board and that the administrative and
fiscal mechanisms of the city enable interdepartmental collaboration.
(Workshops 1, 4, and 7; Project 6)
Engage in existing peer-to-peer networks that connect communities at varying
stages of implementation such as the GLAA-C, Urban Sustainability Directors
Network (USDN), American Society of Adaptation Professionals (ASAP), and the
Great Lakes Saint Lawrence Cities Initiative. (Workshop 4; Project 6)
Take advantage of already available resources that promote information
sharing. For example, at the regional level, the Great Lakes Coastal Resilience
Planning Guide is an online tool that filled some of the data needs identified
during the Great Lakes workshops (ASFPM, 2013). At the national level, ICLEI
Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) and NOAA are just two entities
participants identified as providing useful online resources (ICLEI, 2014; NOAA,
2015a). Other examples are EPA tools, guides, and case studies of green
infrastructure projects conducted with a large number of communities across
the country. Project descriptions and products from these efforts are available
on-line (see Appendix A: Summary of Resources Identified in This Report).
(Workshop 4; Project 6)
Long-Term Nelson et al. (2013) identified increasing climate literacy as a top 10 need. The
Needs survey and interviews suggested that this could be achieved through "research
that addresses decision-maker needs, comprehensive science education
throughout all grade levels, community outreach, ensuring ecological
awareness through youth programs as well as training students in scientific
field methods, tribal engagement, increased communication with stakeholders,
and end-user/public participation" (Nelson et al., 2013). Long-term efforts to
increase climate literacy of stormwater managers may involve both (Workshop
3; Project 6):
• Building awareness and increasing knowledge via curriculum taught at
educational institutions and
• On-the-job training and continuing education opportunities, which can help
to increase the climate literacy of existing staff and ensure timely
application of research designed to address decision-maker needs.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 29 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
3.2. Building Local Capacity
Local capacity to plan for, design, construct, and permit green infrastructure and LID
projects is necessary to effectively integrate these solutions into regional stormwater
management practices. Limited local knowledge can be a barrier to overcoming competing
priorities and continuing with the status quo. However as climate change presents new
challenges for stormwater management, increasing professional knowledge of alternative
solutions, learning how to incorporate climate projections into plans, and collaborating across
jurisdictions can enhance a community's ability to adapt existing management strategies.
Challenge
Observations
from the
Local Level
Stormwater managers, engineers, and contractors may have limited
experience or expertise with relatively newer solutions such as green
infrastructure.
Stormwater managers have only recently started to more broadly accept
green infrastructure. While conventional infrastructure is largely based on
engineered solutions with hard infrastructure, green infrastructure is reliant
on natural systems-oriented solutions requiring landscape and site design
expertise. The role of a stormwater manager and the requisite expertise
may shift as communities increase the application of green infrastructure
(Workshop 1; Project 6).
Green infrastructure may require different construction and maintenance
methods. For example, pavement installation often requires compacting
soils during construction. However, compacted soils are not beneficial for
designing a system that encourages infiltration (Project 5).
There is limited information about the performance of green infrastructure
techniques on poorly draining soil. The majority of the available literature
focuses on studies in areas with well-draining soils. However, many areas
have poorly draining soil and thus managers may not be able to adequately
assess the projected effectiveness of green infrastructure and LID as
stormwater control and resiliency measures (Project 5).
Potential Provide training for municipal staff on green infrastructure to better equip
Near-Term staff to assess green infrastructure proposals. For example, EPA offers a
Solutions Green Infrastructure Webcast Series
(http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi training.cfm).
EPA and other federal agencies and nongovernmental organizations have
formed the Green Infrastructure Collaborative, a network to help
communities more easily implement green infrastructure
(http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi partners.cfm).
(Workshop 1; Project 6)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 30 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Publicize a list of "certified or qualified" green infrastructure contractors
and engineers to help connect experienced professionals with potential
projects that could benefit from alternative design solutions. For example,
the RainScapes program in Montgomery County, Maryland regularly updates
a public list of professionals who have taken training courses on landscaping
techniques to reduce stormwater runoff
(http://www.montgomervcountymd.gov/DEP/water/rainscapes.html).
(Workshop 1; Projects 5 and 6)
Offer incentives for engineers or contractors to use green infrastructure
designs, rather than relying on pipe-based systems. (Project 5)
Long-Term Consider using or developing a stormwater model ordinance for local
Needs jurisdictions seeking to incorporate climate change projections or green
infrastructure incentives into local legislation. For example, the City of
Seattle developed a citywide model ordinance for stormwater management
using green infrastructure
(http://www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org/topics/water-and-green-
infrastructure/stormwater-management/model-ordinance-for-establishing-
citywide-green-stormwater-infrastructure). (Workshop 1; Projects 5 and 6)
Conduct pilot studies and publish the results and lessons learned to
increase awareness and provide specific examples of how alternative
stormwater management solutions perform. One specific need is
additional examples that quantify infiltration rates in different areas to
supplement existing knowledge. (Project 5)
Hire new staff that has experience with green infrastructure design and
implementation to complement existing staff knowledge and expertise.
(Workshop 1; Projects 5 and 6)
Modify designs and monitor results to determine whether performance
can be enhanced for projects in the region (particularly in areas with poorly
draining soils). (Project 5)
Potential
Near-Term
Solutions
(continued)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 31 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Challenge
Observations
from the
Local Level
Competing priorities (e.g., attracting development to a local area) are a
barrier to establishing stringent local policies that benefit stormwater
management.
Implementing stormwater fees or strict development standards to limit
impervious surfaces may be beneficial for managing stormwater in a
community but can also be a disincentive for developers to work in that
community. Most communities are looking to encourage growth and
development and minimize disincentives to developers. State and federal
regulations can help to "level the playing field" by minimizing community-by-
community variance in development incentives or disincentives. (Workshop
1)
"Home-Rule" style governance (in which decisions are made at a very local
level) can be an obstacle to cooperation and coordinated decision making
within counties. Counties with highly decentralized decision making and
authority may find it more difficult to coordinate at the watershed or
subwatershed scale when it would be beneficial from the standpoint of
stormwater management. In some cases, however, voluntary participation
in regional efforts is successful. The York County Planning Commission
(YCPC) invited all 72 municipalities in the county to participate in the
Regional Chesapeake Bay Pollution Reduction Plan. Forty-five municipalities
participated, including the 34 regulated municipal separate storm sewer
systems (MS4) municipalities that are required to participate and
12 nonregulated municipalities. (YCPC, 2014) (Workshop 1)
Potential Coordinate regional policies to minimize the impact on individual
Near-Term communities. While development may be deterred when individual
Solutions communities change local standards independently, potentially negative
impacts could be avoided if surrounding municipalities agree to adopt similar
policies. (Workshop 1)
Incorporate green infrastructure and LID into existing plans, such as
watershed implementation plans (WIPs). (Workshop 1)
• WIPs are used by the Chesapeake Bay watershed jurisdictions to meet
the bay total maximum daily load (TMDL) goals. A TMDL is the maximum
amount of a pollutant that a body of water can receive while still meeting
water quality standards. The York County Coalition for Clean Waters
incorporated green infrastructure and LID into the York County WIP as a
stormwater management strategy. The recently completed plan has
been endorsed by the county commissioners, and coalition members are
now promoting the plan to municipalities and other stakeholders as an
important tool to improve the county's waters.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 32 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Consider offering alternative incentives such as fast-track permitting for
projects that adhere to a more strict set of requirements (e.g., projects that
manage 80% of runoff onsite or incorporate a green roof). (Workshop 1)
Assess whether green infrastructure could be included as a control
measure in Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). MS4s
transport stormwater runoff that is often discharged into water bodies.
Since 1999, even small MS4s within and outside urbanized areas have been
required to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
coverage. Jurisdictions with MS4s can include green infrastructure as a
control measure. EPA published a factsheet that discusses how green
infrastructure can be integrated into stormwater permits and provides
examples of communities that have done so
(http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi regulatory.cfm).
(Workshop 1)
Long-Term
Needs
Consider regulatory changes at the federal or state level to minimize
variance regarding stormwater infrastructure guidance and regulations
among communities. (Workshop 1)
Challenge
Planning, construction, and management of a geographically dispersed
network of green infrastructure may require a different management
approach than that used for conventional systems.
Observations Green infrastructure is often geographically dispersed. Conventional
from the Local stormwater management is typically comprised of a series of large systems
Level that are publically owned and operated. Green infrastructure projects can
span land holdings of several different individuals, entities, or even
jurisdictions. (Workshop 1; Project 6)
Green infrastructure relies on a network of landscape-scale solutions,
many of which are on private property, and the responsibility for
maintenance costs may not be clearly defined. (Workshop 1; Project 6)\
It may be difficult to identify which department(s) should cover the
upfront and ongoing maintenance costs for a green infrastructure project.
In some communities, the parks department may have more qualified staff
to install and maintain a green infrastructure project, but the optimal site
may be located on land that is maintained by the public utilities
department. (Workshop 1)
Potential
Near-Term
Solutions
(continued)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 33 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Provide individual homeowners and businesses with information about
how to correctly maintain green infrastructure design elements (e.g., rain
gardens, vegetated swales, and other installations). (Workshop 1; Project 6)
Develop a methodology and schedule for maintenance that includes
details about who is responsible for maintenance and new protocols.
Establish this protocol early in the project planning phase to avoid future
confusion or mismanagement. For example, Washington, DC's Stormwater
Management Guidebook (CWP, 2013), provides for a stormwater retention
credit program for certification. To be eligible for certification, a best
management practice must, among other criteria, provide a contract or
agreement for ongoing maintenance and pass ongoing maintenance
inspections. (Workshop 1; Project 6)
In places where individual homeowners may be responsible for
installation and maintenance, offer financial incentives to help individuals
pay for the maintenance of this public good. (Workshop 1; Project 6)
Challenge Watersheds are not confined to political boundaries.
Observations Flooding issues may be exacerbated by upstream development beyond
from the Local jurisdictional boundaries. Coordinating across jurisdictions can be
Level contentious and costly (in terms of staff time to schedule, travel to, and
participate in meetings). For example, severe rainfall in Duluth during the
summer of 2012 resulted in significant damage caused by high-quantity and
high-velocity runoff, which may have been amplified by upstream
development of land that was previously wetlands (NOAA, 2015b)
(Workshop 1; Project 6).
Cooperation among neighboring jurisdictions can help alleviate concerns
and discrepancies in development requirements. For example, Stafford
County, VA is partnering with neighboring counties to address stormwater
issues that are not confined to their county lines (Workshop 1).
Interactive sessions at workshops can provide opportunities to explore
collaborative solutions that transcend political boundaries. Strategizing
across agencies or even sectors may reveal opportunities to incorporate
climate change considerations into current strategies at no additional cost.
A county agency director participating in an interview conducted under the
Nelson et al. (2013) effort noted that "People have their missions, and
they're just following it down without realizing that they can get more of
their missions accomplished by helping other people to accomplish their
Potential
Near-Term
Solutions
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 34 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
missions, if we are all working together—whether it's federal, state, or local
level" (Workshops 1 and 3; Project 6).
Potential Convene relevant agencies, organizations, and individuals responsible for
Near-Term stormwater management decisions across watersheds to help address
Solutions barriers presented by different regulations, budget limitations, and
expectations for growth. Representatives of water management,
environmental, land use planning, public works, and transportation
departments (among others) are important to include because each of these
agencies plays a role in stormwater management. In Pennsylvania, for
example, participants in the York County workshop also participate in the
York County Coalition 4 Clean Waters (YCC4CW) that brings together
"representatives of municipalities, engineering firms, waste water treatment
plants, septic pumping businesses, water companies/authorities, attorneys,
farmers, watershed association, York County Conservation District, York
County Planning Commission, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Stewards of the
Lower Susquehanna, PA Department of Environmental Protection, and
others," and could provide a model for other regions to follow in developing
regional approaches to stormwater management
(http://watershedalliance.tripod.com/ycc4cw.html). (Workshops 1 and 3;
Project 6)
Look for opportunities to develop a regional or watershed-scale plan for
stormwater management. This may be more cost effective than developing
individual plans. (Workshops 1 and 3; Project 6)
Seek opportunities to incorporate climate change adaptation measures
into existing plans, such as comprehensive plans or watershed-scale plans,
which may be the best scale at which to address climate change.
(Workshops 1 and 3; Project 6)
Long-Term Find ways that the state or county can provide incentives for regions to
Needs develop watershed-scale plans. (Workshops 1 and 3; Project 6)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 35 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
3.3. Identifying and Communicating Costs and Benefits of Green
Infrastructure
Managers have limited access to information regarding economic justifications for
implementing green infrastructure projects to address stormwater concerns. Whether
information is limited by a shortage in studies or because information is not reaching the local
level, managers are not satisfied with their ability to address financial considerations associated
with green infrastructure options (a critical concern for municipalities facing increasingly
constrained budgets).
Challenge Municipalities need improved access to economic information on costs and
benefits to support decisions regarding the use of green infrastructure.
Observations There is limited information about the costs and benefits of green
from the infrastructure (and other climate change adaptation strategies), which
Local Level makes return on investment (ROI) calculations difficult. Some green
infrastructure solutions may be cost effective immediately, while others may
cost more and require a longer rate of return (especially if a project requires
changing existing infrastructure). For example, it can be challenging to fully
assess the potential flood mitigation benefits of green infrastructure
solutions, especially considering how such solutions interact with existing
infrastructure and alter regional hydrology (i.e., the cumulative and long-
term impact on a watershed scale). Uncertain and extended return periods
often cause green infrastructure and other climate change adaptation
strategies to be shifted to the bottom of a list of priorities (effectively
deterring local-level investment in such strategies). (Project 6)
Observations Traditional economic assessments that span a typical local planning horizon
from the do not fully capture benefits that extend beyond the time frame of the
Local Level analysis nor cobenefits, which are difficult to quantify. An economic
(continued) assessment of green infrastructure conducted in Duluth used a 20-year
planning time frame (to align with the city's capital improvement planning).
It became clear, however, that strategies such as wetland restoration and
forest preservation provide water management and other benefits that
extend far beyond that 20-year period. The value of green infrastructure may
appreciate over time rather than depreciate (as is typically the case with
conventional infrastructure options). There may also be cobenefits that are
not factored into a traditional ROI assessment, such as ecosystem services
(e.g., water quality protection, habitat maintenance, community
beautification, recreational opportunities like birding) and human well-being
(e.g., social, physical, and community). (Project 6)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 36 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Stormwater managers and their partners have limited access to or
awareness of the information that does exist on the costs and benefits of
green infrastructure. Access may be limited by a lack of staff time and/or
knowledge about how to efficiently find locally relevant and readily
applicable information from within more general studies or specific case
studies. (Project 6)
Potential Ensure existing case studies (e.g., from Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Philadelphia,
Near-Term Pennsylvania; Toledo, Ohio; and Portland, Oregon) are readily available.
Solutions Examples that cover a range of municipalities with different budgets and
populations are helpful for local practitioners to find and consult studies that
are similar to their own communities. (Project 6)
Provide opportunities for information sharing that are specific to economic
valuation. Webinars, workshops, and tools can be used to disseminate
existing knowledge and answer questions. (Project 6)
Conduct research and collect data (e.g., what a city spent on repairs and
replacement of infrastructure following a storm; job and recreational losses
due to damaged or destroyed infrastructure) to facilitate improved
quantification of the costs and benefits of green infrastructure investments.
For example, the State of Indiana Department of Natural Resources
conducted a statewide street tree benefit study using i-Tree Streets, an urban
forestry analysis tool from the United States Forest Service. The Department
used the tool to quantify the benefits related to stormwater management,
energy costs, improved air quality, sequestered carbon dioxide, and
aesthetics (https://www.itreetools.org/applications.php). (Workshop 1;
Project 6)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 37 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Potential Consider long-term benefits of green infrastructure in economic analysis of
Near-Term stormwater management plans. For example, Toledo, OH estimated that
Solutions they would reap about $38,000 in annual benefits over the next 20 years as
(continued) measured only in damages avoided to buildings from flooding. This is an
underestimate because other benefits of flood mitigation strategies are not
included. (Project 6)
Train local appraisers/commissioners to capture the full value of green
infrastructure. Incorporate cobenefits into ROI calculations, such as
ecosystem services and quality of life factors. (Project 6)
Identify opportunities to integrate green infrastructure into other projects,
as a co-benefit with little to no added cost (e.g., providing Americans with
Disabilities Act [ADA]-compliant sidewalk access, adding a swale for
pedestrian protection that also collects rainwater). For example, the Green
Streets, Green Jobs, Green Towns Initiative is a collaboration among EPA
Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Trust, Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
and others that provides a network and resources for integrating green
infrastructure to streets
(http://www.cbtrust.Org/site/c.miJPKXPCJnH/b.7735695/k.5E92/Green Stree
ts Green Jobs Green Towns.htm). (Project 6)
Develop templates that can be used to assess how different green
infrastructure methods and projects can work in an area and include cost
estimation guidance. (Project 6)
Use cost planning scenarios that are based on real projects for the state or
region. (Project 6)
Long-Term Improve documentation regarding project funding and actual costs. Build a
Needs database to inform future projects. Suggest funding organizations incorporate
requirements for enhanced financial and impact tracking reporting in project
selection. (Project 6)
Develop tools to assist with quantifying costs and benefits (e.g., the Center
for Neighborhood Technology's Green Values National Stormwater
Management Calculator at http://greenvalues.cnt.org/national/calculator.php
and The Value of Green Infrastructure guide at
http://www.cnt.org/repository/gi-values-guide.pdf). Update existing tools
(e.g., the ASFPM flood tool that is under development for Toledo at
http://floodatlas.org/toledo/) to include cost and benefit information. (Project
6)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 38 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Long-Term Collaborate across departments to coordinate collection of data on the costs
Needs and benefits of green infrastructure. For example, work with the financial
(continued) departments to establish an easy tracking and reporting protocol to collect
data related to costs and savings of implemented green infrastructure
projects. (Project 6)
Challenge Municipalities need cost-benefit information to communicate the value of
green infrastructure.
Observations Practitioners need to be able to evaluate and discuss the costs and
from the Local benefits of green infrastructure with citizens, elected officials, and
Level colleagues. Increasing the capability and fluency with which practitioners
can both assess the costs and the benefits of green infrastructure, and
present the findings of those assessments clearly and compellingly to others
will facilitate more serious dialogue about green infrastructure options.
(Project 6)
Potential Share existing information about how natural systems can be cost
Near-Term effective and efficient methods of stormwater control and flood
Solutions mitigation (e.g., through videos or other readily accessible modes of
communication). (Project 6)
Present cost statistics in formats that can be shared with colleagues,
elected officials, and the public. Develop communication materials that
can be used in conversations with different audiences (e.g., use common
terminology to help nontechnical stakeholders better understand the value
of green infrastructure). (Project 6)
As mentioned above, incorporate cost and benefit information into tools
(e.g., visualization tools) that can support project planning and assist in
communications with multiple audiences, such as the Connecticut Nonpoint
Education for Municipal Officials (CT NEMO) Rain Garden App; provide
information about the multiple ecosystem services provided by green
infrastructure, such as the U.S. Forest Service's i-Tree tool that estimates
ecosystem services from trees used for urban stormwater runoff control
that also provide local cooling services and habitat for species; provide
guidance on estimating the economic benefits of green infrastructure, such
as through technical assistance grants and services such as the technical
assistance provided to Lancaster, Pennsylvania). (Project 6)
Long-Term Share information about the current status and the actual costs and values
Needs of projects that were implemented 10 or 20 years ago. Show how benefits
and ROI have been realized. (Project 6)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 39 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
3.4. Implementation within Current Governance Structure
Existing priorities and regulatory requirements as well as political sensitivities can be
barriers to voluntarily incorporating climate change into planning and decision making. A shift
towards managing stormwater onsite or incorporating climate change projections into decision
making can be driven by available market solutions, residential demand (as both voters and
consumers), or by regulation (e.g., from a state or federal agency). In all cases, more proactive
interagency or interjurisdictional coordination may be necessary, and greater awareness and
acceptance by the public is conducive to achieving project success.
Challenge Novel and/or watershed-scale solutions may necessitate proactive
interagency or interjurisdictional coordination.
Observations As climate change adaptation becomes an increasing priority for federal
from the agencies, local governments need to understand how to engage those
Local Level agencies and leverage resources. An increasing number of federal agencies
are engaging in climate change adaptation programs as a result of EO 13653
(Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change). However,
local water resource managers still struggle to understand how to effectively
partner with federal agencies and who to turn to for assistance and advice.
Resources such as the Sustainable Facilities Tool help users understand
definitions and identify strategies and to put policy into action
(https://sftool.gov/learn/annotation/427/executive-order-13653-preparing-
united-states-impacts-climate-change). (Project 6)
Numerous agencies and regulatory schedules are involved in stormwater
management. It is difficult for municipalities to act strategically when they
are responding to a constant rotation of different (and sometimes
competing) reporting requirements (e.g., MS4 permits and others).
(Workshop 1)
Interagency or interjurisdictional coordination may be needed to secure
funds and support to implement novel and/or watershed-scale solutions.
Conflicting interests can make this kind of coordination difficult. For
example, roads and the associated rights-of-way comprise a large portion of
public lands, but transportation agencies often do not coordinate with local
jurisdictions to assess potential stormwater management impacts and
solutions for flooding caused by road surfaces. Green infrastructure
solutions could be prominently featured on land managed by transportation
agencies; however, such strategies must not impede efforts to ensure traffic
safety (a primary concern of departments of transportation). (Workshop 1)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 40 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Observations State or federal-level resources or requirements may not fully account for
from the more nuanced local-level observations and needs. For example, state or
Local Level federal resources to map floodplains often do not dive into detailed
(continued) granularity to account for site-specific contexts. (Workshop 1; Project 6)
Potential Seek schedule variances for some reporting requirements (e.g., MS4,
Near-Term others), as needed, within a given community. (Workshop 1)
Solutions
Engage the full suite of agencies and departments that affect or could be
affected by solutions to address changing climate conditions in stormwater
management. Consider involving, for example, FEMA, the Army Corps of
Engineers, Departments of Transportation, Parks and Recreation, and State
Departments of Ecology or Natural Resources. For example, the Silver
Jackets program brings together multiple federal, state, and tribal and local
agencies to collaboratively address flood risk (Silver Jackets, 2015).
(Workshop 1; Project 6)
Coordinate across agencies, particularly at the federal level, and encourage
a "no wrong door policy" (i.e., that data and information is shared across
web portals and resources are shared across agencies). Seven federal
agencies have come together with nongovernmental organizations and
private-sector entities to support the Green Infrastructure Collaborative, a
network to help communities more easily implement green infrastructure
(http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi partners.cfm).
(Workshop 1; Project 6)
Long-Term Use pilot projects or those with minimal barriers to explore collaboration
Needs among agencies. (Workshop 1; Project 6)
Request modifications to reporting requirements (e.g., MS4, others) so
that schedules are complimentary to efforts and the same/complimentary
goals are being targeted for different projects. (Workshop 1)
Coordinate and expand federal guidance and planning on incorporating
climate change projections into decision making around stormwater
management and removing local barriers. (Project 6)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 41 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Challenge Limited public support or awareness of the benefits and value of green
infrastructure, LID, or other climate change adaptation solutions.
Observations Interest and willingness to commit to addressing climate change or to even
from the discuss it varies among communities. In some communities, even
Local Level mentioning the terms "climate change" may shut down a discussion of
anticipated challenges and possible solutions. (Workshop 1)
Less well-known alternative stormwater management strategies may be
met with more resistance than known conventional strategies. More
information about the benefits and value of green infrastructure and a
public that is better educated on green infrastructure options help achieve
project success. (Workshop 1; Project 6)
Potential Adopt more stringent policies such as stormwater fees (similar to a policy
Near-Term recently adopted in Baltimore) and requirements for developers to manage
Solutions water onsite to the maximum extent feasible. Similarly, require developers
to make decisions informed by future climate, and local governments to
incorporate climate change into decision-making processes. (Workshop 1)
Developers can demonstrate attractive, cost-effective, marketable
solutions (e.g., see an EPA technical assistance report in which a developer
uses green infrastructure in Portland, OR (U.S. EPA, 2012). If the market
offers innovative stormwater solutions or climate resilient developments
that are attractive and effective, the public will more likely favor these best
available options. A developer-driven solution may be most effective in an
area that is rapidly changing. For instance, the recently developed Celebrate
Senior Center in Fredericksburg, Virginia, is using 65 bioretention areas and
15 water quality swales to treat 43 acres of manicured landscape. Stafford
County anticipates that this project will demonstrate that green
infrastructure solutions can offer amenities that increase the value of the
landscape while managing stormwater onsite (see Appendix B for additional
information). (Workshop 1; Project 6)
Showcase green infrastructure as adaptation to climate change by using
redevelopment projects as onsite demonstrations of ways to adapt to
climate change using LID, green streets, or environmental site design. Such
demonstrations will make these approaches highly visible to the public,
politicians, decision makers, and project partners. (Workshop 1)
Use educational projects in schools or at community centers as
opportunities to disseminate climate change information to the public.
(Workshop 1)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 42 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Potential Collaborate with community groups through activities such as tree planting
Near-Term or installing rain gardens that can be effective adaptation measures and
Solutions that require hands-on work by volunteers. (Workshop 1)
(continued) In all work with individuals and community groups, be sensitive to hot-
button topics that may distract from the purpose of the conversation and
the issues that the work intends to address. For example, if climate change
is a highly political issue, it may be useful to steer the conversation towards
observed and projected changes for specific endpoints of concern (e.g.,
changes in 25-year storm event or the intensity of brief downpours) or green
infrastructure's cobenefits to a community's livability and economic vitality.
Focusing on issues of vulnerability and future weather changes can help to
move discussions forward and avoid some of the potential barriers that arise
when using the term "climate change." (Workshop 1)
3.5. Conclusions
Despite uncertainties in how global climate change will be manifested locally and the
shortages in resources and information that local communities often experience, there are still
concrete steps stormwater managers can take to begin adaptation planning for climate change
impacts. The insights derived from the workshops in the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes
regions provide concrete ways that climate change practitioners and stormwater managers can
work together to advance adaptation planning. One way that was discussed across all of the
workshops was greater implementation of green infrastructure and low-impact development to
deal with anticipated changes in precipitation, stormwater runoff, and flood events. The
workshops demonstrated that providing local communities with opportunities to learn about
climate change, green infrastructure, and low impact development can be the catalyst for
shifting communities toward climate-adapted planning and implementation. A cycle begins
with increasing community members' knowledge and skills that leads directly to greater action
to address climate change, which continues beyond the workshops and projects themselves.
The suggested actions in this report provide communities with specific ideas to incorporate
climate change into current planning, enhance capacity to more effectively and completely
address climate change in the future, assess and effectively communicate costs and benefits of
green infrastructure to the larger community, and implement adaptation strategies within
current governance structures.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 43 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
4. REFERENCES
ASFPM (Association of State Floodplain Managers). (2013). Great Lakes coastal resilience
planning guide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes Restoration In.
Available at http://www.greatlakesresilience.org/.
Brown, C; Wilby, RL. (2012). An alternate approach to assessing climate risks. Eos Trans AGU
93(41):401-412. doi:10.1029/2012E0410001.
CWP (Center for Watershed Protection). (2013). 2013 stormwater management guidebook.
Contractor report, prepared for the Department of Energy and Environment,
Washington, DC. 336 pp. Available at http://ddoe.dc.gov/swguidebook .
ERG (Eastern Research Group). (2014). Economic assessment of green infrastructure strategies
for climate change adaptation: Pilot studies in the Great Lakes Region. Contractor report
to NOAA Coastal Services Center. 181 pp. Available at
http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/sites/default/files/files/publications/04062014/GLPil
ots Final 5-5-14v2.pdf.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). (2015). Help with preparedness planning for
extreme events, (website). Available at https://www.fema.gov/grants.
ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). (2014). ICLEI local governments
for sustainability website. Available at http://www.iclei.org.
ISC (Institute for Sustainable Communities). (2015) Sustainable Communities Leadership
Academy - Advancing local solutions. [Website]. Montpelier, VT: ISC. Available at
http://www.sustainablecommunitiesleadershipacademy.org/.
Melillo, JM; Richmond, TC; Yohe, GW; Eds. (2014) Climate change impacts in the United States:
The third national climate assessment. Washington, DC: National Climate Assessment,
U.S. Global Change Research Program, 841 pp. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2. Available at
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/.
Nakicenovic, N; Swart, R; Eds. (2000). IPCC special report on emissions scenarios. Working
Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 612 pp. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Najjar, RG; Pyke, CR; Adams, MB; Breitburg, D; Hershner, C; Kemp, M; Howarth, R; Mulholland,
M; Paolisso, M; Secor, D; Sellner, K; Wardrop, D; Wood, R. (2010). Potential climate
change impacts on the Chesapeake Bay. Estuar Coastal Shelf Sci 86(l):l-20.
NOAA (National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration). (2015a). NOAA digital coast website.
Available at http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 44 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
NOAA (National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration). (2015b). Stormwater runoff in coastal
watersheds: Predicting impacts of development and climate change. National Center for
Coastal Ocean Science. Available at
http://www.coastalscience.noaa.gov/proiects/detail?key=l.
Nelson, D; Elmer, H; Held, R; Casey, S; Forsyth, D. (2011). Laurentian Great Lakes Basin climate
change adaptation. NOAA Technical Memorandum 153. Ann Arbor, Ml: National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Great Lakes Environmental Research
Laboratory. Available at http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/ftp/publications/tech reports/glerl-
1537tm-153.pdf.
Nelson, D; Elmer, H; Robinson, P. (2013). Planning for climate change in the Laurentian Great
Lakes Basin - A NOAA needs assessment - Final report. NOAA Technical Memorandum
158. Ann Arbor, Ml: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Great Lakes
Environmental Research Laboratory. Available at
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/ftp/publications/tech reports/glerl-158/tm-158.pdf.
SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). (2011). Past and Projected Trends in
Climate and Sea Level for South Florida. Hydrologic and Environmental Systems
Modeling Technical Report. West Palm Beach, FL: South Florida Water Management
District, 149pp. Available at
http://mv.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd repository pdf/ccireport
publicationversion 14julll.pdf
Silver Jackets. (2015). Silver Jackets - many agencies, one solution, (website). Available at
http://silverjackets.nfrmp.us/.
U.S. ACE (Army Corps of Engineers). (2015). Technical assistance with hydrologic modeling,
(website). Available at http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2012). District-scale green infrastructure
scenarios for the Zidell Development Site, City of Portland. City of Portland, Bureau of
Environmental Services, Portland, OR. EPA/830/R-13/002. Available at
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/upload/Portland Zidell Report
.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2014a). National stormwater calculator.
Cincinnati OH: National Risk Management Research Laboratory. Available at
http://www2.epa.gov/water-research/national-stormwater-calculator.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2014b). National stormwater calculator user's
guide. (EPA/600/R-13/085c) Revised September 2014. Cincinnati, OH: National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, 75pp. Available at
http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P100LQB2.pdf.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 45 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2014c). Storm water management model
(SWMM). Model and user's guide. Cincinnati, OH: National Risk Management Research
Laboratory. Available at http://www2.epa.gov/water-research/storm-water-
management-model-swmm.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2014d). SWMM-CAT user's guide. (EPA/600/R-
14/428). Cincinnati, OH: National Risk Management Research Laboratory. 16pp.
Available at http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZvPDF.cgi/P100KY8L.PDF?Dockey=P100KY8L.PDF.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2015a). What is EPA doing to support green
infrastructure? Washington, DC: Office of Water, Green Infrastructure. Available at
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi support.cfm#TechnicalAssis
tance.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2015b). Greening America's capitals.
Washington, DC: Office of Sustainable Communities, Smart Growth. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/greencapitals.htm.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2015c). Building blocks for sustainable
communities. Washington, DC: Office of Sustainable Communities, Smart Growth.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/buildingblocks.htm.
Van Vuuren, DP; Edmonds, J; Kainuma, M; Riahi, K; Thomson, A; Hibbard, K;, Hurtt, GC; Kram, T;
Krey, V; Lamarque, J-F; Matsui, T; Meinshausen, M; Nakicenovic, N; Smith, SJ; Rose, SK.
(2011) The representative concentration pathways: An overview. Clim Change 109:5-31.
doi:10.1007/sl0584-011-0148-z.
YCPC (York County Planning Commission). (2014). York County regional Chesapeake Bay
pollutant reduction plan. June 2014 draft. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection. Available at http://yorkcity.org/user-
files/file/Citv%20Council/BillsResolutions/2014Resolutions/DraftRegional-CBPRP-June-
2014.pdf.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 46 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Resources Identified in This Report
This listing is not intended to be comprehensive; rather it provides a quick reference for
the links listed throughout the report as examples of available resources. It is thus organized
according to the sections of the report where the links appear.
Resource
Description
Link
Efforts Already Underway to Address Climate Change
EPA's National
Stormwater Calculator
(SWC)
Stormwater tool that estimates runoff based
on historical weather and future climate
http://www2.epa.gov/wate
r-research/national-
stormwater-calculator
EPA's Storm Water
Management Model and
Climate Adjustment Tool
(SWMM-CAT)
Stormwater tool that can process regional
downscaled climate projections
http://www2.epa.gov/wate
r-research/storm-water-
management-model-swmm
EPA's Climate Resilience
Evaluation & Awareness
Tool (CREAT)
Tool that assists drinking water and
wastewater utility owners and operators in
understanding potential climate change
threats and risks to their individual utilities,
and aids in evaluating various adaptation
options
http://water.epa.gov/infras
tructure/watersecuritv/clim
ate/creat.cfm
NOAA's Stormwater
Runoff Modeling
(SWARM) system
Stormwater tool that quantifies runoff using
climate change and development scenarios
http://www.coastalscience.
noaa.gov/proiects/deta il?ke
Y5l
EPA Technical
Assistance for Green
Infrastructure
The EPA Office of Water provides technical
assistance to support green infrastructure in
communities
http://water.epa.gov/infras
tructure/greeninfrastructur
e/gi support.cfm#Technical
Assistance
Greening of America's
Capitals (GAC) and
Building Blocks for
The EPA Office of Sustainable Communities
offers green infrastructure technical
assistance through the GAC and Building
Blocks for Sustainable Communities programs
http://www.epa.gov/smart
growth/greencapitals.htm
and
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 47 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Resource
Description
Link
Sustainable
Communities
http://www.epa.gov/smart
growth/build ingblocks.htm
Incorporating Climate Change into Planning
Climate change data often are not available at the desired geographic and/or temporal scale and may
not inform on the endpoints of greatest concern to decision makers.
NOAA's National
Climatic Data Center
Resource for historical climate information
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov
/cdo-web/
Incorporating Climate Change into Planning
EPA's National
Stormwater Calculator
(SWC)
Stormwater tool that estimates runoff based
on historical weather and future climate
http://www2.epa.gov/wate
r-research/national-
stormwater-calculator
EPA's Storm Water
Management Model and
Climate Adjustment Tool
(SWMM-CAT)
Stormwater tool that can process regional
downscaled climate projections
http://www2.epa.gov/wate
r-research/storm-water-
management-model-swmm
An Alternate Approach
to Assessing Climate
Risks
Discussion of alternatives to precise
downscaled projections (e.g., analogue storm
events, proximities to thresholds, system
sensitivities to weather patterns).
http://www.va lue-
cost.eu/sites/default/files/B
rownWilbv2012E0410001 r
ga.pdf
IPCC's Climate Change
2001: Working Group II:
Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability
Section 3.5 (Climate Scenarios) provides
information on analog approaches and other
methods for utilizing historical and projected
climate data
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccre
ports/tar/wg2/
Global Change Explorer
Web application for visualizing and
downloading climate model output
http://globalchange.epa.go
V
Great Lakes Integrated
Sciences + Assessments
(GLISA)
Resource that provides historical and future
climate trend lines
http://glisa.umich.edu/reso
urces
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 48 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Resource
Description
Link
EPA's Impervious
Surface Growth Model
(ISGM)
Land use model to help understand the
maximum likely development in a region and
potential needs associated with projected
increases in impervious surfaces
http://www2.epa.gov/smar
t-growth/impervious-
surface-growth-model
EPA's Integrated Climate
and Land Use Scenarios
(ICLUS)
Resource to help integrate land use to address
climate change impacts on stormwater
management
http://www.epa.gov/global-
adaptation/iclus/index.html
Projections of future climate change and land use change are uncertain
FEMA Public Assistance:
Preliminary Damage
Assessment
Federal assistance with damage assessments
https://www.fema.gov/pub
lic-assistance-preliminarv-
da mage-assessment
FEMA Hydrologic
Engineering Center
Provides hydrologic technical assistance,
training, and resources to communities
http://www.hec.usace.armv
.mil/
FEMA preparedness
grants
Helps with preparedness planning for extreme
events
https://www.fema.gov/gra
nts
South Florida Water
Management District's
Past and Projected
Trends in Climate and
Sea Level for South
Florida
Regional climate and sea level rise scenarios
produced for south Florida counties and
municipalities
http:// mv.sfwmd .gov/porta
l/page/portal/xrepositorv/sf
wmd repository pdf/ccirep
ort publicationversion 14iu
lll.pdf
Communication, Coordination, and Education
Wisconsin's Changing
Climate: Impacts and
Adaptation
Manual for adaptation strategies
http://www.wicci.wisc.edu/
publications.php
Great Lakes Adaptation
Assessment for Cities
(GLAA-C)
Peer-to-peer network that connects
communities at varying stages of
implementation
http://graham.umich.edu/gl
aac
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 49 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Resource
Description
Link
Urban Sustainability
Directors Network
(USDN)
Peer-to-peer network that connects
communities at varying stages of
implementation
http://usdn.org/home.html
American Society of
Adaptation
Professionals (ASAP)
Peer-to-peer network that connects
communities at varying stages of
implementation
https://adaptationprofessio
nals.org/
Great Lakes Saint
Lawrence Cities
Initiative
Peer-to-peer network that connects
communities at varying stages of
implementation
http://www.glslcities.org/
Great Lakes Coastal
Resilience Planning
Guide
Planning guide that filled some of the data
needs identified during the Great Lakes
workshops
http://www.greatlakesresili
ence.org/
Building Local Capacity
Stormwater managers, engineers, and contractors may have limited experience or expertise with
relatively newer solutions such as green infrastructure.
EPA Green
Infrastructure webcast
series
Training on green infrastructure
http://water.epa.gov/infras
tructure/greeninfrastructur
e/gi training.cfm
Montgomery County,
Maryland's RainScapes
program
Example of a publicized list of certified green
infrastructure contractors and engineers to
help connect experienced professionals with
potential projects that could benefit from
alternative design solutions
http://www.montgomervco
untvmd.gov/DEP/water/rai
nscapes.html
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 50 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Resource
Description
Link
Building Local Capacity
City of Seattle's citywide
model ordinance
Example of a model ordinance for stormwater
management using green infrastructure
http://www.sustainablecitie
sinstitute.org/topics/water-
and-green-
infrastructure/stormwater-
management/model-
ordinance-for-establishing-
citvwide-green-stormwater-
infra structure
Competing priorities (e.g., attracting development to a local area) are a barrier to establishing
stringent local policies that benefit stormwater management.
EPA factsheet:
Stormwater
Factsheet that discusses how green
infrastructure can be integrated into
stormwater permits
http://water.epa.gov/infras
tructure/greeninfrastructur
e/upload/EPA-Green-
lnfrastructure-Factsheet-4-
061212-PJ.pdf
Planning, construction, and management of a geographically dispersed network of green
infrastructure may require a different management approach than that used for conventional systems.
EPA's Getting to Green:
Paying for Green
Infrastructure-
Financing Options and
Resources for Local
Decision Makers
Guide with examples of green infrastructure
incentives, such as Washington, DC's
Stormwater Management stormwater
retention credit program
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2015-
02/documents/gi financing
options 12-2014 4.pdf
Watersheds are not confined to political boundaries.
York County Coalition 4
Clean Waters (YCC4CW)
Example of group in Pennsylvania able to take
a regional approach to stormwater
management.
http://watershedalliance.tri
pod.com/vcc4cw.html
Identifying and Communicating Costs and Benefits of Green Infrastructure
Municipalities need improved access to economic information on costs and benefits to support
decisions regarding the use of green infrastructure
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 51 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Resource
Description
Link
EPA's Stormwater to
Street Trees-
Engineering Urban
Forests for Stormwater
Management
Guidance on urban forestry for stormwater
management, including an example of how
the State of Indiana Department of Natural
Resources conducted a statewide street tree
benefit study
http://water.epa.gov/polwa
ste/green/upload/stormwat
er2streettrees.pdf
Identifying and Communicating Costs and Benefits of Green Infrastructure
Green Streets, Green
Jobs, Green Towns
Initiative
Collaboration among EPA Region 3,
Chesapeake Bay Trust, Maryland Department
of Natural Resources, and others that provides
a network and resources for integrating green
infrastructure to streets
http://g3partnership.org/
Center for
Neighborhood
Technology's Green
Values National
Stormwater
Management Calculator
Tool to assist with quantifying costs and
benefits of green infrastructure
http://greenvalues.cnt.org/
national/calculator.php
Center for
Neighborhood
Technology's The Value
of Green Infrastructure
Guide to assist with quantifying costs and
benefits of green infrastructure
http://www.cnt.org/reposit
orv/gi-va lues-guide.pdf
ASFPM flood tool for
Toledo
Example of an existing tool that has been
updated to include cost and benefit
information
http://floodatlas.org/toledo
L
Municipalities need resources to help them articulate the costs and benefits of green infrastructure.
CT NEMO Rain Garden
App
Example of a visualization tool that can
support project planning
http://nemo.uconn.edu/too
Is/a pp/ra ingarden.htm
U.S. Forest Service's i-
Tree tool
Tool with information about the ecosystem
services provided by trees for urban
stormwater management
https://www.itreetools.org/
applications.php
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 52 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Resource
Description
Link
EPA's The Economic
Benefits of Green
Infrastructure: A Case
Study of Lancaster, PA
Resource on the economic benefits of green
infrastructure
http://water.epa.gov/infras
tructure/greeninfrastructur
e/upload/CNT-Lancaster-
Report-508.pdf
Implementation within Current Governance Structure
Novel and/or watershed-scale solutions may necessitate proactive interagency or interjurisdictional
coordination.
Sustainable Facilities
tool
Tool to help users identify strategies to put
policy into action
https://sftool.gov/learn/an
notation/427/executive-
order-13653-preparing-
united-states-impacts-
climate-change
Implementation within Current Governance Structure
Silver Jackets program
Program that brings together multiple federal,
state, and tribal and local agencies to
collaboratively address flood risk
http://www.nfrmp.us/state
L
Green Infrastructure
Collaborative
Network to help communities more easily
implement green infrastructure
http://water.epa.gov/infras
tructure/greeninfrastructur
e/gi partners.cfm
Limited public support or awareness of the benefits and value of green infrastructure, LID, or other
climate change adaptation solutions.
District-Scale Green
Infrastructure Scenarios
for the Zidell
Development Site, City
of Portland
Example of a developer using green
infrastructure in Portland, OR
http://water.epa.gov/infras
tructure/greeninfrastructur
e/upload/Portland Zidell R
eport.pdf
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 53 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Appendix B: Project Teams and Participants
B.l. Stormwater Responses e and Climate Change in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed (Workshops)
B.l.l. For More Information
Contact Susan Julius, U.S. EPA, Julius.Susan&ieoa.aov. 703-347-8619
B.1.2. Acknowledgements
Numerous people graciously agreed to speak with the project team regarding the
selection of counties and plans for the workshops. We thank the following people, in particular,
for their time and thoughts.
¦ Uri Avin, University of Maryland ¦
¦ Kristen Baja, City of Baltimore
¦ Rishi Baral, Stafford County ¦
¦ Peter Claggett, United State Geological ¦
Survey (USGS) ¦
¦ Felicia Dell, York County
¦ Justin Evans, Penn Township ¦
¦ Mary Gattis-Schell, Chesapeake Bay
Local Government Advisory Council ¦
(LGAC)
¦ Andy Gavin, Susquehanna River Basin
Commission
¦ Norm Goulet, Northern Virginia Regional
Commission
¦ Marcus Griswold, University of
Maryland Center for Environmental
Science
¦ Steve Hubble, Stafford County
¦ Thomas Johnson, EPA Office of Research
and Development
¦ Zoe Johnson, Maryland Department of
Natural Resources
¦ Charlotte Katzenmoyer, City of
Lancaster
¦ Rick Keister, Alliance for the Bay
¦ Gerrit Knapp, University of Maryland
¦ David Kratzer, Penn Township
¦ Pam Mason, Virginia Institute of Marine
Science
¦ Raymond Najjar, Penn State University
This document is a draft for review purposes only
9/1/2015 54
Jennifer Orr, Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection
Gary Peacock, York County
Lucinda Power, U.S. EPA
Molly Roggero, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science
David Sample, Virginia Institute of
Technology
Pam Shellenberger, York County
Beth Strom men, City of Baltimore
and does not constitute Agency policy.
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
B.2. Preparing Stormwater Systems for Climate Change—A Workshop for
Lake Erie Basin Communiti v •
B.2.1. For More Information
http://graham.umich.edu/climate/workshops
B.2.2. Acknowledgments
¦ Michigan Sea Grant (workshop sponsorj ¦ Old Woman Creek NERR
¦ GLAA-C ' Ohio Sea Grant
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 55 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
B.3. Planning for Climate Change in the Great Lakes Reg is
Assessment and Workshops)
B.3.1. For More Information
http://nerrs.noaa.gov/CTPIndex.aspx?ID=663
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/brochures/GLRI climate.pdf
B.3.2.
Cleveland, OH Workshop Planning
Team:
Heather Elmer (co-chair), Old Woman
Creek NERR—Ohio DNR Division of
Wildlife
Brad Chase (co-chair), Green City Blue
Lake Institute—Cleveland Museum of
Natural History
Yetty Alley, Ohio Coastal Management
Program—Ohio DNR Office of Coastal
Management
Anne Baird, Ohio State University
Extension Climate Team—Great Lakes
Regional Water Program
Dan Bogoevski, Ohio EPA—Northeast
Ohio Storm water Training Council
Amy Brennan, Chagrin River Watershed
Partners
Kirby Date, Ohio Planning Conference
Northeast Chapter
Michael Davidson, ICLEI Local
Governments for Sustainability USA
Stephanie Fauver, NOAA Coastal
Services Center
Linda Feix, Friends of Old Woman Creek
Cathi Lehn, Cleveland Museum of
Natural History
Frank Lichtkoppler, Ohio Sea Grant
College Program
Jill Lis, Cuyahoga County Board of Health
John McLeod, Cuyahoga County Board
of Health
Doug McMillan, City of Oberlin
Acknowledgments
Anand Natarajan, City of Cleveland
Mayor's Office of Sustainability
Dawn Nelson, University of Michigan
School of Environment and Natural
Resources
Kellie Rotunno, Northeast Ohio Regional
Sewer District
Leslie Sadowski, Old Woman Creek
NERR—Ohio DNR Division of Wildlife
Gwen Shaughnessy, NOAA Coastal
Services Center
Daila Shimek, Cleveland State
University—Great Lakes Environmental
Finance Center
Bill Stanley, The Nature Conservancy
Green Bay, WI Workshop Planning
Team:
Patrick Robinson (chair), University of
Wisconsin-Extension
Tashya Allen, NOAA Coastal Services
Center
Elaine Andrews, University of Wisconsin
Environmental Resources Center
Lori Cary-Kothera, NOAA Coastal
Services Center
Chad Cook, University of Wisconsin-
Extension
Mary Culver, NOAA Coastal Services
Center
Lisa Evenson, Green Bay Metropolitan
Sewerage District
Stephanie Fauver, NOAA Coastal
Services Center
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015
56
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
¦ Mike Friis, Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program
¦ Kim Hall, The Nature Conservancy
¦ Bud Harris, University of Wisconsin-
Green Bay
¦ Vicky Harris, University of Wisconsin Sea
Grant Institute
¦ Katie Kahl, The Nature Conservancy
¦ Sally Kefer, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
¦ David Liebl, University of Wisconsin-
Extension
¦ Paul Linzmeyer, New North and
Sustainable Green Bay
¦ Vicki Medland, University of Wisconsin-
Green Bay
¦ Jay Mohnihan, University of Wisconsin-
Extension
¦ Angela Pierce, Bay-Lake Regional
Planning Commission
¦ Becky Sapper, University of Wisconsin-
Extension
Duluth, MN Workshop Planning Team:
¦ Patrick Robinson (co-chair), University of
Wisconsin-Extension
¦ Becky Sapper (co-chair), University of
Wisconsin-Extension
¦ Elaine Andrews, University of Wisconsin
Environmental Resources Center
¦ Peter Ciborowski, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
¦ Gene Clark, University of Wisconsin Sea
Grant Institute
¦ Pat Collins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
¦ Mary Culver, NOAA Coastal Services
Center
¦ Stephanie Fauver, NOAA Coastal
Services Center
¦ Ralph Garono, Lake Superior NERR
¦ Rick Gitar, Fond du Lac Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa Office of Water
Protection
¦ Kim Hall, The Nature Conservancy
¦ Lynelle Hanson, University of Wisconsin-
Extension
¦ Lucinda Johnson, University of
Minnesota-Duluth
¦ Katie Kahl, The Nature Conservancy
¦ David Liebl, University of Wisconsin-
Extension
¦ Bruce Lindgren, Lake Superior Binational
Forum
¦ Monica Magari, National Park Service
¦ Nate Meyer, University of Minnesota
Extension
¦ Sue O'Halloran, Lake Superior NERR
¦ Travis Olson, Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program
¦ Jesse Schomberg, Minnesota Sea Grant
¦ Cathy Techtmann, University of
Wisconsin-Extension
¦ Amber Westerbur, Minnesota Coastal
Program
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 57 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
B.4. Supporting Climate and Coastal Resilience Plaii.iil.iig in the Western Lake
Erie Basin (Workshop)
B.4.1. For More Information
http://graham.umich.edu/climate/workshops
B.4.2.
Beatrice Miringu, Patekka Pope
Bannister, Shawna Callaghan, Eileen
Mitchell, Regina Collings, City of Toledo
Melissa Greene, Mike Melnyk, Lucas Soil
& Water Conservation District
Heather Elmer, formerly Old Woman
Creek NERR, Ohio Department of
Natural Resources Division of Wildlife
now Chagrin River Watershed Partners,
Inc.
Patrick Robinson, University of
Wisconsin Environmental Resources
Center
Lori Cary-Kothera, Tashya Allen, Nancy
Cofer-Shabica, Heather Stirratt, Brent
Schleck, NOAA Coastal Services Center
Jeff Stone, Association of State
Floodplain Managers
Jim Schwab, American Planning
Association
Acknowledgements
Bob Frietag, University of Washington
Ted Koch, National States Geographic
Information Council
Mike Friis, Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program
Roger Gauthier, Restore Our Water
International
Christina Dierkes, Ohio Sea Grant
Molly Woloszyn, Midwest Regional
Climate Center
Brenda Culler, Yetty Alley, ODNR Office
of Coastal Management
James Cole, Katie Kahl, Rachael Franks-
Taylor, The Nature Conservancy
Katie Rousseau, American Rivers
Elizabeth Gibbons, (GLAA-C), University
of Michigan
Laura Holladay, Michigan Sea
Grant/Great Lakes Integrated Sciences
and Assessment Center
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 58 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
B.5. Evaluating Stormwater Solutions for Ohio Collaborative Research. Project
B.5.1. For More Information
http://nerrs.noaa.gov/NSCIndex.aspx?ID=690
B.5.2. Ac
Project Coordinator and Fiscal Agent:
¦ Amy H. Brennan, formerly of Chagrin
River Watershed Partners, Inc.
¦ Keely Davidson-Bennett, Chagrin River
Watershed Partners, Inc.
Collaboration Leads:
¦ Heather Elmer, formerly Old Woman
Creek NERR, Ohio Department of
Natural Resources Division of Wildlife
now Chagrin River Watershed Partners,
Inc.
¦ Ona Ferguson, Consensus Building
Institute providing technical assistance
Applied Science Investigator:
¦ Jay D. Dorsey, ODNR, Division of Soil and
Water Conservation
Additional project team members:
¦ Breann M. Hohman and Crystal
Dymond, Erie Soil and Water
Conservation District
¦ Frank Lopez and Cheryl Wolfe-Cragin,
Old Woman Creek NERR, ODNR Division
of Wildlife
¦ Ryan Winston, North Carolina State
University
¦ Bill Hunt, North Carolina State
University
¦ University of New Hampshire TIDES
Interns
¦ Will Brown, University of New
Hampshire
¦ Rebecca Jacobson, University of New
Hampshire
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 59 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
B.6. Economic Assessment of Green. Infrastructure Strategies for Climate
;essment)
B.6.1. For More Information
http://coast.noaa.gov/cl igitalcoast/publications/climate-change-adaptation-pilot
B.6.2. Project Team
Jeffery Adkins, NOAA's Coastal Service
Center
Lori Cary-Kothera, NOAA's Coastal
Service Center
Nancy Cofer-Shabica, NOAA's Coastal
Service Center
Tashya Allen, NOAA's Coastal Service
Center
Brandon Krumwiede, NOAA's Coastal
Service Center
Gabe Sataloff, NOAA's Coastal Service
Center
Arleen O'Donnell, Eastern Research
Group, Inc.
Ellie Codding, Eastern Research Group,
Inc.
Lauren Scott, Eastern Research Group,
Inc.
Tess Forsell, Eastern Research Group,
Inc.
Nate Kelly, Horsley Witten Group, Inc.
Kathleen McAllister, Horsley Witten
Group, Inc.
Kristin Gilroy, USACE Institute of Water
Resources
Vince Moody, USACE Institute of Water
Resources
Jeff Stone, Association of State
Floodplain Managers (ASFPM)
B.6.3.
¦ Patekka Pope Bannister, City of Toledo
¦ Shawna Callaghan, City of Toledo
¦ Chuck Campbell, City of Toledo
¦ Scott Sibley, City of Toledo
¦ Kelly DeBruyn, City of Toledo
¦ Katie Rousseau, American Rivers
¦ Chris Kleist, City of Duluth
¦ Tom Johnson, City of Duluth
¦ Judy Gibbs, City of Duluth
¦ Amy Godsell, City of Duluth
¦ Steven Robertson, City of Duluth
¦ Hilarie Sorensen, Minnesota Sea Grant
¦ BrentSchleck, Minnesota Sea Grant
¦ Jesse Schomberg, Minnesota Sea Grant
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 60 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
B.7. 1 eat Lakes Adaptation Assessment for Cities 1 " • .• kshops)
B.7.1. For More Information
http://graham.umich.edu/glaac
B.7.2. Acknowledgements
City of Saint Paul Workshop: City of Ann Arbor Workshop:
¦ Anne Hunt, City of Saint Paul
Environmental Policy Director
¦ Pa Vang, City of Saint Paul, Policy
Associate
City of Minneapolis Workshop:
¦ Brendan Slotterbock, City of
Minneapolis, Sustainability Program
Coordinator
¦ Gayle Prest, City of Minneapolis
Sustainability Director
¦ Matthew Naud, City of Ann Arbor
Environmental Coordinator
¦ Jamie Kidwell-Brix, City of Ann Arbor
Sustainability Associate
¦ Rebecca Esselman, Huron River
Watershed Council Watershed
Planner
¦ Melissa Stults, University of
Michigan Dow Sustainability Fellow
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 61 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
B.8. Forwarding Adaptation in the Great Lakes Region (Workshop)
B.8.1. For More Information
http://sustainabilitv.umich.edu/events/forwarding-adaptation-great-lakes-region
B.8.2. Acknowledgements
This conference was made possible through the collaborative efforts of the planning
team and resource experts:
Resource Experts:
¦ Andy Hoffman, University of
Michigan
¦ Mayor George Heartwell, City of
Grand Rapids
¦ Matt Naud, City of Ann Arbor
¦ Nicola Crawhall, Great Lakes St.
Lawrence Cities Initiative
¦ Mark Haggerty, Headwaters
Economics
¦ Dan Brown, Great Lakes Integrated
Sciences and Assessments Center
¦ Stephanie Smith, City of
Flagstaff/Western Adaptation
Alliance
¦ Brendon Slotterback, City of
Minneapolis
¦ David MacLeod, City of Toronto
¦ Steve Adams, Institute for
Sustainable Communities
¦ Mike Crowley, Institute for
Sustainable Communities
¦ Elizabeth Gibbons University of
Michigan Climate Center
¦ Missy Stults, University of Michigan
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 62 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Appendix C: Novel Adaptation Approaches: Green Infrastructure and
Low-Impact Development
Many efforts are underway to explore the potential for alternative stormwater
management solutions to help communities adapt to a changing climate. Historically,
stormwater infrastructure was designed to move
rainwater offsite quickly. This type of development
created hardened riverbanks and disconnected the rivers
and streams from the floodplain, interrupting the natural
flows. While this hardened approach usually protects
developments, there is little room for error, resiliency, or
adaptation to accommodate shifts in storm patterns.
Existing systems may
already be
underperforming or
undersized. Increased demands from growth in
surrounding areas place additional pressure on existing
systems and can lead to costly upgrades.
Figure 3. Permeable pavements
reduce runoff. Source: EPA
Figure 4. Street planters collect
and absorb runoff. Source: EPA
Green infrastructure, such as rain gardens that
collect and absorb runoff from rooftops, sidewalks, and
streets, and Low Impact Development (LID) are two closely
related (and sometimes overlapping) development approaches that are gaining attention as
potential strategies for managing stormwater under changing climate conditions. Green
infrastructure refers to systems and practices that utilize or mimic natural processes to manage
stormwater onsite throughout art area. LID refers to a specific type of construction that seeks
to minimize development impacts on nature and water resources. These stormwater
management options can improve resiliency to changing stormwater conditions by increasing
the flexibility and capacity of drainage. The options also provide broader benefits to
communities, including reduced energy use, recharged aquifers, and cleaner air and water.
Forms of green infrastructure and LID include green roofs, green spaces, rain barrels,
bioretention areas, bioswales, permeable pavements (see Figure 3), and street planters (see
Figure 4).
Green infrastructure and LID are being implemented across the country. The EPA's
Office of Water (OW) provides technical assistance to support green infrastructure in
communities (U.S. EPA, 2015a). For example, OW's Green Infrastructure program evaluated
local codes and ordinances for Dallas, TX, and provided them guidance that identified barriers
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 63 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
and presented opportunities for using green infrastructure in Dallas. The EPA Office of
Sustainable Communities also offers green infrastructure technical assistance through the
Greening of America's Capitals (GAC) program (U.S. EPA, 2015b) and the Building Blocks for
Sustainable Communities program (U.S. EPA, 2015c). Stafford County, Virginia, implemented
ordinances and stormwater management guidelines to encourage LID and developed
bioretention areas throughout the county (e.g., in parking lot islands and edges, a public school,
hospital, and residential area). The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority is designing
and constructing measures such as green roofs, rain gardens, rain barrels, and pervious
pavement. While these innovative practices are attractive as means to adapt to climate-driven
changes in precipitation, many communities are not considering them for many reasons.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
9/1/2015 64 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
------- |