DRAFT
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EPA/600/R-10/096A
June 2010
External Review Draft
wtrn
A Method to Assess Climate-Relevant Decisions:
Application in the Chesapeake Bay
THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT. 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 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It does not
represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency determination or policy.
Global Change Research Program
National Center for Environmental Assessment
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
NOTICE
June, 2010
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
DISCLAIMER
This document is an external draft for review purposes only. 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 the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency determination
or policy. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
Preferred Citation:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2010) A Method to Assess Climate-Relevant
Decisions: Application in the Chesapeake Bay. Global Change Research Program, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-08/XXX. Available from
the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, and online at
http://www.epa.gov/ncea.
June, 2010
l
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE iii
AUTHORS AM) REVIEWERS iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Overall Project Findings 1
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Chesapeake Bay Findings 4
3. BACKGROUND AM) STUDY OBJECTIVES 7
4. DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT METHOD AND RESULTS FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY
10
4.1 Key Decision attributes 11
4.2 Decision Inventory 16
4.3 Selection Process for Decisions 19
4.4 Detailed Selection on Decision Attributes 27
5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 39
5.1 Overall Project Findings and lessons learned 39
5.2 Chesapeake Bay Findings 46
5.3 Conclusions 48
6. REFERENCES 49
APPENDIX A 52
A. 1 Key Decision Attributes 52
A.2 Selection Criteria 52
A.3 Prioritization Criteria 55
APPENDIX B 65
APPENDIX C 104
APPENDIX D 126
June, 2010
11
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
PREFACE
The goals of EPA's Global Change Research Program (GCRP) are to assess the potential effects of
climate change on water quality, air quality, ecosystem health, and human health, and to provide decision
makers with information and tools that enable them to incorporate considerations of climate change into
their decision making processes. The emphasis on information and tools useful for decision making
requires that assessments be conducted differently than simply defining the problem, collecting and
analyzing data, and turning the results over to decision makers. Assessments must be approached through
a process of interacting with stakeholders to define important questions, objectives, and endpoints of
interest. This process is key to conducting ecological risk assessments and needs to become integral to
climate change assessments. The GCRP therefore emphasizes the need to understand the decision context
first in order to produce decision-relevant information.
One limitation to this approach is the lack of empirical data about the characteristics, importance, and
prevalence of decisions for which climatic changes are relevant. To address this information gap, the
GCRP developed an approach for cataloguing and analyzing decisions that will be affected by climate
change and tested this approach in a pilot study. This pilot study uses a regional program - the
Chesapeake Bay Program -to identify a set of decisions that are affected by climate change and to
provide information about their social, economic, and environmental attributes. The Chesapeake Bay
Program's water quality and aquatic ecosystem management decisions are the primary means of restoring
the health of the Bay. The scope of the pilot was limited to these management decisions to maintain a
reasonably sized subset of decisions and because they align with the GCRP's mission. Other issues such
as safe and adequate water supply are also important decisions to consider but are not a part of this pilot.
The intent of this report is two-fold: provide insights on the general approach to inventorying and
evaluating decisions and its applicability to other national programs, and provide specific information on
the Chesapeake Bay Program decisions and their relative sensitivity to climatic changes. The next phase
of this project will be to test this approach using data on larger, national-scale programs and their
decisions.
Susan Julius
Britta Bierwagen
Global Change Research Program, NCEA/ORD/EPA
June, 2010
ill
-------
1 AUTHORS AND REVIEWERS
2 The National Center for Environmental Assessment's Global Change Research Program
3 within the Office of Research and Development is responsible for publishing this report. We
4 would like to acknowledge the following people for their contributions through writing or
5 reviewing this report:
6
7 AUTHORS
8 Susan Julius, EPA
9 Britta Bierwagen, EPA
10 Chris Pyke, U.S. Green Building Council
11 J. Randall Freed, ICF
12 Susan Asam, ICF
13
14 REVIEWERS
15 Internal Review and Peer Consultation
16 Lewis Linker, EPA
17 John Thomas, EPA
18 Chris Weaver, EPA
19 Karen Metchis, EPA
20 Carl Hershner, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences
21 Marc Landy, Boston College
22 Arnold Vedlitz, Texas A&M University
23
24 External Panel Review
25 TBD
June, 2010
iv
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors appreciate the insights and contributions of the following people on the
analytic framework for assessing opportunities for decision support:
• Fran Sussman, ICF International
• Arnold Vedlitz, Texas A&M University
• Sammy Zahran, Texas A&M University
• David Purkey, Stockholm Environmental Institute
• Christopher Durney, The Ambit Group
We would also like to thank the following people for their valuable comments and
feedback on the detailed decision attributes that were addressed in the expert review phase of this
project:
Mary Beth Adams, US Forest Service
Stan Allen, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Arthur J. Butt, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Nancy Butowski, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Ted Graham, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Kirk Havens, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences
Carl Hershner, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences
John Horn, US Forest Service, Northern Global Change Program
Ron Korcak, USD A
Venkatram Mahendraker, GE Water & Process Technologies
R. P. Morgan II, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Appalachian
Laboratory
Fredrika C. Moser, Maryland Sea Grant
Mike Naylor, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
June, 2010
v
-------
1 • Vikram M Pattarkine, At-Large Member, STAC, Chesapeake Bay Program
2 • Clifford W. Randall, Virginia Tech
3 • Dave Secor, UMCES-CBL
4 • Jeff Skousen, West Virginia University
5 • Don Weller, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
6 • John Young, USGS, Leetown Science Center
7
June, 2010
vi
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: OVERALL PROJECT FINDINGS
Climate change is a global phenomenon that is affecting natural and human systems in all
parts of the world. Some of the decisions and actions taken to manage these systems are likely to
be affected by climate change and may likewise affect the vulnerability of the managed resource
or ecosystem to climate change. Maintaining or improving the health of resources, as articulated
in many management goals, means maximizing the effectiveness of existing management
practices. Maximizing effectiveness of practices will not only include understanding the
magnitude of potential impacts, but also understanding the effects of climate change on specific
practices and their performance.
The goal of this study is to formalize an approach to inventory and analyze management
decisions in order to produce useful information targeted toward effective adaptation to climate
change. The approach uses as its starting point ongoing planning processes and decisions geared
toward achieving environmental management goals, and then collects information on decisions
and prioritizes them according to specific attributes. The pilot study described in this report
applies this approach and examines its usefulness to decision makers.
We began by: (1) selecting a study area and compiling a list of key decisions; (2)
developing criteria for evaluating the climate-relevance of decisions; (3) applying the criteria to
select decisions that are potentially sensitive to climate change; (4) soliciting expert judgment
regarding those selections (and refine the selections accordingly); and (5) testing alternative
weighting schemes for prioritizing decisions most in need of decision support or additional
research based on the selected attributes.
We selected the Chesapeake Bay as the subject area for the pilot study because decision
making occurs at several levels (e.g., state, multi-state, EPA, other federal agencies),
management is concerned with both water quality and aquatic ecosystem decisions, and
decisions that affect actions implemented on the ground are readily identifiable.
We undertook a literature review to identify characteristics of decisions (attributes) that
may be good candidates for decision support and guide the development and application of a
broad selection approach. Categories of attributes considered include characteristics of the
decision itself (e.g., how much of an effect does the decision have, is the decision a "one-off or
will it be revisited periodically), of the decision process (e.g., is the process open or closed, is it
June, 2010
1
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
flexible or rigid, does the process use detailed analyses), and of the constraints (e.g., laws,
regulations, budgets) influencing the decision making processes. For this study, the most
effective selection criteria to identify climate-relevant decisions came from the attribute category
characteristics of the decision itself. These criteria were climate adaptation potential (the
sensitivity of the system to climate stressors and the capacity of the practice to ameliorate the
impacts of climate change) and dimensions of timeliness (e.g., planning horizon, implementation
period, and project lifespan).
Further information gathering was undertaken to assess additional decision attributes that
would facilitate prioritization of decisions most in need of decision support or additional research
to effectively adapt practices to climate change impacts. As part of the prioritization process, we
used a form of expert elicitation to further refine the characterization of the decisions. Expert
elicitation was used because of the relative scarcity of data on the performance of best practices
for our selected attributes. Therefore our initial characterization of decisions required subsequent
judgment by practitioners about their plausibility. After differences were resolved in
characterization between our initial assessment and the expert elicitation process, we developed
several scenarios that tested alternative weighting schemes of the selected attributes (in effect,
weighting gives greater importance to some attributes over others).
The test of our theoretical approach using the Chesapeake Bay Program's environmental
management decisions revealed that in practice, this approach provides useful information on
adaptation measures for local decision makers and direction for fruitful research endeavors that
will further improve our provision of information. Results of this study are immediately useful to
decision makers by informing them on the degree to which management of ecosystems depends
on practices that are sensitive to climate change and whether their environmental goals are in
danger of not being met. It also gives decision makers some sense of the magnitude of effort
needed to address climate change effects in their plans. Decisions that were not selected using
broad criteria are generally ones that are not influenced by climate-related variables, are made
more frequently, or involve projects with a limited lifespan.
Results of this project highlight areas in need of further research, including: 1) refinement
of our understanding about which attributes of the decision are particularly sensitive to climate,
2) how the decision or the practice itself can be most effectively changed to address climate
change effects, and 3) decision attributes that carry data most critical for prioritizing decisions. It
June, 2010
2
-------
1 is also important to note that the scope of this framework approach included only the scientific
2 aspects of decision making. Additional work needs to be done on the input of non-scientific
3 stakeholders, who also play a key role in decision making. Moving forward, a key issue will be
4 determining whether this approach is generalizable (e.g., transferable to other places and
5 ecosystems, scalable to other organizational levels of decision making). We applied this
6 experimental approach specifically to the Chesapeake Bay to examine its usefulness as our first
7 step. The next step is to test its transferability and scalability either to other estuaries or other
8 national programs.
9
June, 2010
3
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Chesapeake Bay Findings
Climate change is a global phenomenon that is affecting natural and human systems in all
parts of the world. Some of the decisions and actions taken to manage these systems are likely to
be affected by climate change and may likewise affect the vulnerability of the managed resource
or ecosystem to climate change. Maintaining or improving the health of the Chesapeake Bay
means maximizing the effectiveness of existing management practices. This is usually pursued
by first examining the potential impacts of climate change on the Bay resources, but another key
piece of information that is necessary in order to maximize the effectiveness of management
practices is to develop a greater understanding of the effects of climate change on specific
practices and their performance.
A pilot study was initiated to test the usefulness of an approach we developed to
inventory and analyze management decisions in order to produce useful information targeted
toward effective adaptation to climate change. The first step in this approach was to inventory
ongoing planning processes and decisions geared toward achieving specific environmental
management goals. We selected the Chesapeake Bay as the subject area for the pilot study
because decision making occurs at several levels (e.g., state, multi-state, EPA, other federal
agencies), management is concerned with both water quality and aquatic ecosystem decisions,
and decisions that affect actions implemented on the ground are readily identifiable.
First we compiled a list of key decisions, which in the case of the Chesapeake Bay
Program, consisted of point source controls and non-point source best management practices
(BMPs) to achieve water quality programmatic goals and aquatic ecosystem management
decisions to achieve "living resources" programmatic goals. Then we used criteria developed
from the literature to evaluate whether climatic changes were relevant to any of the decisions. To
rigorously review our results, we employed experts to provide their judgment as to whether they
agreed with those decisions that were selected as potentially sensitive to climate change. Finally,
we tested alternative weighting schemes for prioritizing decisions most in need of decision
support or additional research based on the selected attributes.
Two selection criteria—climate adaptation potential (the sensitivity of the system to
climate stressors and the capacity of the practice to ameliorate the impacts of climate change)
and dimensions of timeliness (e.g., planning horizon, implementation period, and project
June, 2010
4
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
lifespan)—successfully narrowed the initial inventory of over 146 water quality and aquatic
ecosystem practices down to 32. Those practices that were eliminated were ones that are either
insensitive to climate change stressors and would have no effect on reducing potential climate
change impacts (such as management systems for poultry waste to reduce runoff), or have short
lifespans and therefore could be adjusted periodically to address changing climatic conditions
(such as grass-planted riparian buffer strips). The remaining 14 water quality decisions and 18
aquatic ecosystem protection decisions represent good opportunities for developing adaptation
strategies within the Chesapeake Bay. Further information gathering was undertaken to assess
two additional groupings of decision attributes for the 32 decisions. These were priority (the
resource is a high priority, or the expected benefit from the decision support system is high), and
information availability (information on the environmental and ecological functions of the
resource is extensive, or information regarding climate change's impacts on the
resource/management practice is extensive). The intent of selecting additional attributes was to
prioritize the remaining decisions to identify those most in need of decision support or additional
research to effectively adapt practices to climate change impacts.
Experts reviewed the results of the prioritization exercise, including characterization of
each practice according to the four groups of decision attributes. They agreed with the initial
scores in about 50 percent of cases. Of those scores with which experts disagreed, the vast
majority disagreed by only 1 point on the 5-point scale. In order to assess the sensitivity of the
final prioritization outcome to differences in initial versus experts' scores, three separate
scenarios were analyzed. These scenarios compared the use of: 1) all of the initial scores; 2) all
of the expert reviewers' suggested scores (where they disagreed with the initial scores); and 3) a
hybrid set of scores that selectively replaced the initial scores with the expert reviewers' scores
where their information was likely to be more comprehensive than that used to develop the initial
scores.
Two more scenarios were added to assess the sensitivity of the final scores and rankings
to changes in the weights of the four attribute categories. One scenario assigned an equal 25
percent weight to each category using the hybrid scenario, and another scenario assigned 50
percent weight to climate sensitivity, 20 percent to suitability, 20 percent to priority and 10
percent to information provided using the hybrid scenario.
June, 2010
5
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The water quality and ecosystem management practices that consistently ranked in the
top five across several scenarios that tested alternative weighting schemes of the selected
attributes (in effect, weighting gives greater importance to some attributes over others) include:
• Urban Stream Restoration
• Stormwater Management: Filtering Practices
• POTWs Standards for Discharge Permits
• Living shorelines
Of the ecosystem management practices, the following two — managing fishery harvest
levels and rebuilding oyster habitats using alternative substances — consistently ranked in the
top ten. Of the water quality management practices, urban stream restoration, stormwater
management—infiltration, and mixed open wetlands consistently ranked in the top ten.
Results of this study are immediately useful to decision makers by informing them on the
degree to which management of ecosystems depends on practices that are sensitive to climate
change and whether their environmental goals are in danger of not being met. It also gives
decision makers some sense of the magnitude of effort needed to address climate change effects
in their plans. An understanding of those water quality and aquatic ecosystem practices that are
the highest priority in terms of their sensitivity to climate change and their ability to be modified
to address climate effects gives managers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed a set of robust tools
for responding to climate change. Decision makers can review their management plans with the
purpose of targeting high priority practices to adjust them - spatially, temporally, and in terms of
the level and degree of the practice itself - to address the range of potential impacts anticipated
from climatic changes. Managers may also find useful to know those decisions that were
eliminated based on using broad criteria. Those practices were generally ones that are not
influenced by climate-related variables, are made more frequently, or involve projects with a
limited lifespan. Therefore, those practices are not necessary to review in management plans to
adjust for climate change, since they exhibit no properties that make their effectiveness
dependent on climatic changes.
June, 2010
6
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
3. BACKGROUND AND STUDY OBJECTIVES
Decision makers can take actions that ameliorate or exacerbate resource and ecosystem
vulnerability to climate change. Because current climate and ecosystem conditions are not
necessarily a reliable guide to future conditions, failing to consider climate change factors may
lead to management actions that compound climate impacts ("maladaptive" actions).
Alternatively, decision makers who act strategically to adapt their management actions to
anticipated climate change impacts may reduce the associated risks and increase their odds of
achieving long-term management goals. Therefore, it is essential that climate change scientists
provide the appropriate information to decision makers across the breadth of organizations,
levels of government, and public and private actors.
There has been a growing recognition that the usefulness and communication of climate
change science information to the decision making community needs to improve. One such call
was made in the Strategic Plan of the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP 2003). The CCSP
described the critical role of decision support in climate science and built into their Plan a
research area devoted to developing decision support resources. In addition to these decision
resources, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) called for the CCSP to "further develop its
decision support activities, making sure to meet the needs of local, regional, national, and
international decision makers" in their review of the CCSP Strategic Plan (NAS 2004). The NAS
repeated their recommendation for further decision support research in their 2005 report, calling
for federal agencies to support research focused on improving the tools and processes by which
environmental decisions are supported (NAS 2005). This general call recognized the need for
developing useful criteria to evaluate decisions and for developing and testing methods for
structuring decision processes. The IPCC (2007) further endorsed the need for useful decision
support, recommending research on decision processes and responses at various scales of
decision making.
In response to the growing need for decision support to address the impacts of climate
change, the Global Change Research Program within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
has been working in partnership with stakeholders to provide information and tools to programs,
managers, and other decision-makers to help them assess and respond to global change impacts
on water quality and aquatic ecosystems. Research and assessment activities are focused on four
areas: water infrastructure; ambient water quality; drinking water quality; and aquatic
June, 2010
7
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
ecosystems. A major goal is the development of adaptation strategies to increase the resilience of
water and watershed systems. Adaptation is defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) as an "adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected
climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities"
(IPCC 2007). In the context of our program, adaptation refers to deliberate management actions
taken to achieve and sustain water quality and ecosystem protection goals under present and
future climatic conditions.
As part of the GCRP's research plan, the program developed an experimental approach to
systematically and quantitatively identify and evaluate management activities that need to
address climate change. The underlying tenets of this approach are that many (or most) of the
adaptation measures that can be taken will be associated with ongoing decision-making
processes made in the context of existing institutions and environmental issues; that development
of information and tools are prerequisites for incorporating adaptation into existing decision
frameworks; and that it is essential to set priorities for identifying where such decision support
would be most useful. The approach in this study is targeted toward those decisions that equate
to actual adaptation actions on the ground rather than those decisions affecting higher-level
policies.
Focusing on that limited subset of decisions was necessary to successfully achieve the
objective of this pilot project with the Chesapeake Bay Program—to test our experimental
approach for its technical merit and usefulness as well as its ability to be applied to other
programs. First, we conduct an inventory of a set of decisions that may be affected by climate
change ("climate-relevant" decisions) and then we develop a quantitative ranking of those
decisions based on criteria designed to measure their comparative need to address climate
change. The inventory of climate-relevant decisions includes those for which (1) the decision
itself is dependent on climate factors, such as design standards that are linked to weather or
hydrologic extremes (e.g., the 2-year 24-hour rainfall event or the 100-year flood), or (2) the
resource or system being managed is affected by weather or climate extremes, such as
submerged aquatic vegetation that may be affected by changes in salinity, temperature, light
penetration, water depth, water wave and current actions, and bottom sediment.
June, 2010
8
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
At the outset of the project, a number of EPA programs were considered as candidates for
the pilot study. The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) was ultimately selected primarily for two
reasons:
1. The CBP is concerned with both water quality and aquatic ecosystem management
decisions in restoring the health of the Bay, which align with the mission of the GCRP.
Other issues such as safe and adequate water supply are also important, and this approach
is expected to be applicable to such issues.
2. Clearly identifiable implementation-level decisions (i.e., decisions implemented "on the
ground" with outcomes that have a direct impact on water quality and aquatic
ecosystems) are available. States have developed (1) lists of point source controls and
non-point source best management practices (BMPs) to achieve water quality
programmatic goals and (2) aquatic ecosystem management decisions in consultation
with CBP to achieve "living resources" programmatic goals. Both implementation-level
decisions and the regulatory or programmatic decisions that drive them could be affected
by climate change stressors. The effectiveness of implementation-level decisions may be
more influenced by climate change stressors than the higher-level regulatory or
programmatic decisions because implementation-level decisions are often tied directly to
weather variables such as precipitation, temperature, and storm patterns. Basing such
decisions on historic climatic patterns could have direct consequences for their
effectiveness. Thus, these decisions could greatly benefit from decision support regarding
future changes in climate.
This draft report describes the framework for setting priorities for decision support and
summarizes the methodology and results of the pilot-study (section 4), and provides a summary
of the lessons learned relevant to decision support (section 5). A key part of the lessons learned
will be the determination of whether this approach has merit, whether it is generalizable to other
places and programs, and how this work should proceed if the approach shows promise.
Appendices provide the list of decisions that were addressed, as well as the templates used to
characterize key sources of information.
June, 2010
9
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
4. DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT METHOD AND RESULTS FOR
CHESAPEAKE BAY
Climate is an intrinsic driver of environmental processes and therefore a component of
decision-making relevant to managing ecosystems and natural resources. Climate variability and
change have the potential to alter the outcome of key decisions. Decision makers however may
not be aware of the assumptions they make with respect to climate change. For example, water
managers often rely on historical precipitation data, implicitly assuming stationarity or an
unchanging climate. Since decision makers can act to ameliorate or exacerbate their vulnerability
to climate change, it is critical that they have practical, yet systematic information and tools for
identifying and understanding risks and opportunities posed by a dynamic climate.
For many organizations, the first step toward adaptation begins with understanding the
implications of climate variability and change for key decisions. A systematic approach to
assessing their vulnerability requires a method for identifying key climate change stressors and
selecting decisions that may be affected by these climate change stressors, understanding the
context and characteristics of important decisions, and prioritizing the allocation of resources for
a more intensive effort to gather information to support decisions. These elements provide the
foundation for the design and development of decision support resources. Yet, in many cases,
decisions are made without adequate attention to these issues. The result is that many decision
support resources fail to provide demonstrable benefits for decision makers.
In this section, we summarize information needed to provide useful support of decisions
that may be affected by climate. We then illustrate how this information is used in the pilot study
of the CBP to identify decisions likely to benefit from decision support resources. Our approach
is based on the hypothesis that the provision of effective decision support for climate adaptation
requires understanding the relevant local climate change stressors and linking them to the context
and characteristics of relevant decisions and their associated organizations. We therefore: 1)
identify key climate change stressors; 2) establish system vulnerabilities; and 3) link stressors
and vulnerabilities to key decision centers. Major questions include:
• who needs help and information and might benefit from decision support;
• what kinds of help and information are needed, and what specific data needs are relevant
(i.e., types of climate information or analytical tools that are needed);
• why this information is better than other, alternative information;
June, 2010
10
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
• where the decision support is to be applied, both geographically and in which specific
policy domain; and
• how to generate this information and disseminate it to users to provide support (i.e., the
format and means by which information or tools should be provided).
4.1 KEY DECISION ATTRIBUTES
For the purposes of this report, a "decision" is an action taken as part of efforts to manage
ecosystems and resources relevant to EPA's focus areas of water resources and aquatic
ecosystems. Attributes of a decision are characteristics of the natural or other resource managed,
the environmental conditions that affect the resource, or the actions associated with the decision
that make climate a potentially important factor in the decision making. For example, water
quality and quantity are highly valued resources and are increasingly being threatened in the
United States by population pressures and point and non-point source pollution from
development, industry and agriculture. If climate change is projected to put additional pressure
on this resource in the time frame within which water resource planning occurs, water managers
should seriously consider adopting short- and long-term adaptation strategies.
Many decisions that are made routinely by resource planners in state and local
government offices use information on weather variables such as precipitation, temperature, and
storm patterns, or take into account other variables, such as sea level, that will be affected by
future climate. It has long been recognized that short-term weather forecasting has positive
value, depending on the quality of the forecast and its accuracy (Katz and Murphy, 1997; Rayner
et al., 2005). For longer-term climate change, the question is under what circumstances decision
support can assist decision makers in identifying and evaluating possible adaptation responses to
climate change.
The purpose of decision support is to help decision makers identify and, when
appropriate, encourage adaptive outcomes through decision making. Decision support can take
on a variety of forms, ranging from systematic information provision, to capacity building, to
software development or the provision of other tools. In determining an appropriate form of
support for environmental decision making, key themes include information processes (sources
and trust) as well as available resources and political, historical and cultural contexts (see
Appendix A). These various forms illustrate that there is not a precise, universally accepted
June, 2010
11
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
definition for the term "decision support." Moreover, the design of decision support systems
must take into account not only the type of information used and any information gaps, but also
the potential for decision makers to use decision support, given characteristics of the decision
(e.g., how sensitive to long-term climate the decision) and of the decision process (e.g., the types
of decision tools that are used).
In the current context, decision support could, for example, take the form of providing
decision makers with general climate change scenarios or with scenarios of specific climate
change variables that are tailored to local needs, or finding ways to make climate data more
accessible, useful, and timely. Alternatively, decision support could involve providing education
or assistance in understanding the nature and magnitude of potential climate impacts, including
possible thresholds, and available adaptation measures to decision makers and constituencies
they represent. Decision support could also involve interpreting and presenting uncertainty data
in a manner that is useful to decision makers, or developing decision tools that incorporate
information on projected future climate and the uncertainty of that information or other
analytical software (Gamble et al. 2004).
The majority of academic literature on decision support is associated with mathematical
decision analysis, operations research, and computer science (Pyke et al., 2007). However, these
are only a subset of the perspectives required to design, develop, and deploy effective decision
support resources. In addition to the disciplinary areas above, a number of other perspectives
were reviewed to capture a broader set of attributes that may be applicable to providing effective
decision support. These areas included: (1) Economics and policy literature on decision analysis
to inform on the type of factors taken into account by decision makers and on tools that different
organizations can choose to use to make decisions; (2) Public administration and policy literature
to understand how policy is actually made, including how stakeholders participate in decisions
and where information comes from; (3) Organizational behavior and management science to
learn about the external factors that influence organizational behavior and about the constraints
that organizations impose on the flow of information, authority, and resources; (4) Knowledge
management to gain perspective on how information is validated and transmitted within
organizations; (5) Climate impacts and adaptation research to learn about the magnitude of
impacts and the types of adaptation strategies that may be relevant to different sectors and types
of decisions; (6) Environmental decision-making processes and tools to understand how
June, 2010
12
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
decisions are made in the environmental arena and attributes of organizations that relate to their
use or acceptance of decision support tools; and (7) Existing frameworks for thinking about
decision support for adaptation to see how and to whom other entities and organizations have
provided decision support in the context of climate change.
Information from the review above was synthesized to develop a candidate list of
attributes, or characteristics, of a decision that make it a better or worse candidate for decision
support. The attributes and supporting literature are summarized in Appendix A. These
attributes include characteristics of the decision itself (e.g., how much of an effect does the
decision have, is the decision a "one-off or will it be revisited periodically), of the decision
process (e.g., is the process open or closed, is it flexible or rigid, does the process use detailed
analyses), and of the constraints (e.g., laws, regulations, budgets) influencing the decision
making processes. The types of characteristics included in this project are listed in Table 4-1.
Not all characteristics will be equally relevant to all decisions or all types of decision makers.
Decisions that are sensitive to climate change may be made not only by federal, state, and
government resource managers, but also by members of Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGOs), business, and the general public. Developing decision support for the variety of
decision makers requires understanding the process of developing policies or actions to adapt to
climate change in order to predict which problems areas will be seen as problems worthy of
decisions by various policy makers.
June, 2010
13
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Table 4-1. Key decision attributes
Tiimng and lime horizon (planning horizon, iniplenieiiiauon period, and project lifespan;
Extent of reversibility
Magnitude of the projected impacts of climate change
Availability of adaptation responses
Degree to which current trends are maladaptive
Relative priority of threatened resource
Objectives and purpose of the decision
Decision rules and tools
Organizational resources and expertise
Decision linkages
Information or data currently used in decision making
Internal constraints
External constraints
Projected changes in climate and climate variability will not be critical determinants in all
national, state and local decisions related to management of water resources and aquatic
ecosystems. Further, only a subset of decisions where climate is a critical determinant will
benefit from decision support. Different types of characteristics or attributes will be important in
determining whether a particular organization and decision represents, potentially, a "good"
candidate for decision support of some type. Appendix A provides a more detailed discussion of
each attribute deemed important to consider based on the literature review, including a
description of the attribute itself and an explanation of the reasoning behind the determination
that the attribute is important.1 Each of these decision attributes informed the subsequent steps in
1 A number of characteristics of the decision making organization and the decision should be collected for the
completeness of the inventory, although the attributes are not directly relevant to the question of whether decision
June, 2010
14
-------
1 this pilot study and, accordingly, shaped the information collection and selection of decisions
2 that are the focus of the pilot study detailed in the next sections.
3
4
support is likely to be successful. These include general information on decision type, instance, organization, or
institution.
June, 2010
15
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
4.2 DECISION INVENTORY
As discussed in Section 3, the availability of implementation-level decisions (i.e.,
decisions implemented "on the ground" with outcomes that have a direct impact on water quality
and aquatic ecosystems) was one of the reasons that the CBP was selected as the pilot study (see
Figure 4-1 for map of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed). These implementation-level decisions
(rather than the regulatory or programmatic decisions that drive them) provide a good point of
entry for determining whether climate change is relevant by analyzing specific decision attributes
such as sensitivity to climate change, time horizon of the decision, and so on. For example, both
implementation-level decisions and the regulatory or programmatic decisions that drive them
could be affected by climate change stressors, but it is more likely to detect the direct effects of
climate change on implementation-level decisions. Similarly, the time horizons (including
planning, implementation, and lifespan) of implementation-level decisions can be clearly
identified in many cases based on assumptions about investment lifetimes. One caveat to this
approach, however, is that although it will provide the array of existing management decisions
available to address climate change, it will not uncover the potential need for new management
practices that are not currently employed. Similarly, focusing on implementation-level water
quality decisions places an emphasis on non-point sources, since many point source measures are
largely driven by regulatory or programmatic decisions.
June, 2010
16
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
NEW YORK
PENNSYLVANIA
MARYLAND-
ac;
WEST
VIRGINIA
' VIRGINIA
Chesapeake Bay
Figure 4-1. Map of Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
The initial inventory of decisions was developed based on (1) lists of point source
controls and non-point source BMPs to achieve water quality programmatic goals and (2) aquatic
ecosystem management decisions to achieve "living resources" programmatic goals. A variety of
sources were consulted, including the Chesapeake Bay Watershed's state tributary plans for
Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. For the full list of the initial set of
decisions compiled, see Appendix B and C. For an example of a tributary strategy, see
Pennsylvania's 2004 Strategy at http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/chesapeake/lib/chesapeake/
pdfs/tribstrategy.pdf.
4.2.1 Water Quality Decisions
A list of 123 water quality-related decisions (also referred to as practices throughout the
rest of this report) was compiled, primarily based on the Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland
tributary strategies. Each water quality practice was classified as one of four types:
• urban non-point source;
June, 2010
17
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
• agricultural non-point source;
• forest non-point source; or
• point source.
Each practice was then sub-classified as one of the following:
• forestry;
• water resources;
• stormwater;
• nutrient management;
• septic; or
• land use/land management
This categorization scheme enabled comparison across practice types at later stages in the
selection process described below. Some examples of water quality practices and this
classification scheme are shown in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2. Examples of Water Quality-Related Practices and Classification Scheme
Suh-Csiic«on
Specific Pi'iiclicc
Agricultural NPS
Land Use/Land
Management
Riparian forest buffers
Agricultural NPS
Land Use/Land
Management
Acres conservation plans
(farm plans)
Agricultural NPS
Land Use/Land
Management
Retirement of highly
erodible land-trees
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater management -
wet ponds & wetlands
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater management
filtering practices
June, 2010
18
-------
1 Many of the practices were similar across the state tributary strategies. We grouped similar
2 practices, which condensed the list from 123 down to 67 decisions (Appendix B and C).
3 4.3.2 Aquatic Ecosystem Decisions
4 The list of 23 aquatic ecosystem decisions focused on natural resource management
5 activities that fell within the scope of the CBP Living Resources Subcommittee. The list was
6 primarily derived from the Chesapeake 2000 Bay Agreement, the CBP, and NOAA Fisheries
7 Ecosystem Plan. The ecosystem management practices were classified into one of the following
8 three categories:
9 • habitat protection and/or restoration;
10 • biological population management; or
11 • non-native species management.
12 Some examples of aquatic ecosystem practices and this classification scheme are shown
13 in Table 4-3.
14 Table 4-3. Examples of Aquatic Ecosystem Practices and Classification Scheme
(>cncr;il I'nidice
Specific Pr.iclicc
llabilal piokvlioii and or ivsioialion
U osio iv submerged aqualic
vegetation (SAV)
Lsiablisli SAY bods dial can son c as
a source of plant material
Non-native species management
Invasive species management
Manage occurrence of Phragmites
australis (common reed)
Habitat protection and/or restoration
Fishery restoration
Build fish passageways
15
16 4.3 Selection Process for Decisions
17 After compiling the initial list of water quality and aquatic ecosystem decisions, three
18 qualitative selection criteria were developed and applied to the list. The purpose of the selection
19 criteria were to efficiently assess a large list of decisions to identify which would likely be
20 affected by changes in climate and of those decisions, which would be good candidates for
21 decision support. The selection criteria offer a systematic approach to narrow down the initial list
June, 2010
19
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
of decisions to a manageable subset that can be further analyzed for their relative benefit from
decision support tools.
The literature review conducted at the outset of the project informed the development of
the criteria. Each criterion addresses one or more of the characteristics of the decision that play a
key role in determining the usefulness of decision support for adapting to climate change.
4.3.1 Criterion 1: Climate Change Adaptation Potential
The first criterion evaluated the sensitivity of the system to climate stressors and the
capacity of the practice to ameliorate the impacts of climate change ("adaptation potential"). This
criterion considered a few key climate change impacts that would be likely to affect the success
of a management decision or practice intended to protect water quality or aquatic ecosystems.
The climate change impacts considered under this first criterion were based on their relevance to
the different sets of water quality and aquatic ecosystem decisions but are not exhaustive of all
key impacts. Rather, they capture enough of the major impacts to allow for selection of those
practices in greatest need of decision support.
The following climate change drivers expected to lead to impacts on water quality were
considered in the first screening of water quality decisions:
• Lower low-flow events;
• Higher high-flow events; and
• Increased water temperatures.
The following climate change drivers expected to lead to impacts on aquatic ecosystems
were considered in the first screening of aquatic ecosystem decisions:
• Increased water temperature;
• More intense or total precipitation resulting in increased runoff loads of nutrients and
sediments;
• Altered flow regimes; and
• Sea level rise.
The effectiveness of each practice in the face of these climate change impacts was
qualitatively assessed. For a practice to be selected as having climate change adaptation
June, 2010
20
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
potential, the practice and resource being protected must be sensitive to at least one of the three
or four climate change impacts considered for water quality or aquatic ecosystem practices,
respectively. The management practice must also provide potential protection against or
reduction in at least one of the climate change impacts evaluated. For example, the aquatic
ecosystem practice of restoring submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) protects shorelines and
reduces shoreline erosion regardless of the presence or absence of climate change stressors.
Increased sediment input due to climate change (e.g., more frequent and intense precipitation
events) is expected to lead to decreased water clarity and, thus, declines in SAV. Restoring SAV
will reduce the effects of increased sedimentation and protect shorelines, since it will counteract
SAV losses resulting from climate change impacts. Because the practice is sensitive to several of
the evaluated climate change impacts and an adaptation potential exists, it is selected for further
consideration for decision support.
As a second example, a forested buffer strip protects the adjacent river or stream from
other existing stressors (e.g., increases in impervious surfaces from changes in land use)
regardless of the presence or absence of climate change stressors. Larger storm events due to
climate change are expected to lead to an increased intensity of precipitation in some regions,
and thus to an increase in amount of runoff traveling to rivers and streams. Restoring forested
buffer strips will be effective at reducing the effects of larger storm events, since it will aid in the
infiltration of stormwater and retention of sediment, thus counteracting the effects of increased
runoff. In addition to aiding with infiltration, forested buffer strips also increase
evapotranspiration and help moderate temperatures due to the increased forest cover. Since this
practice is sensitive to several of the evaluated climate change impacts and an adaptation
potential exists, it is selected for further consideration.
After applying the first criterion to the 90 decisions (67 water quality, 23 aquatic
ecosystem), 69 (48 water quality, 21 aquatic ecosystem) remained (Appendix B and C).
4.3.2 Criterion 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
The second criterion addresses the timing and time horizon of the decisions, by analyzing
the sum of years associated with:
• Planning horizon (i.e., how far in advance does planning begin for future action?),
June, 2010
21
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
• Implementation period (i.e., how much time is required once a decision is made to
complete the project or fully implement the decision?), and
• Project lifespan (i.e., how long will the project be in place, once completed?).
After examining a frequency histogram of the timeliness criterion (Figure 4-2), it was
determined that there were a number of water quality practices that had a total length of time of
20 years or less and a number that clustered from 27 or more years. Therefore, it was determined
that 25 years would serve as a good cutoff point for practices considered to be "long term," since
it seems to comport with the planning horizons for water quality decision making. The timeliness
criterion was less useful for determining which aquatic ecosystem practices should be selected
since most of them have an indefinite lifetime and remained in the set after this criterion was
applied. Since the criterion was more effective in selecting some of the water quality practices,
Figure 4-2 omits the aquatic ecosystem practices and only shows the timeliness of the water
quality practices.
June, 2010
22
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Histogram for Screen 2 (Timeliness) applied to Water Quality
Practices
8 16 24
32 40
Total Years
48 56 64
Figure 4-2. Water Quality Practices: histogram displaying the frequency (gray bars, right
y-axis) of "timeliness".
As described in Section 4.1, long term decisions (defined in this study as those that are
expected to perform for a total of at least 25 years) are better candidates for support than
decisions that are made yearly. This is because the consequences of decisions would need to be
in place long enough for climate change to be relevant to design and performance. After applying
criterion 2, 42 decisions remained (21 water quality, 21 aquatic ecosystem).
June, 2010
23
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
4.3.3 Criterion 3: Reversibility
The third criterion attempted to address the reversibility of the decisions . For each
practice, this criterion looked at:
• Environmental reversibility (i.e., does the decision result in irreversible, or difficult-to-
reverse, environmental changes and therefore a loss of future options?),
• Financial reversibility (i.e., does the practice represent a costs that cannot be
recovered?),
• Long-term commitment (i.e., will the decision have long-term consequences or be
made infrequently?), and
• Foreclosure of other options (i.e., by implementing this practice, are you limiting the
availability of other practices in the future?).
Continuing from the examples above, establishing SAV beds does not foreclose other
environmental options as the beds can easily be destroyed or replanted. In addition, the decision
does not require a large financial investment or a long-term commitment, since it is an ongoing
effort that could be interrupted at any point. An example of a potentially irreversible ecological
decision is introducing diploid Asian Suminoe oysters. Unlike the triploid oysters, which are
assumed to have no potential for multiplying in the Bay, the diploid oysters would reproduce and
potentially have irreversible effects on ecological community structure once the oysters become
established.
Decisions that were classified as irreversible according to any of these factors listed
above (environmental or financial reversibility, long-term commitment, or foreclosure of other
options) would pass through this third screen. Characterizing these factors proved difficult and
2 Reversibility can refer to both environmental effects and the decision itself. Irreversible environmental effects are
important for decisions; for example, if action (or failure to act) results in the loss of a natural resource that cannot
be recovered, or requires many years (or significant investment) to rebuild, then the effects are somewhat
irreversible, and decision makers may place a high priority on avoiding those irreversibilities. The practice may also
have an element of irreversibility, if, for example, the decision involves investment in physical or natural capital.
Physical capital irreversibility tends to be synonymous with large, long-term investments, and so is captured by
other criteria here. In the current context, the avoidance of irreversible environmental effects is implicit in the choice
of the CB as the focus of the study, since the Bay is considered to be a resource under stress and therefore vulnerable
to irreversible, or difficult to reverse, changes. Thus, the primary use of this characteristic in the screening presented
subsequently is to capture irreversibilities in environmental components of the decision.
June, 2010
24
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
highly subjective, however, because most practices can be reversed at some (potentially very
high) financial cost, and therefore this criterion was ultimately regarded as having little utility.
Thus, it did not further select from the set that remained after criterion 2 was applied.
4.3.4 Selection Results
Forty-two of the initial 146 decisions were selected after applying the first two criteria,
including 21 water quality decisions and 21 aquatic ecosystem decisions (Appendix B and C).
We determined that there still remained minimal distinctions among some of the remaining
decisions and decided to further consolidate several of them. This consolidation reduced the total
by 10 decisions, leaving 32 decisions (or management practices that they dictate)—14 of which
were water quality and 18 of which were aquatic ecosystem practices (see Table 4-4).
June, 2010
25
-------
1 Table 4-4. List of practices selected after Criteria 1 and 2 were applied to decisions database
WATER QUALITY
I'rsiclicc
I'orestry
Forest Conservation (Forest Conservation Act)
Forestry
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
Forestry
Tree Planting
Land Use/ Land Mgmt
Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation
Land Use/ Land Mgmt
CREP Wetland Restoration
Land Use/ Land Mgmt
Reduction in Urban Growth
Land Use/ Land Mgmt
Riparian Forest/Woodland Buffers - Agriculture
Land Use/ Land Mgmt
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land
Nutrient Management
POTW Standards for Discharge Permits
Stormwater
Stormwater Management - Dry Extended Retention/Detention Ponds
Stormwater
Stormwater Management - Filtering Practices
Stormwater
Stormwater Management - Infiltration Practices
Stormwater
Stormwater Management - Wet Ponds & Wetlands
Water resources
Urban Stream Restoration
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS/LIVING RESOURCES
Pmclicc
Specific Practice
Uuild living shorelines
Construct shallow water rock sills and employ organic materials
Fishery Restoration
Build fish passageways
Fishery Restoration
Remove physical and chemical blockages
Fishery Restoration
Maintain/protect upstream spawning habitats
Fishery Restoration
Manage fishery harvest levels
Increase Oyster populations
Breed triploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
Increase Oyster populations
Introduce diploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
Invasive Species Management
Phragmites australis (common reed)
Invasive Species Management
Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife)
Invasive Species Management
Trapa natans (water chestnut)
Invasive Species Management
Myocastor coypus (Nutria)
Invasive Species Management
Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussels)
Restore Native Oyster Populations
Rebuild oyster habitats using alternative substances
Restore Native Oyster Populations
Rebuild oyster habitats using old oyster shells
June, 2010
26
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Restore Native Oyster Populations
Create sanctuaries
Restore Native Oyster Populations
Aquaculture
Restore Native Oyster Populations
Employ disease-resistant management techniques
Restore Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation
Including establish S AV beds that can serve as a source of plant material;
Propagate SAV in laboratories and nurseries; and Harvest SAV from
existing wild areas
4.4 PI T A 11 I I) SELECTION ON DECISION ATTRIBUTES
Further information gathering was undertaken to assess additional decision attributes for
the 32 decisions. The information gathered was based on the literature findings (see Appendix
A), and was intended to populate the list of key decision attributes (see Section 4.1). Decision
templates (see Appendix D) were completed for each of the 32 decisions to summarize the
information collected during the selection criteria stage (e.g., time horizon, reversibility).
Additional information was gathered primarily from readily available sources, including the
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia Tributary Strategy documents, EPA documents on total
maximum daily load (TMDL) compliance, CBP literature, and publicly available information on
the Internet. This information helped to fill in gaps in understanding the decisions.
3.4.1 Scoring and Prioritizing Decisions
Once information was gathered from readily available sources, the next step was to
develop a methodology to prioritize the 32 decisions. The method used for this study employs a
form of expert judgement. In general, judgments are used throughout studies of any complex
technical problems, such as when making the determination of whether a study should be done
and what elements should be included, or in the selection of models and analysis forms for a
particular study (Keeney and von Winterfeldt, 1991). Examples of situations in which expert
judgment or elicitation is useful include when significant gaps in data exist, when data require
careful interpretation, when data may seem conflicting or inconsistent, or in the choice and
construction of models. According to NRC (2002), the rigorous use of expert elicitation for the
analyses of risks is considered to be quality science. Expert judgment was used in this pilot study
because of the relative scarcity of data on the performance of best practices for our selected
attributes. Thus we had to make educated assumptions on their performance based on published
June, 2010
27
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
literature and our own experience. These assumptions then required subsequent judgment by
practitioners about their plausibility. Our use of expert judgment is consistent with EPA's
"3
general support for such an approach when conducting risk or uncertainty analysis. Several
examples of EPA's approach include application to components of risk assessment such as
hazard assessment and dose-response evaluation (e.g., U.S. EPA 2004), and risk characterization
(e.g., U.S. EPA 2005).
Similar to our decision assessment approach, the general steps in the process of elicitation
may include determination of the quantities to be assessed, review of the literature, preliminary
analysis of values (or uncertainty bounds/probabilities for estimates or model parameters),
development of an elicitation protocol, selection of experts and elicitation of values, and finally,
analysis of the results, aggregation, and resolution of disagreements (adapted from Walker, et al.
2001). Often, there are also trainings held for experts on elicitation techniques. For this study,
our process was first to review the literature, use the findings to conduct our own preliminary
assessment of values for each decision attribute, and then use experts selected primarily from the
Chesapeake Bay Program Science and Technical Advisory Board (STAC) to review our values
and provide their own judgment about those values. The specifics of our approach are described
below.
First, decision attributes were grouped into 14 categories using descriptive affirmative
statements that served to characterize the practices and the systems in which they are typically
used. For example, the decision attributes describing the planning period, implementation period,
and project lifetime fell under the affirmative statement"Planning, implementation, and
performance associated with this management action will occur over a long period of time."
Similarly, the decision attributes describing the total investment over the lifetime of a project and
the estimated cost of annual payments for the project were grouped under the statement"This
management action involves a capital intensive investment
The affirmative statements used to describe the 14 categories (Box 4-1) made it possible
to score the "truth" of each statement. We assessed the "truth" of each of the 14 statements and
assigned a score on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 = not true and 5 = true) based on literature and
3 While experts play a critical role in the decision-making process, the involvement of non-scientific stakeholders
can be equally critical in the decision making process. As noted later in the lessons learned and conclusions, future
work in this area should ensure greater involvement of these stakeholders.
June, 2010
28
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
reference documents gathered on each of the decision attributes during and after the selection
phase. Assigning a score to each statement made it possible to test further prioritization of
decisions using a systematic approach that allowed for comparing and ranking based on their
relative "truth". These values have no specific quantitative meaning except to order decisions,
and should therefore be viewed as qualitative in nature. For example, the difference between a
"truth" score of "1" versus "2" does not mean that an attribute receiving a "2" is twice as true as
an attribute receiving a "1". Likewise, an attribute receiving a "4" is not necessarily twice as true
as an attribute receiving a "2", and so forth.
Some of the statements addressed similar climate change decision support factors, so the
14 statements were further grouped into four broad categorical criteria:
1. climate sensitivity;
2. suitability;
3. priority; and
4. information availability.
This grouping was performed in an effort to minimize correlation between statements.
For example, statements 1 and 2 in Box 4-1 address the vulnerability of the resource and
management practice to climate change, and statements 3 and 4 address time sensitivity with
respect to climate change. Both vulnerability and time sensitivity deal with climate sensitivity of
the management practice (category 1 above). Similarly, statements addressing factors such as
cost, time horizon, and the adaptive capacity of institutions in charge of implementing
management practices help determine the suitability of the management practice to decision
support (category 2 above). Two more statements address priority of the resource and
management practice (category 3 above), and three statements relate to availability of
information regarding the resource, climate change impacts on the resource, and the management
practice (category 4 above). The diagram in Box 4-2 displays how the statements were
categorized.
June, 2010
29
-------
Box 4-1. Decision Attribute Template Statements
1. Restoration or protection goals for this system are highly vulnerable to climate change.
2. The performance of this management practice is highly vulnerable to climate change.
3. Planning, implementation, and performance associated with this management action
will occur over a long period of time.
4. The management action involves a near-term decision with important, long-term
consequences.
5. The resource addressed by this management action is a very high priority issue for
water quality or living resource restoration or protection efforts in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
6. This management action involves a capital intensive investment.
7. Decision-makers have a high degree of flexibility in how they design or use this
management practice.
8. The institutions that carry out this management action have high levels of adaptive
capacity.
9. Adaptive changes in this management practice are likely to be limited by internal
constraints within the implementing organizations.
10. Adaptive changes in this management practice are likely to be limited by external
constraints outside of the implementing organizations.
11. Relative to other systems and practices in the Chesapeake Bay, a great deal is known
about ecological and environmental processes relevant to this management action.
12. Enough information is available to anticipate the consequences of climate change for
the condition of the system associated with this management action.
13. Enough information is available to anticipate the consequences of climate change for
the performance of this management action.
14. This system and associated management practice are most likely to benefit from
immediate investments in research to support the development of new decision support
resources to facilitate adaptation to climate change.
The logical "If-and/or" statements shown in Box 4-2 attempted to address the issue of
dependence among the statements. These logical "If-and/or" statements were used to aggregate
the 14 scores into four scores, one for each categorical criterion (climate sensitivity, suitability,
priority, information availability). In the case of an "OR" statement, an "If' statement was used
to compare the scores and then return the highest score (letting the highest score "pass through").
For example, statements 1 and 2 each address the issue of climate vulnerability, and an "OR"
statement was applied based on the following logic: if either the resource itself or the
June, 2010
30
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
performance of the management practice was considered vulnerable to climate change, then the
management practice would be vulnerable to climate change. If statement 1 was assigned a score
of 3 and statement 2 was assigned a score of 4, a 4 would be assigned for the sub-category of
vulnerability to climate change. In essence, the score of 4 would "pass through" for this "OR"
statement.
In the case of an "AND" statement, scores were multiplied. EPA determined that a
management practice had to be both vulnerable to climate change and time sensitive to the
impacts of climate change to be considered climate-sensitive. Therefore, the scores from the
vulnerable to climate change sub-category and the time sensitivity sub-category were multiplied
to produce a final subtotal score for the climate sensitivity category.
The four scores were normalized by dividing the score that resulted for each categorical
criterion by the maximum of the range of scores falling within that category, and then multiplied
again to produce an overall final score for each of the 32 decisions. All final scores then fell
between 0 and 1. For example, if all statements for a given practice were true (on a scale of 0 =
inaccurate or false and 5 = true or accurate), the process of normalizing the scores for this
practice would result in a final single score of 1. Using this scoring scheme, the decisions were
then ordered based on these final scores.
3.4.2 Developing a Prioritization Tool
A Microsoft® Excel-based tool was developed to assist in quickly comparing and ranking
decisions according to the methodology described in the preceding section. The tool enabled
quick quantitative comparison of scores by utilizing spreadsheet functions to automate the use of
logical "If-and/or" statements. An Excel-based format was used because it is transparent,
reproducible, and facilitates sensitivity analyses.
The tool allows users to select and weight the four categorical criteria (e.g., climate
sensitivity, information availability) according to their individual priorities. This option provides
flexibility to the user by allowing the user to evaluate decisions based on their priorities with
respect to climate change impacts on resources and management practices. Adjusting the
selection of the categorical criteria and the weights of each of the selected categorical criteria has
an impact on the final rankings, which is discussed in more detail in Section 4.4.4.
June, 2010
31
-------
Box 4-2. Logical "If-and/or" Statements
1. Climate Sensitivity: If the decision is highly time sensitive (question #3 OR #4)
AND the resource/management practice is highly vulnerable to climate change
(question #1 OR #2), then the resource/management practice is highly climate
sensitive.
2. Suitability: If capital investment is high(est) (question #6) AND design flexibility of
the management practice is highfest) (question #7) AND the managing institution's
adaptive capacity is high(est) (question #8 OR #9 OR #10) then
suitability/adaptability is high(est).
3. Priority: If the resource is a high priority (question #5) OR the expected benefit
from decision support system is high (question #14). then the resource/management
practice is a high(est) priority.
4. Information Availability: If information on the environmental and ecological
functions of the resource is most extensive (question #11) AND information
regarding climate change's impacts on the resource/management practice is most
extensive (question #12 OR #13). then knowledge-base concerning the
resource/management practice is broad(est).
' OR —¦_
A
N
D '
; OR
Climate Sensitive
Suitability
Priority
Understanding/
Information
Availability
A
Highly Suitable
N
Decision
D
/
June, 2010
32
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
4.4.3 Expert Elicitation and Revision of Scores
The initial scoring of the 14 statements for each of the management practices was
followed by an expert elicitation to: (1) confirm the categorization of the decision attributes; (2)
collect information that was not readily available through literature and Internet searches (e.g.,
internal and external constraints within the implementing organizations); (3) confirm that the
sources consulted provided the best available information on the decision attributes, and (4)
review and provide their own determination of the "truth" of each of the 14 statements for the 32
decisions. Experts were selected based on their scientific and technical expertise in Chesapeake
Bay resource management, which was assessed based on their involvement in the CBP Science
and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) or from citations in literature reviewed for this
project.
Eighteen experts were selected to participate in this exercise, with at least one expert
reviewing each of the 14 water quality decision templates and 14 of the 18 ecosystem decision
templates. The ecosystem management practices not reviewed included: invasive species
management - zebra mussels., rebuild oyster habitats using alternative substances; rebuild oyster
habitats using old oyster shells; and create sanctuaries. Experts supplied their own scores where
they differed from our initial scores and provided the rationale for doing so along with
recommendations about specific additional resources to consult (see Appendix D for templates,
our initial scores, and expert reviewer scores).
Experts agreed with the initial scores in about 50 percent of cases. Of those scores with
which experts disagreed, the vast majority disagreed by only 1 point on the 5-point scale. In
order to assess the sensitivity of the final prioritization outcome to the individual scores on
decision attribute statements, three separate scenarios were analyzed. The three scenarios
compared the use of: 1) all of the initial scores; 2) all of the expert reviewers' suggested scores
(where they disagreed with the initial scores); and 3) a hybrid set of scores that selectively
replaced the initial scores with the expert reviewers' suggested scores based on the following
rules:
• Statements 1, 2, 3, and 4: Adopted the experts' suggested score when an explanation was
provided for why they chose to change the score. Where experts' scores varied, an
average of the experts' scores was adopted. When the average was a midpoint between
two whole numbers, the score was rounded up.
June, 2010
33
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
• Statements 6, 11, 14: Retained initial score, because the initial scoring had the advantage
of internal consistency (i.e., EPA had data on cost of all management practices and could
compare the costs relative to other management practices).
• Statements 5, 7: Adopted experts' suggested score. Experts' explanations tended to
include additional information EPA may have not considered.
• Statements 8, 9, 10: Adopted experts' suggested score. Since several of the reviewers
work in or with institutions dealing with management practices and policies, EPA
assumed that they would have a better idea as to the adaptive capacity and internal and
external constraints within those institutions.
• Statements 11, 12: Adopted experts' suggested score. Made an assumption that experts
have been doing research on these ecosystems and management practices affecting these
ecosystems for an extensive period of time and therefore know what information exists.
This approach to deriving the hybrid scenario was an informal means of handling
differences in scoring between EPA and the experts and among the experts themselves. In formal
expert elicitation, resolution is generally achieved through continued dialogue with participating
experts. However, the transparent description above of what was done and the logic behind those
choices provides the means for others to understand how we resolved disagreements. (See
Appendix D for initial, expert, and hybrid scores with accompanying descriptions of how
differences were resolved on an attribute-by-attribute basis.)
The sensitivity analysis conducted of these scenarios shows that the final
prioritization rankings were sensitive to changes in scores of statements. The final ordering of
the management practices differed according to whether scores under scenario 1, 2, or 3 were
used, as can be seen in Table 4-5 and Table 4-6.
In general, a change in score affected the final prioritization when a statement was one of
two statements in an "OR" branch and the change in score caused the "OR" function to choose
the changed score. For example, if both scores for statements 1 and 2 had originally been 3, then
the "OR" function passed that score through as a 3. However, if the set of scores based on expert
review changed one of those statements to a score of 4, then the "OR" function would pass the 4
as the score for that branch, thereby changing the overall score for that management practice.
June, 2010
34
-------
1 Table 4-5. Top five ecosystem management decisions resulting under the three scenarios
111 Iniliiil scores
12J r.xpcrl rc\ icwcr scores
|3| ll\bri(l scoits
Breed triploid Asian Suminoe
Oysters
Invasive species management -
Phragmites australis (common
reed)
Aquaculture
Aquaculture
Build fish passageways
Breed triploid Asian Suminoe
Oysters
Manage fishery harvest levels
Create sanctuaries
Create sanctuaries
Rebuild oyster habitats using
alternative substances
Rebuild oyster habitats using old
oyster shells
Rebuild oyster habitats using old
oyster shells
Create sanctuaries
Aquaculture
Rebuild oyster habitats using
alternative substances
Table 4-6. Top five water quality management decisions resulting under the three scenarios
111 Inilinl scores
|2| r.xpcrl rc\ icwcr scores
|3| ll\bri(l scoics
Stormwater Management -
Filtering Practices
POTW Standards for Discharge
Permits
POTW Standards for Discharge
Permits
Stormwater Management -
Infiltration Practices
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
Stormwater Management -
Filtering Practices
POTWs Standards for Discharge
Permits
Forest Conservation (Forest
Conservation Act)
Stormwater Management -
Infiltration Practices
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land
Urban Stream Restoration
Urban Stream Restoration
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
Stormwater Management -
Filtering Practices
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
4
5 4.4.4 Results of Prioritization Tool Testing
6 Three different scenarios were tested using the methodological approach and the
7 prioritization tool described above in an attempt to prioritize climate-sensitive decisions that
8 afford the best opportunities for decision support within the CBP. The results of changing the
9 scores on the 14 statements characterizing decision attributes have already been discussed in
June, 2010
35
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Section 4.4.3. Additional scenarios were created to assess the sensitivity of the final scores and
rankings to changes in the weights of the four categorical criteria. For example, a scenario
assigning an equal 25 percent weight to each category resulted in the rankings shown in Table 4-
7, using the hybrid scenario discussed in Section 4.4.3.
Table 4-7. Water quality and ecosystem management practices ranked based on equal weighting
(25%) to the four categories. The top five ranked practices shown here.
\\ silcr Ou;ili(>
\(|iisitic l.cos\stems
POTWs Standards for Discharge Permits
1
Aquaculture
1
Stormwater Management - Filtering Practices
2
Breed triploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
2
Stormwater Management - Infiltration Practices
3
Create sanctuaries
3
Urban Stream Restoration
4
Rebuild oyster habitats using oyster shells
3
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
5
Rebuild oyster habitats using alternative substances
5
An alternative weighting scheme, where 50 percent weight was assigned to climate
sensitivity, 20 percent to suitability, 20 percent to priority and 10 percent to information provided
different results. As Table 4-8 shows, for water quality, two management practices that were not
in the top five in Table 4-7, (1) urban stream restoration and (2) stormwater management— wet
ponds and wetlands, are in the top five as a result of the change in the weighting scheme. The
changes for aquatic ecosystem practices are more subtle, as four of the five practices that were in
the top five in Table 4-7 appear in Table 4-8, although in a slightly different order, e.g. using the
equal weighting, create sanctuaries is ranked fifth whereas with the alternative weighting
scheme it ranks first.
Table 4-8. Water quality and ecosystem management practices ranked based on the following
weighting scheme: climate sensitivity 50%, suitability 20%, priority 20%, information 10%. The
top five ranked shown here.
\\ siler Ou;ilil\
\(|iisi 1 ic l.c(is\stems
I'OTWs, Standards lor Discharge Perniib
1 Aquae ul lure
1
June, 2010
36
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
s
Urban Stream Restoration
2 Create sanctuaries
2
Stormwater Management - Filtering Practices 3 Living shorelines
3
Stormwater Management - Wet Ponds & Wetlands 3 Breed triploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
4
Stormwater Management - Infiltration Practices
Rebuild oyster habitats using alternative
3 substances
4
Nine different scenarios were tested in total. The following water quality management
practices consistently ranked in the top five for all of the scenarios:
• Urban Stream Restoration
• Stormwater Management: Filtering Practices
• POTWs Standards for Discharge Permits
Similarly, the following ecosystem management practice is consistently ranked in the top
five:
• Living shorelines
Of the ecosystem management practices, the following two — managing fishery harvest
levels and rebuilding oyster habitats using alternative substances — consistently ranked in the
top ten. Of the water quality management practices, urban stream restoration, stormwater
management—infiltration, and mixed open wetlands consistently ranked in the top ten.
The results of these different scenarios demonstrated that the prioritization approach was
sensitive to changes in scores and different criteria weighting schemes. The detailed analysis and
selection process showed that there were many ways to further narrow the list of candidate
decisions. However, the additional step to order decisions for prioritization took much longer
than the initial qualitative selection process (criteria 1 and 2) and required much more
information. It may be more efficient to engage experts earlier (and more systematically) in the
process, and to seek feedback on the characteristics of ongoing decisions made in climate-
sensitive water quality and ecosystem management topics.
On balance, as conducted in the pilot study, the utility of the detailed prioritization step
was difficult to discern. The rankings do not seem to provide a better basis for focusing decision
June, 2010 37
-------
1 support efforts than qualitative selection criteria 1 and 2. All of the decisions that made it
2 through the initial selection exercise are good candidates for decision support, and as discussed
3 further below, it may have been more informative to prioritize among the 32 decisions by
4 engaging stakeholders from the CBP in the effort, rather than applying a complex semi-
5 quantitative system of prioritization.
6
7
June, 2010
38
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 OVERALL PROJECT FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED
The goal for this pilot study was to formalize our philosophy of how to effectively
support adaptation to climate change, which is to use as our starting point ongoing planning
processes and decisions geared toward achieving environmental management goals, and
developing a systematic approach for collecting and prioritizing decisions according to specific
attributes in order to provide adaptation information and research to those in greatest need and
with greatest potential to address climate change impacts. This study represents one approach to
testing the applicability of our philosophy. In this study we assessed the climate relevance of a
specific set of decisions in a specific location — the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The scalability
of this approach to assess the climate relevance of other types of decisions or similar decisions in
different locations remains to be tested.
Overall, the approach described in this report demonstrates the value of employing broad
criteria to select the appropriate subset of the universe of water quality and aquatic ecosystem
decisions for more detailed analysis and prioritization. Such a selection process already begins to
provide information on the degree to which management of the Bay depends on practices that are
sensitive to climate change, and gives states and the Bay some sense of the level of effort needed
to address climate change effects in their plans. The criteria used to select decisions in this study
are (1) climate change adaptation potential and (2) dimensions of timeliness.
Decisions that were not selected for further analysis are generally ones that are not
influenced by climate-related variables, are made more frequently, or involve projects with a
limited lifespan. Projects or future restoration plans that rely heavily on these types of practices
should be less vulnerable to climate change than those relying predominantly on practices
identified as climate relevant. For example, barnyard runoff controls (e.g., diversion of clean
water from entering the barnyard, control of runoff from barnyard areas) may be helpful in
mitigating the impacts from climate changes such as more intense storm events. However, the
practice requires very little planning and implementation time. It can be undertaken on short
notice as storm events are observed or expected to increase (and, thus, does not require action
immediately to gain the longer-term adaptive benefits).
June, 2010
39
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
The findings from this project are relevant for decision makers at both the state and
Chesapeake Bay watershed level as they develop, review and approve restoration plans in the
future. The decisions that were selected as climate relevant also present an opportunity for
further refinement through research into which attributes of the decision are particularly sensitive
and how the decision or the practice itself can be most effectively changed to accommodate
effects due to climate change.
The subsequent step to prioritize the remaining set of decisions based on specific
attributes provides additional information on their relative vulnerabilities. The results may
further aid the review of current or future restoration plans and focus more local-level research
efforts based on site-specific characteristics and geography. Because prioritization is sensitive to
the specific criteria and weighting approach selected, caution must be used when interpreting the
results of any single weighting scheme without further analysis and input from experts as well as
non-scientists (e.g., key stakeholders).
Most of the lessons learned from this project concern decisions made throughout the pilot
study regarding the methodology. The discussion below addresses some of the pros and cons
associated with each of these methodological decisions, with the intention of applying the
methodology in this study to higher-level decision making entities in the future.
5.1.1 Engaging both technical experts and stakeholders
The variability in the results using the prioritization tool suggests two courses of action
that may improve its usefulness: the first is to engage experts to a greater degree in refining the
attribute scoring for each of the practices (i.e., using the expert elicitation process to come to a
consensus), and the second is to apply the tool at finer geographic scales and solicit further input
from appropriate decision makers who implement these specific practices. At this level decision
makers can narrow the list of practices to those under consideration for a specific tributary and
can provide input into which practices are reasonable to consider at that location. The results
from the prioritization would then inform these decision makers about which of the practices
under consideration may require modifications in order to continue to perform as climate
changes.
Recommendations for the future.
As part of a preliminary assessment, and prior to soliciting expert judgment, it may be
desirable to involve key stakeholders who can offer insight into the decision making process that
June, 2010
40
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
surrounds specific decisions as well as constraints on the decisions that may shape efforts to
incorporate climate change into decision making. This involvement may provide greater
accuracy in the preliminary assessment to prioritize decisions and result in a meaningful,
legitimate and implementable set of adaptation policy priorities.
While prioritization may still be difficult without having specific applications of practices
in mind to address particular climate-related impacts, a variety of approaches could be used to
test the robustness of results. One approach might be to use scenario planning to test whether
specific decisions are assigned appropriate priority given their suitability and their likelihood of
enhancing the resilience of systems under a range of plausible future climate impact scenarios.
Scenario planning in this context is the use of a limited set of contrasting scenarios to explore
both the uncertainty surrounding the future consequences of a decision and how that uncertainty
may affect its likely success (Duinker and Greig, 2007; Peterson et al., 2003; CCSP, 2007).
Additionally, the approach used in this study to first review available information on
specific practices and then to elicit experts' judgments provides another mechanism for
prioritizing decisions in terms of additional research needs. The practices for which there was
high disagreement, either among experts or among our scores and those of experts, suggests that
additional research on the effects of climate change on these practices would be useful. High-
scoring practices for which expert agreement was unanimous should also be examined more
closely, since this combination suggests that these practices are highly sensitive to climate-
change effects and information on how to modify them in light of climate change impacts is
urgently needed so that they remain effective.
5.1.2 Information gathering approach
Reviewing readily available literature as an initial step in gathering information on key
decision attributes made it possible to pull in enough information on which to base the initial
scoring exercise. This step reduced the burden on experts who were later consulted during the
expert elicitation phase of the project. Reviewers were able to react to the existing information,
either corroborating the findings of the literature review or offering suggested revisions where
they disagreed.
The downside was that gathering information on all of the decision attributes for 32
decisions based on literature reviewed was laborious. It would take a significant investment of
resources to replicate this approach on a nationwide scale.
June, 2010
41
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Further, some decision attributes such as decision constraints (both internal and external),
adaptive capacity of the organization, and decision making flexibility were difficult to
characterize based on reviewing readily available literature, and, thus, difficult to impossible to
score within the pilot scoring system. Decision attributes that require politically-sensitive
assessments of institutional resources or locally-specific barriers may be better addressed via
qualitative descriptions or discussions with resource managers and decision makers, or even
examined as to whether it is appropriate to collect information on, or consider these attributes.
Recommendations for the future. To fully understand the context and attributes of
climate-relevant decisions, a next step in this study could involve roundtable discussions with
decision makers and other stakeholders who are best positioned to comment on these factors.
Workshops or another form of interactive dialogue might improve a preliminary assessment prior
to engaging in the process of expert elicitation to evaluate scores independently.
5.1.3 Criteria for Prioritization
The usefulness of criteria selected for prioritization may depend on the specific decision
being considered or on the context of the decision itself. If criteria vary significantly in terms of
their usefulness in the prioritization process, then this may indicate the need for greater input into
the prioritization process from the decision makers themselves. Or if the usefulness of criteria
vary greatly based on decision-specific considerations, and this is systemic across types of
decisions or for a specific scale of decisions (e.g., tributary-level decisions), it may mean that the
prioritization process is not feasible - helpful decision support cannot be provided beyond
identifying climate relevant decisions. To go beyond identifying climate relevant decisions
would mean that the specific context needs to be considered. This may point to one of two
possible courses of action: either we hand off this decision assessment process to the decision
makers to prioritize the selected decisions or we engage the decision makers in further refining
the tool. Further work needs to be done to test which of these two paths is appropriate to pursue.
Recommendations for the future. In future studies, one goal should be to determine
whether there are a robust set of criteria that apply across decisions irrespective of the scale of
the decision or other aspects of the decision context. Expert elicitation may be one way to
identify such robust criteria. As a complement to information on robustness, research on decision
attributes to identify those that carry data most critical for prioritizing decisions would be
June, 2010
42
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
helpful. Put another way, if perfect information were available about each decision characteristic,
knowing which characteristics would substantively affect a decision's priority ranking would be
helpful. Finally, exploring disagreements among experts and stakeholders that arise during the
elicitation process could provide important information on whether their basis of uncertainty is
due to the relevance of climate change to the decision itself or to the actual attributes of the
decision.
5.1.4 Expert Elicitation
When data are scarce but the need for information to support decisions currently being
made precludes further research and data collection, expert judgment can be used in the interim
to inform policy analysis and choice (Morgan and Henri on, 1990; Morgan and Keith, 1995). The
approach taken in this study to prioritize decisions was an experimental application of expert
elicitation using qualitative metrics. This approach does not fit neatly into a single type of expert
elicitation that past studies have employed, but shares some characteristics with previous studies.
The features of this approach that make it similar to other studies are its application to
prioritization for risk assessment and management — to focus the provision of climate
information and establishment of research priorities — and its application to climate change.
However, the unique and experimental aspects of this approach are its specific application to
climate adaptation decisions, which has not yet been done (except for the CCSP 2008
publication, SAP 4.4, that provides confidence estimates for adaptation approaches), and to
decisions rather than impacts assessments (e.g., IPCC 2001, 2007) and associated modeling
parameters (e.g., Morgan et al. 2001), or representations of the climate system itself (e.g.,
Morgan and Keith, 1995).
Our prioritization approach provided insights into a set of practices that were good
candidates for decision support across a range of assumptions about performance, but also gave
us insight into the relative dearth of information on attributes of adaptation decisions and
therefore the degree of uncertainty about their performance with respect to anticipated climate
change impacts. For example, the fundamental step of characterizing decisions according to their
vulnerability to climate change (including the natural systems being targeted by decisions and
the specific management practices that would be used) was difficult because these impacts have
not been thoroughly studied. With respect to the broader array of decision characteristics, some
June, 2010
43
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
experts commented that they made educated guesses in responding to the initial scoring of the
truth of statements about those characteristics. While it is expected that there are varying degrees
of uncertainty surrounding the judgments made in characterizing decision attributes, the pilot
project did not attempt to resolve disagreements in expert judgment or to estimate uncertainty
bounds for each characterization.
Recommendations for the future. Use of expert elicitation techniques in future
assessments should include formal techniques for resolving disagreements in expert judgment
and for estimating uncertainty or confidence in experts' qualitative or quantitative
characterizations of decisions. Whether qualitative or quantitative, terms for characterizing
decisions need to be clearly defined. Additionally, future assessments will have to develop
formal means for factoring the uncertainty or confidence estimates into the prioritization
approach.
5.1.5 Prioritization Tool
The Excel-based prioritization tool developed during this pilot project proved useful for
meeting the immediate needs of sorting and prioritizing the decisions that emerged from the
selection criteria. Through the process of developing and modifying it, however, it became
apparent that expanded functionality could make the tool much more valuable to a wider user
group.
The prioritization tool that emerged is user friendly and has the capacity to quickly sort
management practices and prioritize those practices according to user-defined criteria. It allows
users to modify criteria and potentially compare different outcomes.
The current tool is designed to specifically evaluate decisions made in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed and is not yet transferable to other systems. The tool is not configured to include
additional management practices; it only allows users to sort and prioritize decisions that are
already included in the tool. The framework of the tool could be transferable to other systems,
however, so that it could be utilized for other locations and to analyze different sets of
management practices.
A limitation of the current tool is the quantitative methodology underlying it. Since it is
applied to a qualitative assessment, the method may convey the impression of producing results
June, 2010
44
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that are more quantitative and accurate than they really are, given the uncertainties in the
underlying data.
Recommendations for the future. If the tool were to be used on a national scale, it would
need to be modified to make it more user-friendly, transparent, and offer expanded functionality
(e.g., the ability of the user to add new decisions and score them). A tool may not be necessary,
however. It may be preferable to simply provide decision makers with guidance on how to apply
a proven framework approach to their own set of decisions.
5.1.6 Decisions not Currently Being Made
Issues that seemed important to address inevitably arose during the process of developing
the approach used in the pilot study, but were not addressed either due to the timing (i.e., the
stage of the study at the point when the issue was seriously considered) or resources (e.g., how
much additional time and cost inclusion would incur). One issue discussed briefly below that
should be considered in future decision assessment efforts are those decisions that are not
currently being made.
Climate change may pose risks that are not already addressed by existing decisions
because it may directly or indirectly affect a resource or ecosystem service through pathways that
are different from any existing stressors. For example, coastal wetlands could be lost if they are
unable to migrate inland rapidly enough or far enough to keep pace with sea level rise; CO2
increases will increase ocean acidification, which could reduce carbonate deposition, increase
coral reef mortality rates, etc.; and earlier snowmelt runoff will affect the timing and magnitude
of streamflow, in turn affecting fish spawning timing and behavior, and the availability of food
sources. Since these effects are not already considered in existing decision making processes,
limiting the initial decision inventory to existing decisions may result in gaps in the analysis of
where to focus decision support for adaptation.
Recommendations for the future. Consider identifying these gaps in current decision
making when the initial inventory of decisions is developed and then conducting a preliminary
assessment- of needs and possible responses to fill the gaps.
June, 2010
45
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
5.1.7 Framework for Assessing Climate Relevant Decisions
The framework we applied in this study worked well as an initial approach to providing
information to support decisions at (1) the local scale through specific results for management
practices to address climate change and (2) the national scale to provide focus for further
research on management practices and on methods for prioritizing decision support information
for adaptation. However, some changes in the specific steps of our framework will improve its
application and results in future studies. With the changes incorporated into the initial
framework, those steps are now: (1) inventory decisions through examination of existing
literature, both peer-reviewed and gray literature; (2) engage stakeholders in refining the
inventory by reviewing results and selecting the final set of decisions and their attributes (this
may include specifying the format of the inventory itself — such as the appropriate geographic or
organizational scale of decisions to consider, how specific or general those decisions should be,
whether decisions should be aggregated and how — as well as the types of attributes that most
influence the effectiveness of those decisions); (3) conduct a preliminary assessment to evaluate,
select and order (prioritize) decisions according to qualitative measures of effectiveness based on
decision attributes; (4) develop a protocol for the expert elicitation process using qualitative
metrics; (5) select experts, focusing on the total number needed to provide credible
representation in addition to obtaining the necessary backgrounds and balance; (6) conduct
expert elicitation to characterize decision attributes for prioritization and to estimate confidence
in, or uncertainty bounds for those characterizations; (7) resolve any differences in
characterizations among experts and between experts and the preliminary assessment results; and
(8) conduct prioritization analysis using final characterization results and uncertainty bounds, if
elicited.
5.2 CHESAPEAKE BAY FINDINGS
The results for this single location provide information relevant for different levels of
decision makers and stakeholders. Some results of this study are relevant for decision makers at
the state level while other results inform decision makers operating at the scale of the whole
Chesapeake Bay watershed.
June, 2010
46
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Applying two criteria—(1) climate change adaptation potential and (2) dimensions of
timeliness—results in the selection of 14 water quality decisions and 18 aquatic ecosystem
protection decisions. Each one is sensitive to at least one or more of the projected impacts of
climate change within the lifetime of the decision. Therefore, each would benefit from
incorporation of climate-change considerations into the decision-making process. Most of the
water quality decisions selected are related to forestry, land use/ land management, or
stormwater management practices. These three categories involve situations where climate
change can have a strong influence on the effectiveness of the practices in meeting their goals,
and they also involve long time commitments. Nutrient management (viz., POTW effluent
standards under TMDLs) and urban stream restoration are the other water quality practices that
offer opportunities for adaptation, and may benefit from decision support.
For aquatic ecosystem protection, management intrinsically involves long-term
commitments, and many of the targeted resources are sensitive to climate-related impacts, so
most of the decisions in this arena are viable candidates for adaptation decision support. Several
types of fishery restoration activities, oyster population management, invasive species
management, SAV restoration, and "living shoreline" approaches are likely to not only provide
near-term benefits, but may also provide resilience to the Bay in the face of long-term climate-
related changes.
The subsequent step to prioritize the remaining set of decisions based on specific
attributes provides additional information on their relative vulnerabilities. Because prioritization
is sensitive to the specific criteria and weighting approach selected, caution must be used when
interpreting the results of any single weighting scheme without further analysis and input from
experts as well as non-scientists (e.g., key stakeholders). However, the prioritization tool does
provide some insight into which decisions are good candidates for decision support because of
consistently ranking in the highest tier across the weighting schemes. In this study, examples of
good candidates for decision support include POTW Standards for Discharge Permits,
Stormwater Management - Filtering Practices, Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban, Aquaculture,
and Create Sanctuaries. These practices that rank highly as good candidates for decision support
can inform managers as to which plans should carefully consider climate-change effects during
the near-term planning processes.
June, 2010
47
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
5.3 CONCLUSIONS
The test of our theoretical approach using the Chesapeake Bay Program's environmental
management decisions revealed that in practice, this approach provides useful information on
adaptation measures for local decision makers and direction for fruitful research endeavors that
will further improve our provision of information. Beginning with environmental goals and
decisions embodied in existing and future restoration plans, and using broad criteria to select the
appropriate subset of decisions for more detailed analysis and prioritization provides
immediately useful information on the degree to which management of an ecosystem depends on
practices that are sensitive to climate change. Put another way, it gives decision makers
information on whether their environmental goals for which they currently manage are in danger
of not being met. It also gives decision makers some sense of the magnitude of effort needed to
address climate change effects in their plans. Those practices would benefit from incorporation
of climate-change considerations into the decision-making process. Decisions that were not
selected using broad criteria are generally ones that are not influenced by climate-related
variables, are made more frequently, or involve projects with a limited lifespan. Projects or
future restoration plans that rely heavily on these types of practices should be less vulnerable to
climate change than those relying predominantly on practices identified as climate relevant.
Fruitful research areas highlighted by this project include: 1) further refinement of our
understanding about which attributes of the decision are particularly sensitive to climate, 2) how
the decision or the practice itself can be most effectively changed to accommodate climate
change effects, and 3) decision attributes that carry data most critical for prioritizing decisions. It
is also important to note that the scope of this framework approach included only the scientific
aspects of decision making. Additional work needs to be done on the input of non-scientific
stakeholders, which also plays a key role in decision making. Moving forward, a key issue will
be determining whether this approach is generalizable (e.g., transferable to other places and
ecosystems, scalable to other organizational levels of decision making). We applied this
experimental approach specifically to the Chesapeake Bay to examine its usefulness as our first
step. The next step is to test its transferability and scalability either to other estuaries or other
national programs.
June, 2010
48
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
6. REFERENCES
The Allen Consulting Group. 2005. Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability: Promoting and
efficient adaptation response in Australia. Report prepared by Allen Consulting Group for
the Australian Greenhouse Office, Department of the Environment and Heritage. March.
Alter, S. 1977. "A Taxonomy of Decision Support Systems." Sloan Management Review 19:39-
56.
Alter, S. 2004. "A Work System View of DSS in its Fourth Decade." Decision Support Systems
38319-327.
Bell, A. 1994. Media (mis)communication of the science of climate change, Public
Understanding of Science 3:259-275.
CCSP. 2007. Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations (Part A)
and Review of Integrated Scenario Development and Application (Part B). A Report by
the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change
Research [Clarke, L., J. Edmonds, J. Jacoby, H. Pitcher, J. Reilly, R. Richels, E. Parson,
V. Burkett, K. Fisher-Vanden, D. Keith, L. Mearns, C. Rosenzweig, M. Webster
(Authors)]. Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research,
Washington, DC., USA, 260 pp.
CCSP. 2008. Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and
resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee
on Global Change Research. [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A.
Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors)].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, 873 pp.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2001. Washington Region Greenspace Atlas: Washington Region in
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Figure available online at
http://www.savethebay.org/land/landuse/maps/wash-region.gif.
CIG. 2006. Climate Impacts Group (CIG), Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and
Ocean, University of Washington. "Planning for Climate Variability and Change."
Accessed on 1/10/06. Available from Worldwide Web:
http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/fpt/cvplanning.shtml.
Duinker, P.N., and L.A. Greig, 2007. Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment:
Improving explorations of the future, Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
27:206-219.
Frederick, K. D. 1998. Principles and Concepts for Water Resources Planning Under Climate
Uncertainty. Universities Council on Water Resources 112: 41-46.
Gamble, J. L., R. Freed, F. Sussman, J. Furlow, S. Julius, J. West, & M. Harris. 2004. Climate
change impacts and the role of decision support in adaptive response: a synthesis of the
interim results of three place-based assessments. External Review Draft. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation & Vulnerability Contribution of
Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, James J. McCarthy, Osvaldo F. Canziani, Neil A. Leary, David J.
Dokken and Kasey S. White (Eds.) Cambridge University Press, UK. pp 1000
June, 2010
49
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E.
Hanson (Eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Jacob, M. and T. Hellstrom. 2000. Policy understanding of science, public trust and the BSECJD
Crisis. Journal of Hazardous Materials 78(l):303-317.
Jones, B.D. and F.R. Baumgartner. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes
Problems. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Kingdon, J.W. 1995. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Harper
Collins.
Lewenstein, B.V. 1995. From fax to facts: Communication in the cold fusion saga. Social
Studies of Science 25(3):403.
Luhmann, N. 1990. The cognitive program of constructivism and a reality that remains
unknown. Sociology of the Sciences 14:64-86.
Morgan MG and M Henri on. 1990. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in
Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Morgan MG and D Keith. 1995. Subjective Judgments by Climate Experts. Environmental
Science & Technology, 29(10), 468a-476a.
Narain, U., M. Hanemann, and A. Fisher. 2004. "The Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty and
the Irreversibility Effect." CUD ARE Working Papers (University of California,
Berkeley).
Nelkin, D. 1987. Selling Science: How The Press Covers Science And Technology. New
York:W.H. Freeman.
NRC (National Research Council). 2002. Estimating the public health benefits of proposed air
pollution regulations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Peterson, G.D., G.S. Cumming, and S.R. Carpenter. 2003. Scenario planning: a tool for
conservation in an uncertain world, Conservation Biology, 17(2):358-366.
Pidgeon, N., R.E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic. 2003. The Social Amplification of Risk. : Cambridge,
UK:Cambridge University Press.
Plein, L.C. 1991. Popularizing biotechnology: The influence of issue definition. Science,
Technology and Human Values 16(4):474-490.
Purkey, D.R., A Huber-Lee, D.N. Yates, M. Hanemann, and S. Herrod-Julius. 2007. Integrating
a climate change assessment tool into stakeholder-driven water management decision
making processes in California. Water Resources Management 21(1)315-329.
Pyke, C.R., B.G. Bierwagen, J. Furlow, et al. 2007 A decision inventory approach for improving
decision support for climate change impact assessment and adaptation. Environmental
Science & Policy 10:610-621.
Rayner, S., D. Lach, and H. Ingram. 2005. Weather Forecasts Are For Wimps: Why Water
Resource Managers Do Not Use Climate Forecasts. Climatic Change 69:197-227.
Trumbo, C. 1996. Constructing climate change: claims and frames in US news coverage of an
environmental issue. Public Understanding of Science 5:269-283.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2004). Final Regulatory Analysis: Control
of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines. Prepared by U.S. EPA, Office of
June, 2010
50
-------
1 Transportation and Air Quality, Washington, DC, May; EPA report no. EPA420-R-04-
2 007. See chapter 9 and Appendix B. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/nonroad-
3 diesel/2004fr.htm#ria
4 U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
5 Assessment, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. EPA/630/P-03/001F
6 Wood, B.D. and A. Vedlitz. 2007. Issue Definition, Information Processing, and the Politics of
7 global Warming. American Journal of Political Science 51(3):552-68.
8
June, 2010
51
-------
APPENDIX A
A.l Key Decision Attributes
Attributes deemed important to consider based on a review of the literature were used in two
ways in this study. First, two decision attributes were used as selection criteria: climate change
adaptation potential and dimensions of timeliness. These were selected because they have been
identified as important in the climate change literature (see for example, IPCC, 2007). The
second way decision attributes were used in this study was in developing priorities. This
appendix provides additional information on attribute selection, including a description of the
attribute itself and an explanation of the reasoning behind the determination that each attribute is
important. 4
A.2 Selection Criteria
A. 2.1 Adaptation potential: Is it possible to reduce negative impacts of climate
change?
In some cases, it may not be possible to adapt, i.e., there may not be measures and
strategies to reduce the projected consequence of climate change that come within the scope of a
particular decision. In these cases, there is little reason to pursue decision support, since adverse
effects cannot be ameliorated. Alternatively, adaptation may be possible by adjusting existing
strategies. For example, ongoing work in this project to evaluate best management practices in
the Chesapeake Bay indicates that with adjustments, many of the practices that address non-point
source runoff associated with land use change and agriculture would also address increases in
storm intensity related to climate change. In some cases, new adaptation strategies may be
needed; a key role for decision support may be to identify alternative plans and strategies that
address the projected consequences of climate change. In the case of water resource
4 A number of characteristics of the decision making organization and the decision should be collected for the
completeness of the inventory, although the attributes are not directly relevant to the question of whether decision
support is likely to be successful. These include general information on decision type, instance, organization, or
institution.
June, 2010
52
-------
management, such plans and strategies might include both structural changes and investments,
but also "modifications in public policy, management practice, regulatory policy, and pricing
policy" (Frederick, 1998).
A.2.2 Dimensions of Timeliness: Is climate is likely to change during the time period
governed by the decision?
The time horizon of the decision is critical to determining the usefulness of decision
support for adapting to climate change. If, for example, the decision affects the allocation of
resources for only a short time, then it will not be critical to provide decision support. "Short," in
this context, means a time period during which climate is not expected to change dramatically
(Frederick 1998, Purkey, et al. 2007). Essentially, the issue is whether ignoring information on
future climate when making the decision will result in a potentially "worse" decision, i.e., in
neglecting to take adaptation actions that would improve the outcome.
The IPCC Third Assessment Report (IPCC 2001) describes characteristic time scales in
the earth system (see graph below). While it appears the socio-economic systems operate on
shorter time scales than other components of the system, it is important to keep in mind that
changes in the earth system have been occurring for some time as well as the inertia inherent in
the interacting climate, ecological and socio-economic systems. The IPCC concluded that there
is typically a delay of years to decades between perceiving a need to respond to climate
challenges; planning, research and developing a solution; and implementing the solution.
However, these time scales are not fixed and could be changed because of policies, individual
choices, and information (i.e., decision support).
June, 2010
53
-------
Characteristic time scales in the Earth system
Atmospheric
composition
Climate
system
Ecological
system
Socio-economic
system
Proems (Period in yean)
Mixing of GHG& ir. global atmosphere (2 to 4)
Time for 50% of a CO.. pulse lo isappear (50 to 200) VV G 3 -1
T 9
Transport of heat and COj lo the deep ocean (100 to 200) - V7G) "9 ' 1
iUp Eo 10 0Mi Sea level to respond to lermpetaluro change '*> Gl 9.11
LUp to II) Oc-D| ice caps to respond to temperjjtufe change \\c>i 11
Aoclnmalion ol plants to h»gh CO, (1 >o t00> WGi 3
Lrie o< plants (1 to 1.000) ¦ WGi 3. VVGli 5
Decay ol plant material (0 5 to 500) • WGI 3
Change m energy end-use technosoges (1 lo 10) WGi1 3.5 9
Change w energy-supply (ethnologies (10 to 50) - WGHi 3 5.9
Infrastructure (30 to 100) '.VG1II 3 5,0
Sooai norms and governance (3Q to t00) WGIIl 3.5.9
200
400
60C
Years
800
1.000
1.200
Aspects of timeli ness include:
• How often the decision is made. This attribute is in some sense a proxy for
several aspects of timing, because decisions made frequently likely have shorter planning
horizons, implementation periods, and project lifespans. Decisions that are made for the long
term—i.e., a combined planning horizon and implementation period that goes beyond a few
decades—will be most relevant for adaptation strategies (Allen, 2005). For example, decisions
that are being made that drive large and long-lived investment—such as irrigation systems or
slow growing tree cultivars — will be most at risk from climate change, and so may be good
candidates for decision support (Allen, 2005).
• Planning horizon. How far in advance does planning begin for future action? Put
differently: what is the lag between when decisions are made and when operations or actions
occur? The longer this period of time is, the more likely it is that future climate will have
changed and its effects should be included in present decision calculi. Hence, there is a greater
likelihood that decision support, particularly support that provides usable information on
projected future climatic conditions, will be of more use.
• Implementation period. Once a decision is made, how long is the time period before an
action or project is completed? As in planning horizon, the longer this time period, the more
June, 2010
54
-------
likely it is that climate will have changed before the project is completed, necessitating the
inclusion of long-term climate considerations in decision making. As in planning horizon, there
is a greater likelihood that decision support, particularly support that provides usable information
on projected future climate conditions, will be of more use.
• Project lifetime. How long will the project be in place, once completed? For physical
capital, this might be interpreted as the useful lifetime of the investment. Alternatively, it could
be interpreted as the duration of costs and benefits of the project, which might extend or persist
beyond the lifetime of the project. Again, the longer the project is in place, the more important it
is to include long-term climate considerations in the decision, and the greater the likelihood that
appropriately designed decision support will provide useful information to the decision process
A.3 Prioritization Criteria
A. 3.1 Potential benefits of accounting for climate change: How high are the stakes?
The potential benefit of including information on projected climate change in a decision is that
the decision maker will be able to plan for future climate change and make adaptation decisions
that reduce the negative impacts of climate change in a cost-effective manner. Without detailed
analysis of a particular issue, however, it is difficult to determine whether an adaptation response
to climate change is warranted, i.e. whether the costs of failing to adapt make it imperative to
include climate change in the decision calculus.
The magnitude of benefits and costs of the problem, and of the potential solutions, are
important, but so is the lifetime—how long-lived—these benefits and costs are. As Frederick
(1998) writes, "In contrast to investments involving incremental capacity increases, climate
expectations are likely to be very important for decisions involving long-lived benefits and costs
[and] irreversibilities." Fundamentally, we want to avoid regret (loss of future net benefits) that
will occur if we make the erroneous assumption that climate is not changing..
Certain aspects of the decision are indicators of how important it might be to include
climate, from the perspective of the stream of benefits and costs associated with the decision.
These include:
• The reversibility of the decision. Decisions can have effects that are irreversible. Some
paths will result in irreversible environmental changes and therefore a loss of future options
June, 2010
55
-------
(Arrow and Fisher, 1974). "Intrinsic irreversibility" results from crossing a threshold so that the
system cannot return to its previous state (IPCC 2001). Species extinction is an example of an
intrinsically irreversible change. There is considerable concern about these types of changes
(e.g., loss of biodiversity), in part because of the permanent loss of services that flow from these
resources (e.g., genetic material that could have been of value in medicine or other applications).
Even if species are not at risk, biological impacts—such as clear-cutting a forest or damage to
coral reefs—may be "effectively irreversible" because they can't return to their previous state in
any relevant time span (IPCC 2001; Narain et al., 2004). In the current context, irreversibilities
tend to make a decision a better candidate for decision support.
• The magnitude of projected impacts of climate change. In cases where resources are
vulnerable and the adverse impacts of climate change have been projected to be high, decision
support may yield substantial benefits, i.e., if decision support helps reduce impacts by
encouraging adaptation as an outcome of management decisions.5 Some autonomous adaptation
will occur, which will be important when evaluating the benefits of providing decision support.
Essentially one needs to determine what impacts will look like in the presence of autonomous
human responses to climate change, but in the absence of overt adaptation projects, plans, or
strategies (Frederick 1998). Situations where adverse impacts are projected to be higher are more
likely to need decision support that synthesizes prevailing knowledge and clarifies decision
options.
• The magnitude of costs. The higher the costs of investment or other
resource costs that will be obligated by the decision, the more important it is
to take climate into account in order to ensure an adaptive decision. Certain
fixed investments can be considered irreversible over relevant time horizons
(e.g., a sewer system, a wastewater treatment plant, an electric power plant, a
road). Typically, these decisions are made infrequently and the cost of
5 Not all effects of climate change will be negative, especially given the benefits of adaptation. Assuming uniform
change across climate divisions, Mendelsohn (2001) finds that the costs of climate change to market sectors in
agriculture, forestry, energy, and water are highest in the Southeast, South Plains, and Southwest, with relative gains
to the Midwest and Northeast regions of the country. At the North American scale, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change reports that some areas may benefit from climate change (IPCC 2007). Because climate models
show an amplification of warming at the poles, Northern Canada may benefit economically from warming trends
with increased shipping activity due to deeper ports and longer navigational seasons (Watson, Zinyowera, and Moss
1997).
June, 2010
56
-------
reversing or repairing a decision can be quite high. In contrast, the more often
a decision is made, the more opportunity there is for reacting to changing
climate, potentially reversing a previous decision at a relatively modest cost.
In general, it is likely that decisions that are made more frequently rely more
on information on current rather than future climate conditions since there are
many opportunities to update the data (i.e., it is possible to "wait and see").
Hence, decisions that are made frequently may not be good candidates for
decision support whereas those decisions that involve higher costs (i.e.,
infrequent, hard to reverse) are likely to be good candidates for decision
support.
A. 3.2 The specific focus of the decision: What are the objectives and purpose of the
decision?
This attribute refers to the specific nature of the problem and policy issue being
evaluated. For example, flood control issues will be approached very differently from water
quality issues. A key step will be to determine whether climate affects problems already being
addressed by decision makers (Frederick, 1998). For example, consider a resource that is
threatened and is in danger of experiencing substantial losses - in areal extent, population,
quality of life, etc. — under existing stresses. These resources typically receive higher priority
and garner more attention from a management perspective. If such resources are likely to face
increases in stress levels or additional sources of stress, the stakes only become higher. In cases
where climate change is an additional stressor on critical resources, the decision will be a better
candidate for decision support.
In some cases, the objective of a decision is such that it may override any attempt to
include climate change in the decision. For example, transportation infrastructure decisions may
have military or homeland defense implications that override climate change concerns. In the
water sector, flood protection often takes on an air of urgency that can overwhelm what should
be an area where climate considerations are relevant. For example, when a levee protecting an
island in California's Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta failed during the summer of 2005, the
decision was made to quickly mobilize resources to restore the levee to its original configuration
rather than to assess the appropriateness of this levee in the face of potential climate change. In a
June, 2010
57
-------
similar fashion, the levee failures associated with Hurricane Katrina have created an urgency to
reinforce California's levees in their present alignment and configuration.
These types of situations, where non-climate factors are the main considerations and/or
there is a heightened sense of urgency, may lead to decisions that are maladaptive from a climate
change perspective. For example, sea-level rise associated with climate change increases the
potential harm to coastal areas caused by the practice of developing low-lying coastal areas
(Easterling et al., 2004). If current trends in the decision are maladaptive, exacerbating known or
projected risks, then the decision represents a better candidate for decision support.
A. 3.3 What other decisions are being made that are linked or interdependent?
A decision is not always made in isolation, but frequently may be part of a broader
decision making process. These interdependent decisions may or may not be climate-related but
nonetheless may affect whether or not the decision—or set of decisions—is a good candidate for
decision support. For example, a decision about impounding a stream to make a pond may be
one part of a set of decisions being made for a housing development. In this case, the decision is
linked to other decisions, because the decision on the pond depends on other decisions of size
and design being made for the development. In this case, also, decisions about the housing
development are likely to be guided by various government regulations and standards. Thus,
while the decision on the pond's placement and design is linked to other decisions being made by
the housing developer, it is analytically—from a climate perspective—independent. Government
standards governing the pond and other features of the housing development can be set
independent of each other, although climate may factor into these standards to a greater or lesser
extent.
In the case in which decisions are linked and interdependent, multiple decisions may be
climate-related. For example, standards governing water quality and pollutant emissions into
water bodies will reflect a host of considerations, including decisions made regarding reservoir
and dam management, water uses, and of course expected average precipitation, droughts,
storms, and other factors. In this example, the decisions are interdependent and depend on
climate.
June, 2010
58
-------
Clearly, there is no simple answer to the question of how interdependence affects whether
or not a specific decision is a good candidate for decision support. However, information about
the characteristics of interdependent decisions may help in making a determination, such as:
• Do all the related decisions depend on climate variables?
• Are the same decision makers involved in all the decisions, and how many are there?
• Are the decisions made as part of the same process, so that it is possible to include
climate considerations into multiple decisions at once?
• How much control do decision makers have over the outcomes in each case?
A.3.4 What are the decision rules and tools used to make decisions?
To be effective, adaptation strategies must be incorporated into normal decision making
and should not be separate from other dimensions of risk management and decision making
(Allen, 2005). However, in some cases, individuals use simplified decision rules (such as
historical precedent) to make decisions. In other cases, detailed decision analytic models, or tools
such as benefit-cost analysis, may be used (Pyke et al., 2007; Gamble et al. 2004). In cases where
analytical models are used that explicitly incorporate climate information to support the
decisions process, the decision will be a better candidate for decision support, particularly if the
data or models are in a form that are consistent with existing (or readily available) climate data.
Conversely, in situations where simplified decision rules guide the decision making process, or
decisions are not data-driven, it may be more difficult to provide decision support to encourage
adaptation.
A.J. 5 What organizational resources and expertise are available?
It may be difficult for decision makers to get climate change on the agenda because they
are often juggling multiple issues of immediate importance, or because they face financial or
human resource constraints that limit their ability to address climate change impacts (CIG,
2006). If the organization is willing to (and typically does) expend resources on planning and
analysis, it will be a better candidate for decision support. Similarly, if the organization already
has a fair amount of expertise in climate analysis and routinely deals with quantitative
June, 2010
59
-------
information and uncertainty of the type that climate change involves, the decision will be a better
candidate for decision support. Alternatively, however, an organization that does not have a high
level of resources available or existing experience, but that is highly motivated to include climate
in its decision making, may be a good candidate for decision support that includes training,
education, and tool development.
A.J. 6 What scientific information or other data are currently used in the decision?
Many resource agencies, such as water resource management agencies, are accustomed to
responding to seasonal or inter-annual variations in climate (CIG, 2006). Expectations of future
climate are frequently implicitly or (more rarely) explicitly based on a continuation of past
patterns (Allen, 2005). If the decision process routinely uses climate variables, uncertainty data,
and other scientific information in making the decision, it may be a better candidate for decision
support.
Thus, it might be natural to assume that forecast climate change data could be more easily
incorporated into these decision making processes. However institutional and other constraints
may prevent a manager from assimilating forecasted climate data in the decision. Moreover,
many decision makers indicate that planning for future climate change requires data specific to
the decision maker's area of interest, for example a particular river reach (CIG, 2006). Thus,
while a decision which already explicitly incorporates climate data may be a better candidate for
decision support than a decision that does not use climate data, other considerations may be more
important.
A. 3.7 What are the potential constraints in using scientific information?
Institutional constraints. Even in cases where climate change information is available,
institutional constraints may prevent decision makers from using that information. For example,
a recent study of water managers and planners found that, in general, managers did not use
probabilistic forecast information about seasonal and interannual climate variability in their
planning (Rayner et al., 2005). While managers cited concern about the limited accuracy of
scientific forecasts as one reason why the information was not used, institutional factors also
appeared to play a role. Key institutional factors identified by the study as affecting the use of
new information were complexity and conservatism. Complexity—in the built system and in the
June, 2010
60
-------
institutions and decision making process—can present a challenge to the use of climate change
information, because it tends to obscure managers' understanding of the sensitivity of different
types of decisions to improved information (Rayner et al., 2005). A conservative approach to risk
and decision making can also reduce the extent to which decision makers are willing to adopt
new approaches or incorporate new information (Rayner et al., 2005).
Regulatory, operational, or legal constraints. The inclusion of climate change in
decision making processes is not always feasible. For example, the legal frameworks for project
planning in California—namely the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)—have made it difficult to include climate change
in water resource planning, despite the prudence of factoring these changes into supporting
analyses (Purkey et al., 2007). The problem arose because the perception was that significant
changes in hydrology would not occur within the typical 20 to 30 year planning horizon of most
NEPA and CEQA studies (Purkey et al., 2007). Such difficulties do not mean that climate
change should not be incorporated into decisions or that decision support is not warranted, only
that it will be more difficult to accomplish and may require legal or other changes. The
California legislature did act to ease this constraint with legislation such as Senate Bill 97, which
requires that CEQA actions address greenhouse gas emissions and effects from proposed
projects6. Several other states, such as Massachusetts and Washington, have taken similar efforts
to modify their environmental policy acts in order to include climate change effects in decision
making. However, the constraint remains for the majority of states and federal projects subject to
NEPA.
Institutional inertia, misperceptions, and other factors that make it difficult to get
climate change on the agenda. For many decisions—particularly those in the water resources
arena—it may make sense to incorporate climate change data into decision making. Yet, for the
most part, this has not occurred. Further, many decision makers are resistant to including climate
change in decision-making processes (CIG, 2006, Morss et al., 2005). For many decision
makers, climate change will be viewed as a "new" issue, competing with a host of other issues
that are already monopolizing their attention. Climate change will often be perceived as an issue
6 http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_97_bill_20070824_chaptered.html
June, 2010
61
-------
1
to address later, "when we see that change is occurring" , or when magnitudes and thresholds of
effects are more clearly understood. Uncertainty over how to plan for climate change will also
retard action (CIG, 2006). Moreover, decision makers may be hesitant to pursue climate change
as an issue because they expect that it will require developing substantially different policies and
planning approaches, even where that is not necessarily the case (CIG, 2006).
External stakeholder groups. The extent to which agency actors are responsive to, or
insulated from, constituent pressures will be an important consideration in selection of decisions
that may benefit from decision support. In fact, it is often stakeholders who move climate change
considerations into the center of resource management decision making. In the area of re-
licensing hydropower facilities, for example, stakeholders have begun to insist that analysis of
future operating conditions include an analysis of how these operations would perform under
alternative climate futures. Absent this insistence on the part of stakeholders, many utilities
acknowledge that they would not pursue this line of investigation.
Stakeholders are an important component and, in some cases, determinant of the
decision. As another example, permit decisions on where to locate commercial treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities of hazardous waste require public and stakeholder input. As part
of this process, open forums are held to discuss facility design, commercial benefits, and
environmental and public health concerns. (For example, the EPA advises against the location of
such operations in sensitive environments such as hurricane alleys, flood plains, and areas of
high seismological activity).
Decision support will be less effective if it does not recognize the role that these
groups play in the decision process, perhaps to the extent of providing them with information.
For example, because climate change may increase the intensity and frequency of hydro-
meteorological disasters, relevant risk data could benefit stakeholder forums on long-term, high-
risk land use planning.
The range of stakeholder groups that participate actively, as well as associations, political
groups, or other entities that indirectly influence a given decision have implications for the
effectiveness of decision support. For example, a decision with lengthy, extensive, and inclusive
7 As evident from our earlier discussion of timelines, for many decisions it will indeed be the most appropriate to
address climate change later, rather than sooner, because better information will become available. The challenge is
to identify which decisions should address climate change in the near term.
June, 2010
62
-------
stakeholder processes will have more diffuse, unidentified, and numerous influences on the
decision. Because decision makers may have less control over the actual decision, a support
system that focuses narrowly on the decision maker may not contribute much to the decision.
This also suggests that decision support, to be effective, may need to be focused beyond direct
decision makers, and on the broader group influencing decisions.
Where decision makers get their information—whom do they trust? Information on
climate change is generally transmitted by different intermediaries—scientific organizations,
advocacy organizations, and government—via a variety of different media, such as scientific
reports, memos, newsletters, directives and journal articles, as well as through mass media such
as newspapers and television. (Nelkin, 1987; Bell, 1994; Trumbo, 1996; Jacob and Hell Strom,
2000; Plein, 1991; Kingdon, 1995). A variety of strands of research provide some suggestions
about organizational attributes that affect the sources and flows of information and, thus, provide
insights into the potential usefulness of decision support.
One helpful strand of research comes from social network analysis, which is a set of tools
for mapping important knowledge relationships between people or departments, usually within
an organization. This process has led to a number of important lessons about how organizations
work, including the sources of information and data, ways to include collaboration, and means of
transferring knowledge in an organizational setting (Cross et al., 2002). There is a tendency to
rely on data sources and individuals or associations that are known personally, rather than on
databases, articles, or other impersonal sources of data. Decision makers are known to form
"cozy relationships" with information providers they trust and clientele groups they serve
directly. Thus, who you know will to some extent determine what you know (Cross et al., 2002).
In the current context, the sources of information that decision makers typically use may
influence both whether the decision/organization is a good candidate for decision support, as
well as the best means of providing that support. Organizations that are highly insular (i.e., rely
entirely on information sources within the organizations) may be more difficult candidates for
decision support. In contrast, non-governmental organizations that obtain information through
centralized sources, such as trade associations, may be easier to access through those
organizations. If organizations—including state and local government officials—rely on Federal
government data sources, these sources will be familiar and may offer a good conduit for
improving adaptation decision making.
June, 2010
63
-------
Similarly, the literature on "communities of practice" suggests that information is not
held only individually within and among organizations, but collectively. A community of
practice is a group across which know-how is shared; the community need not be formal, but
may be implicit in the relationships that develop (Brown and Duguid, 1998). A community of
practice develops a shared view of what it does, how to do it, how it relates to other practices,
and cultivates a network for information flows (Brown and Duguid, 1998; Brown and Duguid,
2001) This shared view, and how the community interfaces with other communities, may have
an influence not only on information flows within the community, but on how decisions are
made (an influence that is distinct from the organization making the decision). Thus, it may be
important to understand how information is shared, and the "community" decision makers
belong to, in deciding whether and how to provide decision support. Communities of practice, if
isolated, can become rigid in their views, which will also have implications for decision support
(Brown and Duguid, 1998).
It is also important to understand how information is used, in order to set priorities for
action. The literature on agenda setting provides information on how information is used in
politics: why do policymakers focus on some information while ignoring other information that
is "deemed" to be less relevant (Jones and Baumgarten 2005). Issues that are defined as being
important may also depend on the filters that individuals use in processing information (Wood
and Vedlitz 2007). Moreover, for some stakeholders, there may be a disconnect in how the
information that is received is applied. The literature on social amplification of risk provides
insight into the gap between technical assessments of environmental risk and lay perceptions of
those risks—perceptions that may guide, or at least influence, stakeholder decision making (see
for example, Pidgeon, Kasperson, and Slovic 2003).
June, 2010
64
-------
APPENDIX B
Water Quality BMP Screens
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Urban NPS
Forestry
Forest
Conservation
Infrastructure
planning
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Higher
Temperature: More
forest cover
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would
reduce the infiltration
provided by this
measure. It is unlikely
that either temperature
or evapotranspiration
benefits will be
affected.
5
5
25
35
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable.
Dependant on
project size.
3
1
Y
E: It would be
difficult to reforest
land after it has
been developed.
Urban NPS
Forestry
Forest
Conservation
Narrower
Residential
Streets
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Higher
Temperature: More
forest cover
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would
reduce the infiltration
provided by this
measure. It is unlikely
that either temperature
or evapotranspiration
benefits will be
affected.
5
5
25
35
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable.
Dependant on
project size.
3
1
Y
E: It would be
difficult to reforest
land after it has
been developed.
Urban NPS
Forestry
Forest
Conservation
Open Space
Design & Set
Asides
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Higher
Temperature: More
forest cover
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would
reduce the infiltration
provided by this
measure. It is unlikely
that either temperature
or evapotranspiration
benefits will be
affected.
5
5
25
35
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable.
Dependant on
project size.
3
1
Y
E: It would be
difficult to reforest
land after it has
been developed.
Urban NPS
Water
resources
Marine Pump
outs
(installation)
N
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
0
N
June, 2010
65
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Urban NPS
Forestry
Tree Planting
any tree
plantings not
along rivers
and streams
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Higher
Temperature: More
forest cover
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would
reduce the infiltration
provided by this
measure. It is unlikely
that either temperature
or evapotranspiration
benefits will be
affected.
1
1
25
27
Planning and
implementing tree
planting should
be relatively
simple (minimal
time constraints).
25-year lifetime of
project estimate
is for
establishment of
urban "forest."
3
2
Y
E: Trees can be
planted at any time
or removed fairly
easily. Their ability
to act as a buffer,
however, will likely
increase as they
grow in size; F:
Capital costs
should be
moderate.
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Enhanced
Stormwater
Management
Ponds
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC will increase
higher high flows which
may be harder to
control through
stormwater
management.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable.
Dependant on
regulatory
process.
2
3
Y
F: Not putting
controls in place
would be
moderately
irreversible, given
the cost to retrofit.
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Enhanced
Stormwater
Management
Porous
Pavement
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC will increase
higher high flows which
may be harder to
control through
stormwater
management.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable.
Dependant on
regulatory
process.
2
3
Y
F: Not putting
controls in place
would be
moderately
irreversible, given
the cost to retrofit.
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Enhanced
Stormwater
Management
Buffer Zones
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC will increase
higher high flows which
may be harder to
control through
stormwater
management.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable.
Dependant on
regulatory
process.
2
3
Y
F: Not putting
controls in place
would be
moderately
irreversible, given
the cost to retrofit.
June, 2010
66
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Enhanced
Stormwater
Management
Infiltration
trench/basin
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC will increase
higher high flows which
may be harder to
control through
stormwater
management.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable.
Dependant on
regulatory
process.
2
3
Y
F: Not putting
controls in place
would be
moderately
irreversible, given
the cost to retrofit.
Urban NPS
Nutrient
Management
Erosion and
Sediment
Control
(During
Construction)
Geotextiles
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration through
natural ground cover
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would
result in greater rates
of soil erosion.
1
1
1
3
This BMP should
be easy to plan &
implement b/c of
its short lifespan
and limited
application.
1
1
N
This BMP controls
erosion during
construction only,
so does not involve
anything
irreversible.
Urban NPS
Nutrient
Management
Erosion and
Sediment
Control
(During
Construction)
Sediment
Traps
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration through
natural ground cover
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would
result in greater rates
of soil erosion.
1
1
1
3
This BMP should
be easy to plan &
implement b/c of
its short lifespan
and limited
application.
1
1
N
This BMP controls
erosion during
construction only,
so does not involve
anything
irreversible.
Urban NPS
Nutrient
Management
Erosion and
Sediment
Control
(During
Construction)
Filter Berms
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration through
natural ground cover
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would
result in greater rates
of soil erosion.
1
1
1
3
This BMP should
be easy to plan &
implement b/c of
its short lifespan
and limited
application.
1
1
N
This BMP controls
erosion during
construction only,
so does not involve
anything
irreversible.
Urban NPS
Nutrient
Management
Erosion and
Sediment
Control
(During
Construction)
Mulching
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration through
natural ground cover
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would
result in greater rates
of soil erosion.
1
1
1
3
This BMP should
be easy to plan &
implement b/c of
its short lifespan
and limited
application.
1
1
N
This BMP controls
erosion during
construction only,
so does not involve
anything
irreversible.
Urban NPS
Septic
Septic
Connections
N
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
0
N
June, 2010
67
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Urban NPS
Septic
Septic
Denitrifi cation
N
N
N
N
Note: Eutrophication
does cause lower
DO and so does
higher temperature.
However this was
considered a
secondary effect.
N/A
0
N
Urban NPS
Septic
Septic
Pumping
N
N
N
N
Note: Eutrophication
does cause lower
DO and so does
higher temperature.
However this was
considered a
secondary effect.
N/A
0
N
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management
Conversion
wet extended
detention
ponds
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
stormwater
management.
1
1
25
27
Retrofit of
existing ponds
has shorter
planning-
implementation
phase than
establishing new
ponds.
2
3
Y
E: Will alter
landscape, but
probably not
irreversibly; F:
large upfront
capital costs
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management
Conversion
dry extended
detention
ponds
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
stormwater
management.
1
1
25
27
Retrofit of
existing ponds
has shorter
planning-
implementation
phase than
establishing new
ponds.
2
3
Y
E: Will alter
landscape, but
probably not
irreversibly; F:
large upfront
capital costs
June, 2010
68
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management
Conversion
retention
facilities
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
stormwater
management.
1
1
25
27
Retrofit of
existing ponds
has shorter
planning-
implementation
phase than
establishing new
ponds.
2
3
Y
E: Will alter
landscape, but
probably not
irreversibly; F:
large upfront
capital costs
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management
Retrofits
detention pond
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC will increase
higher high flows which
may be harder to
control through
traditional stormwater
management.
1
1
25
27
Planning may be
shorter due to
existing
development, but
will be more
constrained.
2
3
Y
E: Will alter
landscape, but
probably not
irreversibly; F:
large upfront
capital costs
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management
Retrofits
wetland
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC will increase
higher high flows which
may be harder to
control through
traditional stormwater
management.
1
1
25
27
Planning may be
shorter due to
existing
development, but
will be more
constrained.
2
3
Y
E: Will alter
landscape, but
probably not
irreversibly; F:
large upfront
capital costs
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management
Retrofits
underground
sand filtering
system
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC will increase
higher high flows which
may be harder to
control through
traditional stormwater
management.
1
1
25
27
Planning may be
shorter due to
existing
development, but
will be more
constrained.
2
3
Y
E: Will alter
landscape, but
probably not
irreversibly; F:
large upfront
capital costs
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management
Retrofits
infiltration
trench
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC will increase
higher high flows which
may be harder to
control through
traditional stormwater
management.
1
1
25
27
Planning may be
shorter due to
existing
development, but
will be more
constrained.
2
3
Y
E: Will alter
landscape, but
probably not
irreversibly; F:
large upfront
capital costs
June, 2010
69
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Urban NPS
Nutrient
Management
Urban Nutrient
Management
chemical
fertilizers
N
N
N
N
Note: Eutrophication
does cause lower
DO and so does
higher temperature.
However this was
considered
secondary effect.
N/A
0
N
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Impervious
Surface
Reduction -
Non-structural
Practices
Urban Forestry
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would
mean that more
impervious surfaces
may be needed to
reach the desired
decrease in runoff.
1
1
10
12
May include
grass pavers for
driveway/sidewal
k, grass lot
parking.
Planning and
implementation
time variable.
1
1
N
E: Should improve
environment rather
than degrade; F:
Not likely to require
large upfront
investment
Urban NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Reduction in
Urban Growth
Urban Forestry
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
N/A
5
10
25
40
Taking urban
land and
returning it to
forest, mixed
open, and ag
land could be a
time consuming
and incremental
process
3
1
Y
E: Not pursuing
this BMP (curbing
development)
could further
degrade
environment
Urban NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Reduction in
Urban Growth
Narrower
Residential
Streets
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
N/A
5
10
25
40
Taking urban
land and
returning it to
forest, mixed
open, and ag
land could be a
time consuming
and incremental
process
3
1
Y
E: Not pursuing
this BMP (curbing
development)
could further
degrade
environment
June, 2010
70
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Urban NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Reduction in
Urban Growth
Open Space
Design
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
N/A
5
10
25
40
Taking urban
land and
returning it to
forest, mixed
open, and ag
land could be a
time consuming
and incremental
process
3
1
Y
E: Not pursuing
this BMP (curbing
development)
could further
degrade
environment
Urban NPS
Forestry
Riparian
Forest Buffers
- Urban
riparian buffers
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Higher
Temperature: More
forest cover
Yes, CC may require
larger forest buffers
because of more
intense storm events.
2
2
25
29
Implementation
(planting trees)
should be quick.
Planning may
take longer in
developed areas.
Dependent on
project size.
3
2
Y
E: Should improve
environment rather
than degrade; F:
Does not require a
large capital
investment.
Urban NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Riparian Grass
Buffers-
Developed
Land
grassed
buffers
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration
Yes, CC may require
larger buffers because
of more intense storm
events.
2
5
10
17
Implementation
may take several
years if
impervious land
has to be
converted to
grasses.
Dependent on
project size.
1
2
N
E: Should improve
environment rather
than degrade; F:
Capital costs
should be
moderate
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Wet Ponds &
Wetlands
wet pond
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration, slows
runoff
Yes, CC may require
more wetland areas
because of more
intense storm events.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
3
3
Y
E: Should improve
environment rather
than degrade; Not
pursuing this BMP,
however, could
lead to further
destruction of
wetlands; F: High
capital costs
June, 2010
71
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Wet Ponds &
Wetlands
wet extended
detention
ponds
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration, slows
runoff
Yes, CC may require
more wetland areas
because of more
intense storm events.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
3
3
Y
E: Should improve
environment rather
than degrade; Not
pursuing this BMP,
however, could
lead to further
destruction of
wetlands; F: High
capital costs
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Wet Ponds &
Wetlands
retention
ponds
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration, slows
runoff
Yes, CC may require
more wetland areas
because of more
intense storm events.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
3
3
Y
E: Should improve
environment rather
than degrade; Not
pursuing this BMP,
however, could
lead to further
destruction of
wetlands; F: High
capital costs
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Wet Ponds &
Wetlands
shallow
wetlands
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration, slows
runoff
Yes, CC may require
more wetland areas
because of more
intense storm events.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
3
3
Y
E: Should improve
environment rather
than degrade; Not
pursuing this BMP,
however, could
lead to further
destruction of
wetlands; F: High
capital costs
June, 2010
72
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Wet Ponds &
Wetlands
pond/
wetlands
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration, slows
runoff
Yes, CC may require
more wetland areas
because of more
intense storm events.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
3
3
Y
E: Should improve
environment rather
than degrade; Not
pursuing this BMP,
however, could
lead to further
destruction of
wetlands; F: High
capital costs
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Wet Ponds &
Wetlands
constructed
wetlands
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration, slows
runoff
Yes, CC may require
more wetland areas
because of more
intense storm events.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
3
3
Y
E: Should improve
environment rather
than degrade; Not
pursuing this BMP,
however, could
lead to further
destruction of
wetlands; F: High
capital costs
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Dry Detention
&
Hydrodynamic
Structures
dry detention
basins
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
stormwater
management.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
1
3
Y
F: High capital
costs
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Dry Detention
&
Hydrodynamic
Structures
swirl
separators, or
hydrodynamic
structures
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
stormwater
management.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
1
3
Y
F: High capital
costs
June, 2010
73
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Dry Detention
&
Hydrodynamic
Structures
catch basins
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
stormwater
management.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
1
3
Y
F: High capital
costs
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Dry Detention
&
Hydrodynamic
Structures
In line storage
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
stormwater
management.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
1
3
Y
F: High capital
costs
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Dry Extended
Retention
Ponds
Dry Extended
Retention
Ponds
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
stormwater
management.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
1
3
Y
F: High capital
costs
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Dry Extended
Retention
Ponds
extended
detention
basins
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
stormwater
management.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
1
3
Y
F: High capital
costs
June, 2010
74
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Infiltration
Practices
Infiltration
trenches
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
stormwater
management.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
1
3
Y
E: Impact on
environment?; F:
High capital costs
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Infiltration
Practices
Infiltration
basins
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
stormwater
management.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
1
3
Y
E: Impact on
environment?; F:
High capital costs
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Infiltration
Practices
porous
pavement
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
stormwater
management.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
1
3
Y
E: Impact on
environment?; F:
High capital costs
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Filtering
Practices
dry swales
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
stormwater
management.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
1
4
Y
F: One of highest
capital costs of all
BMPs, according to
PATrib Strategy
June, 2010
75
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
><
1—
o
U)
<1)
+-»
05
O
0
o
+¦»
o
(5
i—
a.
O 0)
«= .2
o "5
8.2
W CL
5
o
4-
5
o
1—
+;
4—
V) Q. O
JJ (0 C
O T3 o
D 03 J2
- Q.
c
o
(0
+-»
o S
* E
<0 o
ft Q.
> .1
o
E o
p *
!5 —
e -e
Is
£ ,E
± u.
i>*
!5
i_
O o
± >-
(0
+-»
c
Q)
E
E
o
o
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Filtering
Practices
wet swales
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
stormwater
management.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
1
4
Y
F: One of highest
capital costs of all
BMPs, according to
PATrib Strategy
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Filtering
Practices
bioretention
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
stormwater
management.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
1
4
Y
F: One of highest
capital costs of all
BMPs, according to
PATrib Strategy
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Filtering
Practices
grassed
channels
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
stormwater
management.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
1
4
Y
F: One of highest
capital costs of all
BMPs, according to
PATrib Strategy
Urban NPS
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management -
Filtering
Practices
sand filters
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
stormwater
management.
2
2
25
29
Planning and
implementation
period dependent
on larger
development
process (e.g., for
a housing tract).
1
4
Y
F: One of highest
capital costs of all
BMPs, according to
PATrib Strategy
Urban NPS
Water
resources
Urban Stream
Restoration
Forested
Buffers
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
reduces rate of flow
Yes, CC will increase
higher high flows which
may make stream
restoration less
effective at nutrient and
sediment reductions.
5
10
50
65
Highly variable.
Dependent upon
restoration
objectives.
3
1
Y
E: Not pursuing
this BMP could
further degrade
environment; F:
Capital costs
should be low
June, 2010
76
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Urban NPS
Water
resources
Urban Stream
Restoration
Grassed
buffers
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
reduces rate of flow
Yes, CC will increase
higher high flows which
may make stream
restoration less
effective at nutrient and
sediment reductions.
5
10
50
65
Highly variable.
Dependent upon
restoration
objectives.
3
1
Y
E: Not pursuing
this BMP could
further degrade
environment; F:
Capital costs
should be low
Urban NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Wetlands -
Mixed Open
Land
constructed
wetlands
Y
Y
Y
Y
Lower Low Flows:
Non-tidal wetlands
can act as a source
of groundwater
discharge during low
flow periods,
evening the
hydrograph. Higher
High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC will increase
higher high flows which
may make wetlands
less effective at nutrient
and sediment
reductions.
5
10
30
45
Planning and
implementation
highly variable,
depending upon
restoration
objectives.
3
2
Y
E: Not pursuing
this BMP could
further degrade
environment; F:
Capital costs
should be
moderate
Urban NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Wetlands -
Mixed Open
Land
shallow
wetlands
Y
Y
Y
Y
Lower Low Flows:
Non-tidal wetlands
can act as a source
of groundwater
discharge during low
flow periods,
evening the
hydrograph. Higher
High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC will increase
higher high flows which
may make wetlands
less effective at nutrient
and sediment
reductions.
5
10
30
45
Planning and
implementation
highly variable,
depending upon
restoration
objectives.
3
2
Y
E: Not pursuing
this BMP could
further degrade
environment; F:
Capital costs
should be
moderate
June, 2010
77
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Urban NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Wetlands -
Mixed Open
Land
Extended
Detention
Wetland
Y
Y
Y
Y
Lower Low Flows:
Non-tidal wetlands
can act as a source
of groundwater
discharge during low
flow periods,
evening the
hydrograph. Higher
High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC will increase
higher high flows which
may make wetlands
less effective at nutrient
and sediment
reductions.
5
10
30
45
Planning and
implementation
highly variable,
depending upon
restoration
objectives.
3
2
Y
E: Not pursuing
this BMP could
further degrade
environment; F:
Capital costs
should be
moderate
Urban NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Abandoned
Mined Land
Reclamation
tree planting
N
Y
N
Y
Higher high flows:
Will reduce
sediment uptake
and increase
infiltration
N/A
5
10
20
35
Planning and
implementation
highly variable,
depending upon
restoration
objectives.
1
3
Y
E: Should enhance
environment; F:
Large capital
investment
Urban NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Abandoned
Mined Land
Reclamation
grass/shrub
planting
N
Y
N
Y
Higher high flows:
Will reduce
sediment uptake
and increase
infiltration
N/A
5
10
20
35
Planning and
implementation
highly variable,
depending upon
restoration
objectives.
1
3
Y
E: Should enhance
environment; F:
Large capital
investment
Urban NPS
Forestry
Forest
Harvesting
Practices
Minimize the
number of skid
trail stream
crossings
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Higher
Temperature: More
forest cover
No CC does not affect
the effectiveness.
1
0
1
2
Implemented at
time of
harvesting; little
planning required
1
1
N
E: Should enhance
environment if
implemented, but
not cause
irreversible
damage if not
implemented; F:
Minimal capital
investment
June, 2010
78
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Urban NPS
Forestry
Forest
Harvesting
Practices
Carefully
Locate, Design
and Build All
Roads and
Skid Trails
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Higher
Temperature: More
forest cover
No CC does not affect
the effectiveness.
1
0
1
2
Implemented at
time of
harvesting; little
planning required
1
1
N
E: Should enhance
environment if
implemented, but
not cause
irreversible
damage if not
implemented; F:
Minimal capital
investment
Urban NPS
Forestry
Forest
Harvesting
Practices
Keep landings
out of low
spots and
poorly drained
places
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Higher
Temperature: More
forest cover
No CC does not affect
the effectiveness.
1
0
1
2
Implemented at
time of
harvesting; little
planning required
1
1
N
E: Should enhance
environment if
implemented, but
not cause
irreversible
damage if not
implemented; F:
Minimal capital
investment
Urban NPS
Nutrient
Management
Street
Sweeping in
Urban Areas
N
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
0
N
Urban NPS
Nutrient
Management
Dirt and
Gravel Road
Erosion and
Sediment
Controls
Keep the road
surface tight
and
impervious
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through dirt and gravel
road erosion/sediment
control.
2
2
10
14
Planning and
implementation
highly variable,
depending upon
project size.
2
1
N
E: Not pursuing
this BMP could
damage the
environment, but
probably not
irreversibly; F: Low
capital investment
per foot of road
June, 2010
79
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Urban NPS
Nutrient
Management
Dirt and
Gravel Road
Erosion and
Sediment
Controls
Road grading
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through dirt and gravel
road erosion/sediment
control.
2
2
10
14
Planning and
implementation
highly variable,
depending upon
project size.
2
1
N
E: Not pursuing
this BMP could
damage the
environment, but
probably not
irreversibly; F: Low
capital investment
per foot of road
Urban NPS
Nutrient
Management
Dirt and
Gravel Road
Erosion and
Sediment
Controls
maintain a
proper road
crown for good
drainage
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through dirt and gravel
road erosion/sediment
control.
2
2
10
14
Planning and
implementation
highly variable,
depending upon
project size.
2
1
N
E: Not pursuing
this BMP could
damage the
environment, but
probably not
irreversibly; F: Low
capital investment
per foot of road
Agricultural
NPS
Nutrient
Management
Animal Waste
Management
System-
Livestock
N
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
0
N
Agricultural
NPS
Nutrient
Management
Animal Waste
Management
System -
Poultry
N
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
0
N
June, 2010
80
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Agricultural
NPS
Nutrient
Management
Barnyard
Runoff
Controls - With
Storage &
Without
Storage
roof runoff
control
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
runoff controls.
1
1
3
5
Planning and
implementation
should be
relatively simple
for these types of
controls.
Retrofits to
existing farms.
1
1
N
E: Changes to the
environment will
not be major and
should be
reversible; F: Low
capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Nutrient
Management
Barnyard
Runoff
Controls - With
Storage &
Without
Storage
diversion of
clean water
from entering
the barnyard
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
runoff controls.
1
1
3
5
Planning and
implementation
should be
relatively simple
for these types of
controls.
Retrofits to
existing farms.
1
1
N
E: Changes to the
environment will
not be major and
should be
reversible; F: Low
capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Nutrient
Management
Barnyard
Runoff
Controls - With
Storage &
Without
Storage
control of
runoff from
barnyard
areas
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration Higher
Temperature:
Reduces runoff
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
runoff controls.
1
1
3
5
Planning and
implementation
should be
relatively simple
for these types of
controls.
Retrofits to
existing farms.
1
1
N
E: Changes to the
environment will
not be major and
should be
reversible; F: Low
capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Carbon
Sequestration
N
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
0
N
June, 2010
81
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Acres Cereal
Cover Crops
Acres Cereal
Cover Crops
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through traditional
cover crops.
0
0
1
1
Planning and
implementation
occurs within a
year of planting.
1
1
N
E: Changes to the
environment will
not be major and
should be
reversible; F: Low
capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Commodity
Cereal Cover
Crops
Commodity
Cereal Cover
Crops
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration (lower
magnitude than non-
harvested cover
crops)
Yes, CC will increase
higher high flows which
may be harder to
control through
traditional cover crops.
0
0
1
1
Planning and
implementation
occurs within a
year of planting.
1
1
N
E: Changes to the
environment will
not be major and
should be
reversible; F: Low
capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Acres
Conservation
Plans (Farm
Plans)
conservation
tillage
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control with
farm plans.
2
2
10
14
Planning and
implementation
should not take
more than a
couple years, but
probably highly
variable.
1
1
N
E: Changes to the
environment will
not be major and
should be
reversible; F: Low
capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Acres
Conservation
Plans (Farm
Plans)
crop rotations
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control with
farm plans.
2
2
10
14
Planning and
implementation
should not take
more than a
couple years, but
probably highly
variable.
1
1
N
E: Changes to the
environment will
not be major and
should be
reversible; F: Low
capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Acres
Conservation
Plans (Farm
Plans)
grassed
waterways
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control with
farm plans.
2
2
10
14
Planning and
implementation
should not take
more than a
couple years, but
probably highly
variable.
1
1
N
E: Changes to the
environment will
not be major and
should be
reversible; F: Low
capital costs
June, 2010
82
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Acres
Conservation
Plans (Farm
Plans)
sediment
basins
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control with
farm plans.
2
2
10
14
Planning and
implementation
should not take
more than a
couple years, but
probably highly
variable.
1
1
N
E: Changes to the
environment will
not be major and
should be
reversible; F: Low
capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Acres
Conservation
Plans (Farm
Plans)
grade
stabilization
structures
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control with
farm plans.
2
2
10
14
Planning and
implementation
should not take
more than a
couple years, but
probably highly
variable.
1
1
N
E: Changes to the
environment will
not be major and
should be
reversible; F: Low
capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Acres
Conservation
Till
N
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
0
N
Agricultural
NPS
Nutrient
Management
Nutrient
Management-
Agriculture
N
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
0
N
Agricultural
NPS
Nutrient
Management
Phytase Feed
Additives -
Poultry
N
N
N
N
Note: Does this
decrease enteric
fermentation? Is this
given to cows?
N/A
0
N
June, 2010
83
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Retirement of
Highly
Erodible Land-
Trees
tree planting
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Higher
Temperature: More
forest cover
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through riparian buffer
controls.
1
2
10
13
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
2
1
N
E: Not
implementing this
BMP could cause
further
environmental
degradation of
already vulnerable
lands; F: Low
capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Retirement of
Highly
Erodible Land-
Trees
shrub/grasses
planting
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Higher
Temperature: More
forest cover
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through riparian buffer
controls.
1
2
10
13
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
2
1
N
E: Not
implementing this
BMP could cause
further
environmental
degradation of
already vulnerable
lands; F: Low
capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Riparian
Forest Buffers
-Agriculture
riparian buffers
(planted along
rivers and
streams)
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Higher
Temperature: More
forest cover
Yes, CC may increase
higher high flows which
may be harder to
control through riparian
buffer controls.
1
2
25
28
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
3
2
Y
E: Should improve
environment rather
than degrade; F:
Does not require a
large capital
investment.
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Rotational
Grazing/Grazi
ng Land
Protection with
Stream
Fencing
rotational
grazing and
stream fencing
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
through rotational
grazing.
1
2
10
13
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
1
1
N
E: Changes to the
environment will
not be major and
should be
reversible; F: Low
capital costs
June, 2010
84
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Agricultural
NPS
Water
resources
Stream
Protection with
Fencing
fencing along
streams
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
higher high flows which
may be harder to
control through
streambank fencing
and riparian controls.
1
2
10
13
Planning and
implementation
should not take
more than a
couple years.
1
1
N
E: Changes to the
environment will
not be major and
should be
reversible; F: Low
capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Water
resources
Stream
Protection
without
Fencing with
Off Stream
Watering and
Tree Planting
watering holes
with tree
planting
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
higher high flows which
may be harder to
control through fencing
and riparian controls.
1
2
10
13
Planning and
implementation
should not take
more than a
couple years.
1
1
N
E: Changes to the
environment will
not be major and
should be
reversible; F: Low
capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Nutrient
Management
Off-Stream
Watering
N
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
0
N
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Conservation
Tillage
Conservation
tillage
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control with
conservation tillage.
0
0
1
1
Planning and
implementation
occurs within a
year of planting.
1
1
N
E: Changes to the
environment will
not be major and
should be
reversible; F: Low
capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Cover Crops,
Early
Cover Crops
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control with
cover crops.
0
0
1
1
Planning and
implementation
occurs within a
year of planting.
1
1
N
E: Changes to the
environment will
not be major and
should be
reversible; F: Low
capital costs
June, 2010
85
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Agricultural
NPS
Nutrient
Management
Runoff Control
Ponds
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control with
traditional runoff
controls.
1
3
10
14
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
2
1
N
E:Not
implementing this
BMP could lead to
environmental
degradation from
animal waste; F:
Low capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Nutrient
Management
Runoff Control
Lagoons
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control with
traditional runoff
controls.
1
3
10
14
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
2
1
N
E:Not
implementing this
BMP could lead to
environmental
degradation from
animal waste; F:
Low capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Nutrient
Management
Runoff Control
Tanks for
Liquid Waste
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control with
traditional runoff
controls.
1
3
10
14
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
2
1
N
E:Not
implementing this
BMP could lead to
environmental
degradation from
animal waste; F:
Low capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Nutrient
Management
SCWQP
Implementatio
n and
Treatment of
Highly
Erodible Land
crop rotations
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
effectively with
traditional erosion
controls.
1
1
10
12
Planning and
implementation
should not take
more than a
couple years.
2
1
N
E: Not
implementing this
BMP could cause
further
environmental
degradation of
already vulnerable
lands; F: Low
capital costs
June, 2010
86
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Agricultural
NPS
Nutrient
Management
SCWQP
Implementatio
n and
Treatment of
Highly
Erodible Land
sediment
basins
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
effectively with
traditional erosion
controls.
1
1
10
12
Planning and
implementation
should not take
more than a
couple years.
2
1
N
E: Not
implementing this
BMP could cause
further
environmental
degradation of
already vulnerable
lands; F: Low
capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Nutrient
Management
SCWQP
Implementatio
n and
Treatment of
Highly
Erodible Land
grade
stabilization
structures
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would be
harder to control
effectively with
traditional erosion
controls.
1
1
10
12
Planning and
implementation
should not take
more than a
couple years.
2
1
N
E: Not
implementing this
BMP could cause
further
environmental
degradation of
already vulnerable
lands; F: Low
capital costs
Ag/ Forest
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Forest
Conservation
(Forest
Conservation
Act)
Open Space
Set Aside
(Conservation
reserve)
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Higher
Temperature: More
forest cover
No, CC does not affect
the effectiveness.
5
1
25
31
This will require
planning but
minimal
implementation
3
1
Y
E: It would be
difficult to reforest
land after it has
been developed.
Ag/ Forest
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Forest
Conservation
(Forest
Conservation
Act)
tree planting
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Higher
Temperature: More
forest cover
No, CC does not affect
the effectiveness.
5
1
25
31
This will require
planning but
minimal
implementation
3
1
Y
E: It would be
difficult to reforest
land after it has
been developed.
June, 2010
87
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
<
1-
Q.
s
CO
><
o
U)
<0
+¦»
(5
O
+;
-4-i 4—
V) Q. O
JJ (0 C
O T3 o
D 03 J2
- Q.
c
O
CC
+-»
o S
* E
<0 o
(5 Q.
> .1
1—
o
E o
p <
!5 —
e -e
Is
£ ,E
± u.
i>*
!5
1_
-
(0
+-»
c
0
E
E
o
o
Ag/ Forest
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Forest
Harvesting
Practices-
Preventing
clearcut
Minimize the
number of skid
trail stream
crossings
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Higher
Temperature:
Conservation of
forest cover
No, CC does not affect
the effectiveness.
1
2
5
8
Implemented at
time of
harvesting.
Dependant on
project size.
1
1
N
E: Should enhance
environment if
implemented, but
not cause
irreversible
damage if not
implemented; F:
Minimal capital
investment
Ag/ Forest
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Forest
Harvesting
Practices-
Preventing
clearcut
Carefully
Locate, Design
and Build All
Roads and
Skid Trails
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Higher
Temperature:
Conservation of
forest cover
No, CC does not affect
the effectiveness.
1
2
5
8
Implemented at
time of
harvesting.
Dependant on
project size.
1
1
N
E: Should enhance
environment if
implemented, but
not cause
irreversible
damage if not
implemented; F:
Minimal capital
investment
Ag/ Forest
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Forest
Harvesting
Practices-
Preventing
clearcut
Keep landings
out of low
spots and
poorly drained
places
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Higher
Temperature:
Conservation of
forest cover
No, CC does not affect
the effectiveness.
1
2
5
8
Implemented at
time of
harvesting.
Dependant on
project size.
1
1
N
E: Should enhance
environment if
implemented, but
not cause
irreversible
damage if not
implemented; F:
Minimal capital
investment
Ag/ Forest
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Forest Buffer
Strip
Forested
Buffers
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Higher
Temperature: More
forest cover
Yes, CC may make the
current buffer less
effective and a larger
buffer necessary.
1
2
25
28
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
3
2
Y
E: Should improve
environment rather
than degrade; F:
Does not require a
large capital
investment.
June, 2010
88
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
<
1-
Q.
s
CO
><
o
U)
<0
+¦»
(5
O
+;
4—
V) Q. O
JJ (0 C
O T3 o
D 03 J2
- Q.
c
o
(0
+-»
o S
* E
<0 o
ft Q.
> .1
O
E o
p *
!5 —
e -e
Is
£ ,E
± u.
i>*
!5
1_
-
(0
+-»
c
Q)
E
E
o
o
Ag/ Forest
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Grassed
Buffer Strip
grassed
buffers
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Yes, CC may make the
current buffer less
effective and a larger
buffer necessary.
1
1
10
12
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
1
2
N
E: Should improve
environment rather
than degrade; F:
Capital costs
should be
moderate
Ag/ Forest
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
CREP
Wetland
Restoration
shallow
wetlands
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Yes, CC may cause
higher high flows that
could reduce the
effectiveness of
wetlands as
sediment/nutrient
control measures.
5
10
30
45
Planning may
take several
years and
implementation
could last for
even longer,
depending on
restoration
needs.
3
3
Y
E: Should improve
environment rather
than degrade; Not
pursuing this BMP,
however, could
lead to further
destruction of
wetlands; F: High
capital costs
Ag/ Forest
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
CREP
Wetland
Restoration
Extended
Detention
Wetland
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Yes, CC may cause
higher high flows that
could reduce the
effectiveness of
wetlands as
sediment/nutrient
control measures.
5
10
30
45
Planning may
take several
years and
implementation
could last for
even longer,
depending on
restoration
needs.
3
3
Y
E: Should improve
environment rather
than degrade; Not
pursuing this BMP,
however, could
lead to further
destruction of
wetlands; F: High
capital costs
Ag/ Forest
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
CREP
Wetland
Restoration
pond/
wetlands
N
Y
Y
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Yes, CC may cause
higher high flows that
could reduce the
effectiveness of
wetlands as
sediment/nutrient
control measures.
5
10
30
45
Planning may
take several
years and
implementation
could last for
even longer,
depending on
restoration
needs.
3
3
Y
E: Should improve
environment rather
than degrade; Not
pursuing this BMP,
however, could
lead to further
destruction of
wetlands; F: High
capital costs
June, 2010
89
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Ag/ Forest
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Woodland
Buffer Filter
Area
Buffer Zones
N
Y
N
Y
Higher High Flows:
Encourages
Infiltration and
Evapotranspiration.
Higher
Temperature: More
forest cover
Yes, CC may make the
current buffer less
effective and a larger
buffer necessary.
1
1
25
27
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
3
2
Y
E: Should improve
environment rather
than degrade; F:
Does not require a
large capital
investment.
Ag/ Forest
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Woodland
Erosion
Stabilization
Land shaping
and planting
permanent
vegetation
N
Y
N
Y
Higher high flows:
Will reduce
sediment uptake
and increase
infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events, which would
reduce the
effectiveness of
woodlands as sediment
control.
2
2
10
14
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
1
2
N
E: Should improve
environment rather
than degrade; F:
Does not require a
large capital
investment.
Agricultural
NPS
Nutrient
Management
Sidedress
Application of
Nitrogen on
Corn
N
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
0
N
Agricultural
NPS
Nutrient
Management
Manure
Application to
Corn using
Pre-Sidedress
N
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
0
N
Agricultural
NPS
Nutrient
Management
Nitrate Test to
Determine
Need for
Sidedress
Nitrogen
N
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
0
N
Agricultural
NPS
Nutrient
Management
Late Winter
Split
Application of
Nitrogen on
Small Grain
N
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
0
N
June, 2010
90
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Vegetative
Stabilization of
Marsh Fringe
Areas
Land shaping
and planting
permanent
vegetation
N
Y
N
Y
Higher high flows:
Will reduce
sediment uptake
and increase
infiltration
Yes, higher high flows
will decrease
effectiveness of
vegetation stabilization
1
1
10
12
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
1
2
N
E: Should improve
environment rather
than degrade; F:
Capital costs
should be
moderate
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Permanent
Vegetative
Cover on
Cropland
N
N
N
N
Duplicative of cover
crops
N/A
0
N
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Permanent
Vegetative
Cover on
Cropland for
Wildlife
Permanent
Vegetative
Cover on
Cropland for
Wildlife
N
Y
N
Y
Higher high flows:
Will reduce
sediment uptake
and increase
infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would
decrease effectiveness
of vegetative cover.
1
1
5
7
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
2
1
N
E:Not
implementing this
BMP could lead to
declines in wildlife
populations and
ecosystem health;
F: Low capital
costs
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Stripcropping
Systems
Stripcropping
Systems
N
Y
N
Y
Higher high flows:
Will reduce
sediment uptake
and increase
infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would
decrease effectiveness
of stripcropping
systems
1
1
5
7
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
1
1
N
E: Changes to the
environment will
not be major and
should be
reversible; F: Low
capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Buffer
Stripcropping
Buffer Strip-
cropping
N
Y
N
Y
Higher high flows:
Will reduce
sediment uptake
and increase
infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would
decrease effectiveness
of buffer stripcropping
1
1
5
7
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
1
1
N
E: Changes to the
environment will
not be major and
should be
reversible; F: Low
capital costs
June, 2010
91
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Buffer
Stripcropping
/Wildlife
Option
Buffer Strip-
cropping
N
Y
N
Y
Higher high flows:
Will reduce
sediment uptake
and increase
infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would
decrease effectiveness
of buffer stripcropping.
1
1
5
7
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
1
1
N
E: Changes to the
environment will
not be major and
should be
reversible; F: Low
capital costs
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Terrace
System
Terrace
System
N
Y
N
Y
Higher high flows:
Will reduce
sediment uptake
and increase
infiltration
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would
decrease effectiveness
of terrace systems.
2
2
10
14
A terrace system
may require
years of planning
and
implementation.
Dependant on
project size.
2
2
N
E: Terraced
systems alter the
landscape and
remain in place
unless actively
removed; F:
moderate capital
investment (?)
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Small
Acreage
Grazing
System
N
N
N
N
Duplicative of
Fenced alternating
grazing areas
N/A
0
N
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Farm Road or
Heavy Traffic
animal Travel
lane
Stabilization
Keep the road
surface tight
and
impervious
N
Y
N
Y
Higher high flows:
will reduce sediment
uptake
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would
decrease effectiveness
of road stabilization
5
5
10
20
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
2
1
N
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Farm Road or
Heavy Traffic
animal Travel
lane
Stabilization
Road grading
N
Y
N
Y
Higher high flows:
will reduce sediment
uptake
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would
decrease effectiveness
of road stabilization
5
5
10
20
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
2
1
N
June, 2010
92
-------
BMP
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate change
affect the
effectiveness of the
BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility
BMP Type
Category
Practice
Specific
Practice
Lower low flow
Higher high
flow
Higher
temperatures
Does an
adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for
planning
Years for
implementation
Litetime or
project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Environmental
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
YorN
Comments
Agricultural
NPS
Land Use/
Land Mgmt
Farm Road or
Heavy Traffic
animal Travel
lane
Stabilization
maintain a
proper road
crown for good
drainage
N
Y
N
Y
Higher high flows:
will reduce sediment
uptake
Yes, CC may increase
intensity of storm
events which would
decrease effectiveness
of road stabilization
5
5
10
20
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
2
1
N
Point
Source
Nutrient
Management
POTWs
Standards for
Discharge
Permits
POTWs
Standards for
Discharge
Permits
Y
N
N
Y
Lower low flows:
Stricter effluent
standards will
reduce pollution
impact under low
flow conditions
Yes, CC could reduce
the effectiveness of
planned TMDLs in
meeting design water
quality criteria (e.g., if
future 7Q10 is lower
than current 7Q10).
5
5
20
30
Planning and
implementation
are highly
variable,
depending on
project size.
1
4
Y
June, 2010
93
-------
Ecosystem BMP Screens
Ecosystem ("living resources") BMPs
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate
change affect
the
effectiveness of
the BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of
Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility (evaluated at the Specific
Practice Level)
Source(s)
Category
Practice
Specific Practice
Increased Water
Temp
Sedimentation
Altered Flow
Regimes
Sea Level Rise
Does an adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for planning
Years for
implementation
Lifetime of project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
Long Term
Commitment
Irreversibility:
Forcloses Other
Options?
Irreversibility: Y or
N
Comments
Habitat
protection
and/or
restoration
Build living
shorelines
Construct
shallow water
rock sills to
absorb wave
energy with
wetland
vegetation
planted behind
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Living shorelines will
allow wetland
migration and other
adaptive changes to
take place as climate
changes.
Yes-sea level
rise will lead to
shoreline
migration.
indefinite
0
2
3
2
Y
Construction of
living shorelines
represents a long-
term commitment,
but does not
completely
foreclose other
options
Habitat
protection
and/or
restoration
Build living
shorelines
Employ organic
materials such
as fiber logs
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Living shorelines will
allow wetland
migration and other
adaptive changes to
take place as climate
changes.
Yes-sea level
rise will lead to
shoreline
migration.
indefinite
0
2
3
2
Y
Construction of
living shorelines
represents a long-
term commitment,
but does not
completely
foreclose other
options
Habitat
protection
and/or
restoration
Fishery
Restoration
Build fish
passageways
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Fish passageways
will increase the
chance of fish
survival generally as
well as in the face of
climate impacts such
as increased water
temps and altered
flow regimes
Yes-altered flow
regimes could
impact the
effectiveness of
the
passageways.
indefinite
0
2
3
2
Y
Building fish
passageways
involves
construction of
structures that are
intended to survive
years into the
future. Other
options could still
be employed,
however, as long as
the fish
passageways do
not interfere.
June, 2010
94
-------
Ecosystem BMP Screens
Ecosystem ("living resources") BMPs
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate
change affect
the
effectiveness of
the BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of
Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility (evaluated at the Specific
Practice Level)
Source(s)
Category
Practice
Specific Practice
Increased Water
Temp
Sedimentation
Altered Flow
Regimes
Sea Level Rise
Does an adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for planning
Years for
implementation
Lifetime of project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
Long Term
Commitment
Irreversibility:
Forcloses Other
Options?
Irreversibility: Y or
N
Comments
Habitat
protection
and/or
restoration
Fishery
Restoration
Remove
physical and
chemical
blockages for
Bay species
such as
sturgeon, sea
turtles,
manatees
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Fish passageways
will increase the
chance of fish
survival generally as
well as in the face of
climate impacts such
as increased water
temps and altered
flow regimes.
Yes-altered flow
regimes could
impact the
effectiveness of
the
passageways.
indefinite
0
2
3
1
Y
Removal of physical
or chemical
blockages is
intended to be
permanent.
Removing
blockages does not
foreclose any other
options.
Chesapeake
2000 Bay
Agreement,
http://www.ches
apeakebav. net/a
qreement.htm:
NOAA
Chesapeake
Bay Office
Strategic Plan,
http://noaa.ches
apeakebav. net/d
ocs/ReadinqRoo
m/NCBOStrateqi
cPlanFINAL.pdf
Biological
population
management
Fishery
Restoration
Maintain/protec
t upstream
spawning
habitats
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Protecting upstream
spawning habitats
will increase the
chance of fish
survival generally as
well as in the face of
climate impacts such
as increased water
temps and altered
flow regimes
Yes-upstream
spawning
habitats may
shift as water
temperature and
flow regimes
change.
indefinite
0
2
2
1
N
Maintenance and
protection of
upstream habitats
will require ongoing
effort, which could
be interrupted at
anytime. It does
not foreclose other
options later.
June, 2010
95
-------
Ecosystem BMP Screens
Ecosystem ("living resources") BMPs
SCREEN 1:
CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate
change affect
the
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of
Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility (evaluated at the Specific
Practice Level)
Category
Practice
Specific Practice
Increased Water
Temp
Sedimentation
Altered Flow
Regimes
Sea Level Rise
Does an adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
effectiveness of
the BMP?
Years for planning
Years for
implementation
Lifetime of project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
Long Term
Commitment
Irreversibility:
Forcloses Other
Options?
Irreversibility: Y or
N
Comments
Source(s)
Biological
population
management
Fishery
Restoration
Manage fishery
harvest levels -
important
fisheries
include:
American eel,
Shad, Atlantic
menhaden,
Black sea
bass, Bluefish,
Tautog, Blue
Crab etc.
Y
N
Y
N
Y
More abundant and
robust fisheries will
have more likelihood
of being resilient to
climate change
impacts.
Yes-spawning is
temperature
dependent for
some species
and altered flow
regimes could
interfere with
migration and
natural spawning
cycles.
indefinite
0
2
1
1
N
Managing harvest
levels requires
ongoing effort,
which could be
interrupted at any
time. Harvest levels
may also be revised
every year. It does
not foreclose other
options.
NOAA Fisheries
Ecosystem Plan,
http://noaa.ches
aDeakebav.net/d
ocs/FEP DRAF
T.pdf
Biological
population
management
Increase
Oyster
populations
Breed triploid
Asian Suminoe
Oysters
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Can withstand large
temperature and
salinity ranges,
unlike native oyster
population.
Yes-even
though this
species can
withstand more
adverse
conditions, there
are limits to its
resilience.
indefinite
0
2
3
3
Y
It will be difficult to
remove introduced
oysters, so it is a
long term
commitment. This
practice forecloses
other options, since
there is a chance of
non-sterile oysters
being introduced
and causing
irreversible
ecosystem changes
Chesapeake
Bay Program
June, 2010
96
-------
Ecosystem BMP Screens
Ecosystem ("living resources") BMPs
SCREEN 1:
CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate
change affect
the
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of
Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility (evaluated at the Specific
Practice Level)
Category
Practice
Specific Practice
Increased Water
Temp
Sedimentation
Altered Flow
Regimes
Sea Level Rise
Does an adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
effectiveness of
the BMP?
Years for planning
Years for
implementation
Lifetime of project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
Long Term
Commitment
Irreversibility:
Forcloses Other
Options?
Irreversibility: Y or
N
Comments
Source(s)
Biological
population
management
Increase
Oyster
populations
Introduce
diploid Asian
Suminoe
Oysters
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Can withstand large
temperature and
salinity ranges,
unlike native oyster
population.
Yes-even
though this
species can
withstand more
adverse
conditions, there
are limits to its
resilience.
indefinite
0
2
3
3
Y
It will be difficult to
remove introduced
oysters, so it is a
long term
commitment. This
practice forecloses
other options, since
there is a chance of
extinction of native
oysters and
hybridization.
Chesapeake
Bay Program
Non-native
species
management
Invasive
Species
Management
Phragmites
australis
(common reed)
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Invasive species
such as Phragmites
australis can survive
in adverse
conditions unsuitable
for native species;
controlling invasives
will give native
species a better
chance of adapting
and surviving in the
face of climate
change.
Yes-altered
conditions could
alter where and
when invasive
species thrive
and, thus, impact
the management
plans to control
them.
indefinite
0
2
2
1
N
Controlling invasive
will require ongoing
effort, which could
be interrupted at
any point. Does not
foreclose other
options.
Common Reed
(Phragmites
australis) in the
Chesapeake
Bay: A Draft
Bay-wide
Management
Plan. October
2003.
June, 2010
97
-------
Ecosystem BMP Screens
Ecosystem ("living resources") BMPs
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate
change affect
the
effectiveness of
the BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of
Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility (evaluated at the Specific
Practice Level)
Source(s)
Category
Practice
Specific Practice
Increased Water
Temp
Sedimentation
Altered Flow
Regimes
Sea Level Rise
Does an adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for planning
Years for
implementation
Lifetime of project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
Long Term
Commitment
Irreversibility:
Forcloses Other
Options?
Irreversibility: Y or
N
Comments
Non-native
species
management
Invasive
Species
Management
Lythrum
salicaria
(purple
loosestrife)
N
N
Y
N
Y
Primarily invades
disturbed wetlands,
but large colonies
can develop in any
moist or marshy site;
controlling invasives
will give native
species a better
chance of adapting
and surviving in the
face of climate
change.
Yes-altered
conditions could
alter where and
when invasive
species thrive
and, thus, impact
the management
plans to control
them.
indefinite
0
2
2
1
N
Controlling invasive
will require ongoing
effort, which could
be interrupted at
any point. Does not
foreclose other
options.
Purple
Loosestrife
(Lythrum
salicaria) in the
Chesapeake
Bay Watershed:
A Regional
Management
Plan. May 2004.
Non-native
species
management
Invasive
Species
Management
Trapa natans
(water
chestnut)
N
Y
N
N
Y
Floating rosette of
leaves around a
central stem that is
rooted in the
sediment; controlling
invasives will give
native species (e.g.,
SAV) a better
chance of adapting
and surviving in the
face of climate
change.
Yes-altered
conditions could
alter where and
when invasive
species thrive
and, thus, impact
the management
plans to control
them.
indefinite
0
2
2
1
N
Controlling invasive
will require ongoing
effort, which could
be interrupted at
any point. Does not
foreclose other
options.
Water Chestnut
(Trapa natans)
in the
Chesapeake
Bay Watershed:
A Regional
Management
Plan. December
2003.
Non-native
species
management
Invasive
Species
Management
Cygnus olor
(mute swan)
N
N
N
N
N
Sea level rise can
flood nests.
Yes-altered
conditions could
alter where and
when invasive
species thrive
and, thus, impact
the management
plans to control
them.
indefinite
0
N
Mute Swan
(Cygnus olor) in
the Chesapeake
Bay: A Draft
Bay-wide
Management
Plan. November
2003.
June, 2010
98
-------
Ecosystem BMP Screens
Ecosystem ("living resources") BMPs
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate
change affect
the
effectiveness of
the BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of
Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility (evaluated at the Specific
Practice Level)
Source(s)
Category
Practice
Specific Practice
Increased Water
Temp
Sedimentation
Altered Flow
Regimes
Sea Level Rise
Does an adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for planning
Years for
implementation
Lifetime of project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
Long Term
Commitment
Irreversibility:
Forcloses Other
Options?
Irreversibility: Y or
N
Comments
Non-native
species
management
Invasive
Species
Management
Myocastor
coypus (Nutria)
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Sea level rise
exacerbates the
effects of Nutria
feeding, which
destroys marsh and
eventually becomes
open water.
Yes-altered
conditions could
alter where and
when invasive
species thrive
and, thus, impact
the management
plans to control
them.
indefinite
0
2
2
1
N
Controlling invasive
will require ongoing
effort, which could
be interrupted at
any point. Does not
foreclose other
options.
Nutria
(Myocastor
coypus) in the
Chesapeake
Bay: A Draft
Bay-Wide
Management
Plan. November
2003.
Non-native
species
management
Invasive
Species
Management
Dreissena
polymorpha
(zebra
mussels)
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Optimal conditions
for spawning occur
when water temp is
greater than 12C.
Larvae are free-
swimming and live in
the water colimn for
up to 3 months as
long as the water
temp remains
between 10 and
25C.
Yes-altered
conditions could
alter where and
when invasive
species thrive
and, thus, impact
the management
plans to control
them.
indefinite
0
2
2
1
N
Controlling invasive
will require ongoing
effort, which could
be interrupted at
any point. Does not
foreclose other
options.
Zebra Mussels
(Dreissena
polymorpha) in
the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed:
A Regional
Management
Plan. Final Draft.
May 2004.
Non-native
species
management
Invasive
Species
Prevention
Voluntary
ballast water
management
program
N
N
N
N
N
The ballast water
management
program does not
have an adaptive
benefit.
No
0
N
Chesapeake
2000 Bay
Agreement
June, 2010
99
-------
Ecosystem BMP Screens
Ecosystem ("living resources") BMPs
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate
change affect
the
effectiveness of
the BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of
Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility (evaluated at the Specific
Practice Level)
Source(s)
Category
Practice
Specific Practice
Increased Water
Temp
Sedimentation
Altered Flow
Regimes
Sea Level Rise
Does an adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for planning
Years for
implementation
Lifetime of project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
Long Term
Commitment
Irreversibility:
Forcloses Other
Options?
Irreversibility: Y or
N
Comments
Biological
population
management
Restore
Native Oyster
Populations
Rebuild oyster
habitats using
alternative
substances
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Oyster reef
development and
protection can
control and enhance
water flow, which
could improve the
quality of the oyster's
own habitat (in the
face of altered flow
regimes and
increased
sedimentation and
salinity).
Yes-flourishing
oyster
populations
require proper
salinity,
decreased
sediment
concentrations,
and extended
warm water
growing and
breeding season.
indefinite
0
2
3
1
Y
Intent of practice is
to restore long-term
habitat
Chesapeake
Bay Program
Biological
population
management
Restore
Native Oyster
Populations
Rebuild oyster
habitats using
old oyster
shells
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Oyster reef
development and
protection can
control and enhance
water flow, which
could improve the
quality of the oyster's
own habitat (in the
face of altered flow
regimes and
increased
sedimentation and
salinity).
Yes-flourishing
oyster
populations
require proper
salinity,
decreased
sediment
concentrations,
and extended
warm water
growing and
breeding season.
indefinite
0
2
3
1
Y
Intent of practice is
to restore long-term
habitat. Does not
foreclose other
options, since
oyster shell reefs
are naturally
occurring and could
be deconstructed.
Chesapeake
Bay Program
June, 2010
100
-------
Ecosystem BMP Screens
Ecosystem ("living resources") BMPs
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate
change affect
the
effectiveness of
the BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of
Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility (evaluated at the Specific
Practice Level)
Source(s)
Category
Practice
Specific Practice
Increased Water
Temp
Sedimentation
Altered Flow
Regimes
Sea Level Rise
Does an adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for planning
Years for
implementation
Lifetime of project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
Long Term
Commitment
Irreversibility:
Forcloses Other
Options?
Irreversibility: Y or
N
Comments
Biological
population
management
Restore
Native Oyster
Populations
Create
sanctuaries
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Oyster reef
development and
protection can
control and enhance
water flow, which
could improve the
quality of the oyster's
own habitat (in the
face of altered flow
regimes and
increased
sedimentation and
salinity).
Yes-flourishing
oyster
populations
require proper
salinity,
decreased
sediment
concentrations,
and extended
warm water
growing and
breeding season.
indefinite
0
2
3
1
Y
Intent of practice is
to restore long-term
habitat, but
sanctuary
designation could
technically be
removed at any
point.
Chesapeake
2000 Bay
Agreement
Biological
population
management
Restore
Native Oyster
Populations
Aquaculture
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Oyster reef
development and
protection can
control and enhance
water flow, which
could improve the
quality of the oyster's
own habitat (in the
face of altered flow
regimes and
increased
sedimentation and
salinity).
Yes-flourishing
oyster
populations
require proper
salinity,
decreased
sediment
concentrations,
and extended
warm water
growing and
breeding season.
indefinite
0
2
3
1
Y
Intent of practice is
to restore long-term
habitat and would
require an upfront
resource
investment and
significant planning.
Chesapeake
2000 Bay
Agreement
June, 2010
101
-------
Ecosystem BMP Screens
Ecosystem ("living resources") BMPs
SCREEN 1: CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate
change affect
the
effectiveness of
the BMP?
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of
Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility (evaluated at the Specific
Practice Level)
Source(s)
Category
Practice
Specific Practice
Increased Water
Temp
Sedimentation
Altered Flow
Regimes
Sea Level Rise
Does an adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
Years for planning
Years for
implementation
Lifetime of project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
Long Term
Commitment
Irreversibility:
Forcloses Other
Options?
Irreversibility: Y or
N
Comments
Biological
population
management
Restore
Native Oyster
Populations
Employ
disease-
resistant
management
techniques
(e.g., breed
disease-
resistant
oysters, clean
bars of infected
oysters before
planting, limit
distribution of
infected seed)
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Oyster reef
development and
protection can
control and enhance
water flow, which
could improve the
quality of the oyster's
own habitat (in the
face of altered flow
regimes and
increased
sedimentation and
salinity).
Yes-flourishing
oyster
populations
require proper
salinity,
decreased
sediment
concentrations,
and extended
warm water
growing and
breeding season.
indefinite
0
2
3
1
Y
Intent of practice is
to restore long-term
habitat. Does not
foreclose other
options.
Chesapeake
2000 Bay
Agreement
Habitat
protection
and/or
restoration
Restore
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
Establish SAV
beds that can
serve as a
source of plant
material
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Submerged aquatic
vegetation reduces
shoreline erosion.
Yes-Increased
sediment input is
expected to lead
to decreased
water clarity and,
thus, declines in
SAV.
indefinite
0
2
2
1
N
Restoring SAV will
require ongoing
effort that could be
interrupted at any
point.
Habitat
protection
and/or
restoration
Restore
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
Propagate SAV
in laboratories
and nurseries
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Submerged aquatic
vegetation reduces
shoreline erosion.
Yes-Increased
sediment input is
expected to lead
to decreased
water clarity and,
thus, declines in
SAV.
indefinite
0
2
2
1
N
Restoring SAV will
require ongoing
effort that could be
interrupted at any
point.
June, 2010
102
-------
Ecosystem BMP Screens
Ecosystem ("living resources") BMPs
SCREEN 1:
CC Adaptive benefit
Does climate
change affect
the
SCREEN 2: Dimensions of
Timeliness
SCREEN 3a: Irreversibility (evaluated at the Specific
Practice Level)
Category
Practice
Specific Practice
Increased Water
Temp
Sedimentation
Altered Flow
Regimes
Sea Level Rise
Does an adaptive
benefit exist?
Rationale
effectiveness of
the BMP?
Years for planning
Years for
implementation
Lifetime of project
Total
Comments
Irreversibility:
Financial
Irreversibility:
Long Term
Commitment
Irreversibility:
Forcloses Other
Options?
Irreversibility: Y or
N
Comments
Source(s)
Habitat
protection
and/or
restoration
Restore
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
Harvest SAV
from existing
wild areas
(when it will not
harm donor
population or
area is being
claimed for
development
anyway)
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Submerged aquatic
vegetation reduces
shoreline erosion.
Yes-Increased
sediment input is
expected to lead
to decreased
water clarity and,
thus, declines in
SAV.
indefinite
0
2
2
1
N
Restoring SAV will
require ongoing
effort that could be
interrupted at any
point.
June, 2010
103
-------
APPENDIX C
Tables C-l and C-2 list all of the water quality and aquatic ecosystem decisions examined
in this pilot project for the Chesapeake Bay and shows which decisions remained for further
analysis and which were eliminated.
Table C-l. All water quality decisions considered for this pilot project and labeled according to
whether the decision was eliminated and when, or whether the decision remained in the analysis
and was aggregated into a broader practice or renamed.8
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
Abandoned Mined Land
Reclamation: Grass/Shrub
Planting
Reclamation of abandoned mined
land through planting of grass,
shrubs, or trees.9
Remained
Abandoned Mined
Land Reclamation
Abandoned Mined Land
Reclamation: Tree Planting
See above description of
abandoned mined land
reclamation.
Remained
Acres Cereal Cover Crops:
Acres Cereal Cover Crops
Cover crops (harvested or non-
harvested) grown to provide
winter cover of cropland.1"
2
Acres Conservation Plans
(Farm Plans): Conservation
Tillage
Conservation plans are
comprehensive plans that address
natural resource management on
agricultural lands and utilize best
management practices to control
erosion and sediment loss and
manage runoff. Conservation
tillage involves planting and
growing crops with minimal
disturbance of the surface soil.
No-till farming is a form of
2
8 Only one point source water quality decision was evaluated in this project: "POTWs Standards for TMDLs". All
other decisions deal with non-point sources.
9 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy.
Accessed online at: http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/chesapeake/lib/chesapeake/pdfs/tribstrategy.pdf (Accessed
9/29/08).
111 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake & Coastal Watershed Service. 1999. Maryland's
Tributary Strategies: Best Management Practices Progress Report. Accessed online at:
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/bmp_report_1998.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
June, 2010
104
-------
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
conservation tillage in which the
crop is seeded directly into
vegetative cover or crop residue
with no disturbance of the surface
soil. Minimum tillage farming
involves some disturbance of the
soil, but uses tillage equipment
that leaves much of the vegetative
cover or crop residue on the
surface.11
Acres Conservation Plans
(Farm Plans): Crop Rotations
See above description of
conservation plans.
2
Acres Conservation Plans
(Farm Plans): Grade
Stabilization Structures
Grade stabilization structures are
installed to stabilize the channel
grade and control erosion to
prevent the formation or advance
of gullies and headcuts. The
practice is used in areas where
structures are necessary to
stabilize the site.12
2
Acres Conservation Plans
(Farm Plans): Grassed
Waterways
See above description of
conservation plans.
2
Acres Conservation Plans
(Farm Plans): Sediment Basins
See above description of
conservation plans.
2
Acres Conservation Till
A process that uses tillage
equipment to seed the crop
directly into the vegetative cover
or crop residue on the surface,
with minimal soil disturbance.13
1
Animal Waste Management
System - Livestock
Management system for livestock
waste to reduce runoff.
1
11 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy.
Accessed online at: http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/chesapeake/lib/chesapeake/pdfs/tribstrategy.pdf (Accessed
9/29/08).
12 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. National Conservation
Practice Standards. Accessed online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/TECHNICAL/standards/nlicp.html (Accessed
9/29/08).
13 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake & Coastal Watershed Service. 1999. Maryland's
Tributary Strategies: Best Management Practices Progress Report. Accessed online at:
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/bmp_report_1998.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
June, 2010
105
-------
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
Animal Waste Management
System - Poultry
Management system for poultry
waste to reduce runoff.
1
Barnyard Runoff Controls -
With & Without Storage:
Control of Runoff from
Barnyard Areas
The installation of practices to
control runoff from barnyard
areas. Examples include practices
such as roof runoff control,
diversion of clean water from
entering the barnyard and control
of runoff from barnyard areas.14
2
Barnyard Runoff Controls -
With & Without Storage:
Diversion of Clean Water from
Entering the Barnyard
See above description of barnyard
runoff controls.
2
Barnyard Runoff Controls -
With & Without Storage: Roof
Runoff Control
See above description of barnyard
runoff controls.
2
Buffer Stripcropping
Growing crops in a systematic
arrangement of strips across the
field to reduce soil erosion by
wind and water. This practice is
used on cropland and wildlife
areas where field crops are
grown. The crops are arranged so
that a strip of grass or close-
growing crop is alternated with a
clean tilled strip or a strip with
less protective cover.15
2
Buffer Stripcropping: Wildlife
Option
See explanation above of buffer
stripcropping.
2
Carbon Sequestration
Carbon sequestration refers to the
conversion of cropland to hayland
(warm season grasses). The
hayland is managed as permanent
hayland, providing a mechanism
1
14 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy.
Accessed online at: http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/chesapeake/lib/chesapeake/pdfs/tribstrategy.pdf (Accessed
9/29/08).
15 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. National Conservation
Practice Standards. Accessed online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/TECHNICAL/standards/nlicp.html (Accessed
9/29/08).
June, 2010
106
-------
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
for sequestering carbon within the
soil.16
Commodity Cereal Cover
Crops: Commodity Cereal
Cover Crops
Commodity cover crops grown to
provide winter cover of cropland
to prevent erosion.17
2
Conservation Tillage:
Conservation tillage
A process that uses tillage
equipment to seed the crop with
minimal soil disturbance.18
2
Cover Crops, Early: Cover
Crops
See general cover crop
description. Efficiency varies by
when planted.19
2
CREP Wetland Restoration:
Extended Detention Wetland
Wetland restoration is the
reestablishment of wetlands on
mixed open land where they used
to exist. Extended detention
wetlands provide a greater degree
of downstream channel
protection.2"
Remained
CREP Wetland
Restoration
CREP Wetland Restoration:
Pond/Wetlands
See above description of CREP
Wetland Restoration.
Remained
CREP Wetland Restoration:
Shallow Wetlands
See above description of CREP
Wetland Restoration.
Remained
Dirt and Gravel Road Erosion
and Sediment Controls: Keep
the Road Surface Tight and
Impervious
Implementation of practices to
stabilize dirt and gravel roads
adjacent to streams. The purpose
of this BMP is to significantly
2
16 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
17 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake & Coastal Watershed Service. 1999. Maryland's
Tributary Strategies: Best Management Practices Progress Report. Accessed online at:
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/bmp_report_1998.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
18 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake & Coastal Watershed Service. 1999. Maryland's
Tributary Strategies: Best Management Practices Progress Report. Accessed online at:
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/bmp_report_1998.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
19 Pennsylvania Department of Enviromnental Protection. 2004. Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy.
Accessed online at: http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/chesapeake/lib/chesapeake/pdfs/tribstrategy.pdf (Accessed
9/29/08).
211 Metropolitan Council and Barr Engineering Co. 2001. Constructed Wetlands: Stonnwater Wetlands. Minnesota
Urban Small Sites BMP Manual. Prepared for the Metropolitan Council by Barr Engineering Corps. Accessed
online at: http://www.metrocouncil.org/enviromnent/Watershed/bmp/CH3_STConstWLSwWetland.pdf (Accessed
9/29/08).
June, 2010
107
-------
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
reduce the erosion of sediment
and the nutrients within the
sediment from the road and
adjacent areas into the stream.21
Dirt and Gravel Road Erosion
and Sediment Controls:
Maintain a Proper Road Crown
for Good Drainage
Proper crowning and compacting
of the road surface quickens the
removal of runoff, thus protecting
the road surface from
degradation.22
2
Dirt and Gravel Road Erosion
and Sediment Controls: Road
Grading
Grading consists of cutting
through, redistributing, and re-
compacting the road surface crust,
and/or adding new road fill
material to obtain the desired
roadway shape and profile.23
2
Enhanced Stormwater
Management: Buffer Zones
Vegetative filter strips, or buffer
zones, are densely vegetated
sections of land designed to
convey runoff in the form of sheet
flow from adjacent developed
sites.24
Remained
Stormwater
Management -
Filtering Practices
Stormwater Management -
Filtering Practices:
Bioretention
Bioretention utilizes soils and
both woody and herbaceous
plants to remove pollutants from
storm water runoff. In
bioretention systems, runoff is
conveyed as sheet flow to the
treatment area, which consists of
a grass buffer strip, sand bed,
ponding area, organic layer or
Remained
21 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
22 Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Chapter 1: Road Surface. Recommended Practices Manual: A Guideline
for Maintenance and Service of Unpaved Roads. Choctawhatchee, Pea and Yellow Rivers Watershed Management
Authority. Accessed online at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/unpavedroads/chl.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
23 Ibid.
24 Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1996. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
1996. Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide to Stormwater Best Management Practices. Accessed online at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/protecti.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
June, 2010
108
-------
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
mulch layer, planting soil and
plans.25
Stormwater Management -
Filtering Practices: Dry Swales
Dry swales are vegetated, open-
channel areas designed
specifically to treat and attenuate
stormwater runoff for a specified
water quality volume. As
stormwater runoff flows along
these channels, it passes through
vegetation that slows the water to
allow filtering through a subsoil
matrix, and/or infiltration into the
underlying soils.26
Remained
Stormwater Management -
Filtering Practices: Grassed
Channels
Grassed channels are channels
lined with grass or erosion-
resistant plant species that are
constructed for the stable
conveyance of stormwater runoff.
They use the ability of vegetation
to reduce the flow velocities
associated with concentrated
runoff27
Remained
Stormwater Management -
Filtering Practices: Sand
Filters
Sand filters are systems of
underground pipes beneath a self-
contained bed of sand designed
to treat urban stormwater.28
Remained
Stormwater Management -
Filtering Practices: Wet Swales
Wet swales consist of a broad
open channels capable of
temporarily storing water. Unlike
the dry swale, the wet swale does
not have an underlying filtering
bed. The wet swale is
Remained
25 Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1999. Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet: Bioretention.
Accessed online at: http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/biortn.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
26 Environmental Protection Agency. Grassed Swales. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
Accessed online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=factsheet_results&view
=specific&bmp=75 (Accessed 9/29/08).
27 Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1996. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
1996. Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide to Stormwater Best Management Practices. Accessed online at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/protecti.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
28 Ibid.
June, 2010
109
-------
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
constructed directly within
existing soils and may or may not
intersect the water table.29
Stormwater Management
Retrofits: Underground Sand
Filtering System
Construction of stormwater
facilities on lands previously
developed without such
facilities.3"
Remained
Enhanced Stormwater
Management: Infiltration
trench/basin
Enhancements emphasize water
quality controls in addition to
water quantity controls/1
Remained
Stormwater
Management -
Infiltration Practices
Enhanced Stormwater
Management: Porous
Pavement
Porous pavement is an alternative
to conventional pavement and is
designed to minimize surface
runoff/2
Remained
Stormwater Management -
Infiltration Practices:
Infiltration Basins
Infiltration basins are stormwater
impoundments that detain
stormwater runoff and return
it to the ground by allowing
runoff to infiltrate gradually
through the soils of the bed and
sides of the basin.33
Remained
Stormwater Management -
Infiltration Practices:
Infiltration Trenches
An infiltration trench is an
excavated trench backfilled with
clean, coarse aggregate to allow
for the temporary storage of
runoff. Infiltration trenches
remove fine particulates and
Remained
29 Metropolitan Council and Barr Engineering Co. 2001. Wet Swales. Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual.
Prepared for the Metropolitan Council by Barr Engineering Corps. Accessed online at:
http://www.metrocouncil.org/environinent/Watershed/bmp/CH3_STConstWLWetSwale.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
311 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake & Coastal Watershed Service. 1999. Maryland's
Tributary Strategies: Best Management Practices Progress Report. Accessed online at:
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/bmp_report_1998.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
31 Ibid.
32 Enviromnental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1996. Enviromnental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
1996. Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide to Stormwater Best Management Practices. Accessed online at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/protecti.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
33 Ibid.
June, 2010
110
-------
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
soluble pollutants from runoff by
temporary storage and infiltration
into the underlying soil.34
Stormwater Management -
Infiltration Practices: Porous
Pavement
Porous pavement is an alternative
to conventional pavement
designed to minimize surface
runoff35
Remained
Stormwater Management
Retrofits: Infiltration Trench
An infiltration trench is an
excavated trench backfilled with
clean, coarse aggregate to allow
for the temporary storage of
runoff. Infiltration trenches
remove fine particulates and
soluble pollutants from runoff by
temporary storage and infiltration
into the underlying soil.36
Remained
Enhanced Stormwater
Management: Ponds
See above description of
stormwater management.
Remained
Stormwater
Management - Wet
Ponds & Wetlands
Stormwater Management -
Wet Ponds & Wetlands:
Constructed Wetlands
Constructed wetlands are shallow
pools constructed on non-wetland
sites as part of the stormwater
collection and treatment system.
Constructed wetlands are
designed to maximize removal of
pollutants from stormwater
through physical, chemical, and
biological mechanisms.37
Remained
Stormwater Management -
Wet Ponds & Wetlands:
Pond/Wetlands
Wet ponds are depressions
constructed by excavation and
embankment procedures to store
excess runoff temporarily on a
site. Wet ponds regulate
stormwater runoff from a given
rainfall event by the temporary
Remained
34 Ibid.
35 Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1996. Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide to Stormwater
Best Management Practices. Accessed online at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/protecti.pdf (Accessed
9/29/08).
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid..
June, 2010
111
-------
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
storage of peak flows in order to
mitigate quantity and quality
impacts to downstream systems.38
Stormwater Management -
Wet Ponds & Wetlands:
Retention Ponds
See above description of wet
ponds.
Remained
Stormwater Management -
Wet Ponds & Wetlands:
Shallow Wetlands
See above description of wet
ponds.
Remained
Stormwater Management -
Wet Ponds & Wetlands: Wet
Extended Detention Ponds
See above description of wet
ponds.
Remained
Stormwater Management -
Wet Ponds & Wetlands: Wet
Pond
See above description of wet
ponds.
Remained
Stormwater Management
Retrofits: Wetland
Construction of stormwater
facilities on lands previously
developed without such
facilities.39
Remained
Erosion and Sediment Control
(During Construction): Filter
Berms
A gravel or stone filter berm is a
temporary ridge made up of loose
gravel, stone, or crushed rock
that slows, filters, and diverts
flow from an open traffic area and
acts as an efficient form of
sediment control.4"
2
Erosion and Sediment Control
(During Construction):
Geotextiles
Filtering the stormwater through a
fine mesh geotextile material will
remove sediments and prevent
premature clogging.41
2
Erosion and Sediment Control
Mulching is the application of a
2
38 Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1996. Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide to Stonnwater
Best Management Practices. Accessed online at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/protecti.pdf (Accessed
9/29/08).
39 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake & Coastal Watershed Service. 1999. Maryland's
Tributary Strategies: Best Management Practices Progress Report. Accessed online at:
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/bmp_report_1998.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
411 Stonnwater Authority. Filter Benns. Stonnwater Best Management Practices. Accessed online at:
http://www.stormwaterauthority.org/assets/Filter%20Benns.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
41 Enviromnental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
June, 2010
112
-------
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
(During Construction):
Mulching
protective cover of plant residue
or other suitable material not
produced on the site to the soil
surface. This practice is used to
help control erosion, protect
crops, conserve moisture, prevent
compaction, reduce runoff and
control weeds.42
Erosion and Sediment Control
(During Construction):
Sediment Traps
2
Farm Road or Heavy Traffic
Animal Travel Lane
Stabilization: Keep Road
Surface Tight and Impervious
See previous description of lane
stabilization.
2
Farm Road or Heavy Traffic
Animal Travel Lane
Stabilization: Maintain a
Proper Road Crown for Good
Drainage
See previous description of road
crown maintenance.
2
Farm Road or Heavy Traffic
Animal Travel Lane
Stabilization: Road grading
See previous description of road
grading.
2
Forest Buffer Strip: Forested
Buffers
A linear strip of forest along
rivers and streams that filters
nutrients and sediment and
enhances stream habitat.43
Remained
Riparian
Forest/Woodland
Buffers -
Agriculture
Riparian Forest Buffers -
Agriculture: Riparian Buffers
Riparian Forest Buffers are linear
wooded areas planted along rivers
i 44
and streams.
Remained
Woodland Buffer Filter Area:
Buffer Zones
Wooded or other buffer areas
planted along woodlands.45
Remained
42 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. National Conservation
Practice Standards. Accessed online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/TECHNICAL/standards/nlicp.htinl (Accessed
9/29/08).
43 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake & Coastal Watershed Service. 1999. Maryland's
Tributary Strategies: Best Management Practices Progress Report. Accessed online at:
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/bmp_report_1998.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
44 Pennsylvania Department of Enviromnental Protection. 2004. Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy.
Accessed online at: http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/chesapeake/lib/chesapeake/pdfs/tribstrategy.pdf (Accessed
9/29/08).
June, 2010
113
-------
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
Forest Conservation (Forest
Conservation Act): Open
Space Set Aside (Conservation
Reserve)
Open spaces are grassed or
wooded areas located within
development sites to increase
pervious area. Open areas reduce
the velocity of surface runoff,
resulting in an increased contact
time of sheet flow with the soil
and vegetative surfaces.46
Remained
Forest Conservation
(Forest Conservation
Act)
Forest Conservation (Forest
Conservation Act): Tree
Planting
Implementation of the Forest
Conservation Act, which requires
the retention of a portion of
forested lands on any newly
developed site.47
Remained
Forest Conservation:
Infrastructure Planning
See above description of forest
conservation.
Remained
Forest Conservation: Narrower
Residential Streets
See above description of forest
conservation.
Remained
Forest Conservation: Open
Space Design & Set Asides
See above description of forest
conservation.
Remained
Forest Harvesting Practices:
Carefully Locate, Design and
Build All Roads and Skid
Trails
Application of regulatory and
voluntary best management
practices applied to timber
harvests, including erosion and
sediment control and streamside
management zones.48 Soil
uncovered by vehicles and skid
trails is vulnerable to erosion.
Keep roads and skid trails out of
wet and poorly drained spots to
minimize soil erosion.
2
45 Connecticut River Joint Commissions of New Hampshire and Vermont. 2001. Guidance for Communities in the
Connecticut River Watershed. Riparian Buffers for the Connecticut River Watershed. Accessed online at:
www.cijc.org/buffers/Guidance%20for%20Communities.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
46 Enviromnental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1996. Enviromnental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
1996. Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide to Stormwater Best Management Practices. Accessed online at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/protecti.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
47 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake & Coastal Watershed Service. 1999. Maryland's
Tributary Strategies: Best Management Practices Progress Report. Accessed online at:
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/bmp_report_1998.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
48 Ibid.
June, 2010
114
-------
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
Forest Harvesting Practices:
Keep Landings out of Low
Spots and Poorly Drained
Places
See above description of forest
harvesting practices.
2
Forest Harvesting Practices:
Minimize the Number of Skid
Trail Stream Crossings
See above description of forest
harvesting practices.
2
Forest Harvesting Practices-
Preventing Clearcut: Carefully
Locate, Design and Build All
Roads and Skid Trails
See above description of forest
harvesting practices.
2
Forest Harvesting Practices-
Preventing Clearcut: Keep
Landings out of Low Spots and
Poorly Drained Places
See above description of forest
harvesting practices.
2
Forest Harvesting Practices-
Preventing Clearcut: Minimize
the Number of Skid Trail
Stream Crossings
See above description of forest
harvesting practices.
2
Grassed Buffer Strip: Grassed
Buffers
A linear strip of grass along rivers
and streams that filters nutrients
and sediment and enhances
stream habitat.49
2
Impervious Surface Reduction
- Non-structural Practices:
Urban Forestry
Planting trees to reduce
impervious surface area.
2
Late Winter Split Application
of Nitrogen on Small Grain
Split application is the process of
matching nitrogen supply for a
pre-established target yield and a
given level of soil moisture, and
then supplying the remaining
nitrogen as moisture conditions
improve.5"
1
Manure Application to Corn
using Pre-Sidedress
Side-dressing corn with Nitrogen
at time that is most beneficial to
1
49 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake & Coastal Watershed Service. 1999. Maryland's
Tributary Strategies: Best Management Practices Progress Report. Accessed online at:
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/bmp_report_1998.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
511 Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association. 2003. Soil Facts: Nitrogen - Split Application. The Newsletter of
the Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association Issue 37. Accessed online at:
www.ssca.ca/newsletters/issue37/Richl.html (Accessed 9/29/08).
June, 2010
115
-------
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
the crop.
Marine Pump Outs:
Installation
A facility sited at marinas for
pumping sewage from boat
holding tanks to a dockside
storage facility.51
1
Nitrate Test to Determine
Need for Sidedress Nitrogen
See above description of manure
application to crops using pre-
sidedress.
1
Nutrient Management:
Agriculture
A comprehensive plan to manage
the amount, placement, timing
and application of animal waste,
fertilizer, sludge, or other plant
nutrients.52
1
Off-Stream Watering
Providing troughs or other
watering devices in remote
locations away from the stream to
discourage animals from entering
the stream, and the provision of
some fencing adjacent to stream
crossings to limit access points.53
1
Permanent Vegetative Cover
on Cropland
1
Permanent Vegetative Cover
on Cropland for Wildlife:
Permanent Vegetative Cover
on Cropland for Wildlife
2
Phytase Feed Additives:
Poultry
Use of Phytase as a poultry feed
additive to reduce phosphorus
54
concentrations in swine manure.
1
POTWs Standards for
Discharge Permits: POTWs
Increased occurrence of low
flows in receiving streams may
Remained
POTWs Standards
for Discharge
51 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake & Coastal Watershed Service.
52 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake & Coastal Watershed Service. 1999. Maryland's
Tributary Strategies: Best Management Practices Progress Report. Accessed online at:
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/bmp_report_1998.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
53 Ibid.
54 Pennsylvania Department of Enviromnental Protection. 2004. Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy.
Accessed online at: http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/chesapeake/lib/chesapeake/pdfs/tribstrategy.pdf (Accessed
9/29/08).
June, 2010
116
-------
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
Standards for Discharge
Permits55
lead to decreased contaminant
dilution capacity, requiring
changes to discharge permits.
Permits
Reduction in Urban Growth:
Narrower Residential Streets
Reduction in projections for the
conversion of urban land. This
results in "returning" urban land
to forest, mixed open and
agricultural land.56
Remained
Reduction in Urban
Growth
Reduction in Urban Growth:
Open Space Design
See above description for
reduction in urban growth.
Remained
Reduction in Urban Growth:
Urban Forestry
See above description for
reduction in urban growth.
Remained
Retirement of Highly Erodible
Land-Trees: Shrub/Grasses
Planting
Retirement takes marginal and
highly erosive agricultural
cropland out of production by
planting permanent vegetative
cover such as shrubs, grasses,
and/or trees.57
2
Retirement of Highly Erodible
Land-Trees: Tree Planting
See above description for
retirement of highly erodible
land.
2
Riparian Forest Buffers -
Urban: Riparian Buffers
Riparian Forest Buffers are linear
wooded areas planted along rivers
and streams.58
Remained
Riparian Forest
Buffers - Urban
Riparian Grass Buffers -
Developed Land: Grassed
Buffers
Grassed Buffers are linear strips
of maintained grass or other non-
woody vegetation between the
edge of fields and streams, rivers
or tidal waters.59
2
Rotational Grazing/Grazing
Land Protection with Stream
Fencing: Rotational Grazing
This practice involves dividing
pasture areas into cells or
paddocks. Each paddock is
2
55 This is the only point source water quality decision that was evaluated. All other decisions deal with non-point
sources.
56 Ibid.
57 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy.
Accessed online at: http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/chesapeake/lib/chesapeake/pdfs/tribstrategy.pdf (Accessed
9/29/08).
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid.
June, 2010
117
-------
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
and Stream Fencing
intensively grazed for a short
period, and then allowed to rest
and recover before being grazed
again. The amount of time each
cell is grazed and then rested
relates to the time of year, quality
of the forage and the growth stage
of the forage.6"
Runoff Control: Lagoons
Methods for control of livestock
waste runoff.
2
Runoff Control: Ponds
See above description for runoff
control.
2
Runoff Control: Tanks for
Liquid Waste
See above description for runoff
control.
2
SCWQP Implementation and
Treatment of Highly Erodible
Land: Crop Rotations
A comprehensive plan addressing
natural resource management of
farmland directed toward the
control of erosion and sediment
loss, and management of animal
waste or agricultural chemicals.61
2
SCWQP Implementation and
Treatment of Highly Erodible
Land: Grade Stabilization
Structures
See above description of SCWQP
implementation.
2
SCWQP Implementation and
Treatment of Highly Erodible
Land: Sediment Basins
See above description of SCWQP
implementation.
2
Septic Connections
The connection of failing septic
systems to sewer lines.62
1
Septic Denitrification
The installation of new systems
or retrofitting of existing systems
with technology to remove
nitrogen from individual
systems.63
1
60 Ibid.
61 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake & Coastal Watershed Service. 1999. Maryland's
Tributary Strategies: Best Management Practices Progress Report. Accessed online at:
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/bmp_report_1998.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid.
June, 2010
118
-------
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
Septic Pumping
Pumping individual septic
systems once every three years,
the average routine maintenance
of these systems.64
1
Sidedress Application of
Nitrogen on Corn
Use of sidedress application
system for nitrogen on corn to
reduce runoff.
1
Small Acreage Grazing System
The purpose of this BMP is to
increase the level of forage and
livestock implementation,
increase forage nutrient removal,
density and average height
resulting in improved infiltration
and decreased runoff65
1
Stormwater Management -
Dry Detention &
Hydrodynamic Structures: Dry
Detention Basins
This stormwater management
category includes practices such
as dry detention basins and
hydrodynamic structures designed
to moderate flows. Dry detention
basins are structures for detaining
runoff water which remain dry
between storm events.66
Remained
Stormwater
Management - Dry
Extended
Retention/Detention
Ponds
Stormwater Management -
Dry Detention &
Hydrodynamic Structures:
Swirl Separators, or
Hydrodynamic Structures
This stormwater management
category includes practices such
as dry detention basins and
hydrodynamic structures designed
to moderate flows.67 Swirl
separators and hydrodynamic
structures are often used to
separate out solid waste,
suspended sediments, oils and
debris from stormwater.
Remained
64 Ibid.
65 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy.
Accessed online at: http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/chesapeake/lib/chesapeake/pdfs/tribstrategy.pdf (Accessed
9/29/08).
66 Pennsylvania Department of Enviromnental Protection. 2004. Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy.
Accessed online at: http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/chesapeake/lib/chesapeake/pdfs/tribstrategy.pdf (Accessed
9/29/08).
67 Ibid.
June, 2010
119
-------
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
Stormwater Management -
Dry Detention &
Hydrodynamic Structures:
Catch Basins
Catch basins prevent materials
such as sand, silt, leaves and
debris from washing away with
the stormwater by catching them
in a filtered drainage structure.
Remained
Stormwater Management -
Dry Detention &
Hydrodynamic Structures: In
line storage
Placing devices in the storm drain
system to restrict the rate of flow.
Remained
Stormwater Management -
Dry Extended Retention
Ponds: Dry Extended
Retention Ponds
This stormwater management
category includes practices such
as dry extended detention ponds
and extended detention basins.68
Remained
Stormwater Management -
Dry Extended Retention
Ponds: Extended Detention
Basins
See above descriptions of
stormwater management
practices.
Remained
Stormwater Management
Conversion: Dry Extended
Detention Ponds
See above descriptions of
stormwater management
practices.
Remained
Stormwater Management
Conversion: Retention
Facilities
See above descriptions of
stormwater management
practices.
Remained
Stormwater Management
Conversion: Wet Extended
Detention Ponds
See above descriptions of
stormwater management
practices.
Remained
Stormwater Management
Retrofits: Detention Pond
See above descriptions of
stormwater management
practices.
Remained
Stream Protection with
Fencing: Fencing Along
Streams
Stream protection with fencing
involves the fencing of narrow
strips of land along streams to
completely exclude livestock.69
2
Stream Protection without
Fencing with Off Stream
Watering and Tree Planting:
Watering Holes with Tree
Planting
This option involves the use of
troughs or "watering holes" in
remote locations away from
streams, as well as the placement
of stream crossings.70
2
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid.
70 Ibid.
June, 2010
120
-------
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
Street Sweeping in Urban
Areas
This practice reduces the wash off
of detritus and air deposited
compounds from urban areas by
regular sweeping of impervious
streets.71
1
Stripcropping Systems
Stripcropping is growing crops in
a systematic arrangement of strips
across the field to reduce soil
erosion by water and wind. This
practice is used on cropland and
certain recreation and wildlife
lands where field crops are
grown. The crops are arranged so
that a strip of grass or close-
growing crop is alternated with a
clean tilled strip or a strip with
less protective cover.72
2
Terrace System
Terraces break up a slope by
providing areas of low slope in
the reverse direction, keeping
water from proceeding down
slope at increasing volume and
velocity. Terraces generally direct
flow across a vegetated, steep
slope to a stable outlet.73
2
Tree Planting: Not Along
Rivers and Streams
Remained
Tree Planting
Urban Nutrient Management:
Chemical Fertilizers
Management of nutrient inputs in
urban areas.
1
Urban Stream Restoration:
Forested Buffers
Use of forested buffers to protect
streams in urban areas.
Remained
Urban Stream
Restoration
Urban Stream Restoration:
Use of grassed buffers to protect
Remained
71 Ibid.
72 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. National Conservation
Practice Standards. Accessed online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/TECHNICAL/standards/nhcp.html (Accessed
9/29/08).
73 Point and Nonpoint Source Programs, Water Quality Division, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.
1999. Urban Best Management Practices for Nonpoint Source Pollution. Accessed online at:
http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/Downloads/NPS%20Program/92171 .pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
June, 2010
121
-------
Water Quality Decisions
(not aggregated)
Brief Description of Decision
Eliminated
after
Application of
Criterion la or
2b, or
Remained
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
Grassed Buffers
streams in urban areas.
Vegetative Stabilization of
Marsh Fringe Areas: Land
Shaping and Planting
Permanent Vegetation
2
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land:
Constructed Wetlands
See above descriptions of
wetlands.
Remained
Wetlands - Mixed
Open Land
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land:
Extended Detention Wetlands
See above descriptions of
wetlands.
Remained
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land:
Shallow Wetlands
See above descriptions of
wetlands.
Remained
Woodland Erosion
Stabilization: Land Shaping
and Planting Permanent
Vegetation
2
a Screen 1: Climate change adaptation potential
b Screen 2: Dimensions of timeliness
June, 2010
122
-------
Table C-2: All aquatic ecosystem decisions considered for this pilot project and labeled according
to whether the decision remained in the analysis and was aggregated into a broader practice or was
eliminated and when.
Aquatic Ecosystem
Decisions (not aggregated)
Brief Description of
Decision
Remained after
Application of
Criterion la or 2b,
or Eliminated
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
Build Living Shorelines:
Construct Shallow Water
Rock Sills to Absorb Wave
Energy with Wetland
Vegetation Planted Behind
Living shorelines employ
natural habitat elements to
protect shorelines from
erosion while also
providing critical habitat
for wildlife and water
quality benefits. Living
shorelines can use rock
sills or other approaches to
absorb wave energy and
74
protect vegetation.
Remained
Living Shorelines
Build Living Shorelines:
Employ Organic Materials
such as Fiber Logs
See above description of
living shorelines.
Remained
Fishery Restoration: Build
Fish Passageways
Remained
Build Fish
Passageways
Fishery Restoration:
Maintain/Protect Upstream
Spawning Habitats
Remained
Maintain/Protect
Upstream
Spawning Habitats
Fishery Restoration: Manage
Fishery Harvest Levels
Fishery management
strategies attempt to keep
fish populations within
sustainable population
ranges.
Remained
Manage Fishery
Harvest Levels
Fishery Restoration: Remove
Physical and Chemical
Blockages for Bay Species
Removal of physical
barriers or chemical
gradients that restrict or
impede movement or
migration of fish or other
aquatic organisms.75
Remained
Remove Physical
and Chemical
Blockages
Increase Oyster Populations:
Breed Triploid Asian
Suminoe Oysters
Introduction of non-native
Suminoe oysters in order
to offset declining
populations of native
Remained
Breed Triploid
Asian Suminoe
Oysters
74 Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program. 2007. Living Shorelines: The Natural Approach to Controlling
Shoreline Erosion. VA CZM Issue Fact Sheet Series. Accessed online at:
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/coastal/documents/lsfactsheet.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
75 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. National Conservation
Practice Standards. Accessed online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/TECHNICAL/standards/nhcp.html (Accessed
9/29/08).
June, 2010
123
-------
Aquatic Ecosystem
Decisions (not aggregated)
Brief Description of
Decision
Remained after
Application of
Criterion V or 2b,
or Eliminated
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
oysters. Oysters are
triploid in order to ensure
infertility.76
Increase Oyster Populations:
Introduce Diploid Asian
Suminoe Oysters
Introduction of non-native
Suminoe oysters in order
to offset declining
populations of native
oysters in Chesapeake
Bay.77 Diploid oysters are
fertile.
Remained
Introduce Diploid
Asian Suminoe
Oysters
Invasive Species
Management: Cygnus olor
(Mute Swan)
1
Invasive Species
Management: Dreissena
polymorpha (Zebra Mussels)
Remained
Dreissena
polymorpha (Zebra
Mussels)
Invasive Species
Management: Lythrum
salicaria (Purple Loosestrife)
Remained
Lythrum salicaria
(Purple Loosestrife)
Invasive Species
Management: Myocastor
coypus (Nutria)
Remained
Myocastor coypus
(Nutria)
Invasive Species
Management: Phragmites
australis (Common Reed)
Remained
Phragmites
australis (Common
Reed)
Invasive Species
Management: Trapa natans
(Water Chestnut)
Remained
Trapa natans
(Water Chestnut)
Invasive Species Prevention:
Voluntary Ballast Water
Management Program
Ballast water discharged
from ships is one of the
largest pathways for the
introduction and spread of
invasive species. This
management practice
involves ships monitoring
and reporting ballast water
discharge.78
1
Restore Native Oyster
Use of old oyster shells to
Remained
Rebuild Oyster
76 Powledge, F. 2005. Chesapeake Bay Restoration: A Model of What? Bioscience 55(12): 1032-1038.
77 Ibid.
78 United States Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Ballast Water Management: Overview.
Accessed online at: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg522/cg5224/bwm.asp (Accessed 9/29/08).
June, 2010
124
-------
Aquatic Ecosystem
Decisions (not aggregated)
Brief Description of
Decision
Remained after
Application of
Criterion V or 2b,
or Eliminated
Final Aggregated
Decision
Nomenclature
Populations: Rebuild Oyster
Habitats Using Old Oyster
Shells
assist in rebuilding oyster
habitats.
Habitats Using Old
Oyster Shells
Restore Native Oyster
Populations: Aquaculture
Use of aquaculture to
rebuild oyster populations.
Remained
Aquaculture
Restore Native Oyster
Populations: Create
Sanctuaries
Sanctuaries are areas
where shellfish harvest is
prohibited. The purpose of
this practice is to protect
oysters from harvest and
increase population
numbers.79
Remained
Create Sanctuaries
Restore Native Oyster
Populations: Employ
Disease-Resistant
Management Techniques
Oyster populations are
severely threatened by
disease. These
management techniques
would attempt to
encourage the long-term
development of disease-
resistance in oysters.80
Remained
Employ Disease-
Resistant
Management
Techniques
Restore Native Oyster
Populations: Rebuild Oyster
Habitats Using Alternative
Substances
Use of alternative
substances to assist in
rebuilding oyster habitats.
Remained
Rebuild Oyster
Habitats Using
Alternative
Substances
Restore Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV): Establish
SAV Beds
Remained
SAV
Restore Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation: Harvest SAV
from Existing Wild Areas
Remained
Restore Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation: Propagate SAV
in Laboratories and Nurseries
Remained
a Screen 1: Climate change adaptation potential
b Screen 2: Dimensions of timeliness
79 Chesapeake Bay Program. 2004. Chesapeake Bay Oyster Management Plan. Report accessed online at:
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_12889.pdf (Accessed 9/29/08).
80 Ibid.
June, 2010
125
-------
APPENDIX D
Decision Attribute Template
Instructions: This information will be used to score and rank the suitability of management decisions for research
and development investments to help facilitate adaptation to climate change. The analysis will be conducted with a
fuzzy logic-based model that evaluates the "truth" of a series of statements with respect to a set of logical rules. This
document contains a set of logical statements and scores based the information described below each statement. We
are asking for your critical peer-review of our estimates.
Best Management Practice
1. Restoration or protection goals for this system are highly vulnerable to climate change.
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Not true
Maybe
True
Definitions: Where Vulnerability = f(management goal, sensitivity of system to climate change, capacity
for autonomous adaptation). Autonomous adaptation refers to changes that are likely to take place without
specific interventions (i.e., the development of new adaptive strategies, specific incentives, or specialized
decision support resources)
2. The performance of this management practice is highly vulnerable to climate change.
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Not true
Maybe
True
Definitions: Where Vulnerability = f(management goal, sensitivity of management practice to climate
change, capacity for autonomous adaptation). Sensitivity of the management practice refers to potentially
negative changes in performance with respect to expected cost, efficiency, or effectiveness. Autonomous
adaptation refers to changes that are likely to take place without specific interventions (i.e., the
development of new adaptive strategies, specific incentives, or specialized decision support resources).
June, 2010
126
-------
Best Management Practice
Attribute
Description/Rationale
Brief Description
Focus of the decision in terms of
geographic area
Focus area
Overall (strategic) goal of the
decision
Objective and purpose of decision
[decision endpoint]
Climate is relevant to issues of
concern
[Does climate change affect the
effectiveness of the decision?]
(Y/N)
The potential for adaptive
responses (viz., those that could be
incorporated in this decision) to
mitigate impacts
How frequently the decision is
made
[for a given site or focus area]
June, 2010
127
-------
Best Management Practice
3. Planning, implementation, and performance associated with this management action will occur
over a long period of time.
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Not true
Maybe
True
Definitions: Long-term decisions have overall project planning, implementation, and performance periods
equal to or greater than 25 years
Planning period
Implementation period
Project lifetime
4. The management action involves a near-term decision with important, long-term consequences.
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Not true
Maybe
True
Definitions: Important consequences may include irreversible actions (e.g., grade and fill, infrastructure
development, habitat loss/creation) or long-term commitments (e.g., expectations for continued funding,
maintenance).
Irreversible decision
[Does decision preclude future
options or require a strong
commitment to the post-decision
status quo?]
(Y/N)
Current trends are maladaptive
(Y/N)
June, 2010
128
-------
Best Management Practice
5. The resource addressed by this management action is a very high priority issue for water quality
or living resource restoration or protection efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Not true
Maybe
True
Definitions: Priority reflects relative importance among resources associated with the Chesapeake Bay
Program.
Priority of threatened resources
(ranked on a scale of 1-4, where 4
is a high priority resource)
6. This management action involves a capital intensive investment.
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Not true
Maybe
True
Definitions: Capital intensive means that implementing the management action requires more than normal
operating funds, such as a supplemental appropriation, bond issue, loan).
Total investment over lifetime of
project
Estimated cost of annual payments
[including operation and
maintenance and land rentals,
where applicable]
June, 2010
129
-------
Best Management Practice
Characteristics of the decision process
7. Decision-makers have a high degree of flexibility in how they design or use this management
practice.
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Not true
Maybe
True
Definitions: Flexibility means discretion with regard to the design and geographic placement of this
management practice (as opposed to instances where the decision maker is highly constrained).
Statutory (or other) authority for
the decision
Voluntary or Regulatory?
Incentives for the decision
[Why are you doing this program?]
Organization with primary
decision-making responsibility
Other organizations with decision-
making responsibility
Decision rules and tools used to
make decisions
Climate-related data (e.g.,
precipitation, stream flow, sea
level, temperature) currently used
in the decision
Decisions interlinked
June, 2010
130
-------
Best Management Practice
8. The institutions that carry out this management action have high levels of adaptive capacity.
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Not true
Maybe
True
Definitions: Adaptive capacity refers to the ability to respond to or accommodate change. Organizations
with high-levels of adaptive capacity can manage changing conditions, because they have substantial
levels of technical expertise, financial and operational resources, and flexibility in how they carry out
their missions.
Organizational resources for
climate change
Organizational expertise in climate
change
9. Adaptive changes in this management practice are likely to be limited by internal constraints
within the implementing organizations.
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Not true
Maybe
True
Definitions: Internal constraints are barriers to implementing adaptive change, such as rigid operational
rules, inflexible organizational culture, legal constraints, or unresponsive funding arrangement.
Institutional constraints
Operational constraints
Relative priority of this decision
within the primary decision-
making organization
June, 2010
131
-------
Best Management Practice
Decision maker receptivity/
recognition that climate change is a
factor that should be considered in
this decision
Flexibility to incorporate climate
change as a decision factor
10. Adaptive changes in this management practice are likely to be limited by external constraints
outside of the implementing organizations.
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Not true
Maybe
True
Definitions: External constraints are barriers to implementing adaptive change, such as limitations of
funding or resources, legal requirements, or competition with other groups.
Legal constraints
Regulatory constraints
Involvement of stakeholder groups
Where do stakeholders get their
information
Whom do stakeholders trust?
11. Relative to other systems and practices in the Chesapeake Bay, a great deal is known about
ecological and environmental processes relevant to this management action.
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Not true
Maybe
True
Definitions: Are this system and practice relatively well-understood with respect to others in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed (i.e., relatively speaking, is this something we know very well)?
June, 2010
132
-------
Best Management Practice
12. Enough information is available to anticipate the consequences of climate change for the
condition of the system associated with this management action.
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Not true
Maybe
True
Definitions: Can we anticipate the consequences of climate change (in general terms) on the condition of
the ecological or environmental system addressed by this management practice? In other words, do we
know enough to say what increases in temperature, changes in precipitation, or rising sea levels may do to
the resource?
13. Enough information is available to anticipate the consequences of climate change for the
performance of this management action.
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Not true
Maybe
True
Definitions: Can we anticipate the consequences of climate change (in general terms) on the performance
management practice (i.e., cost, effectiveness)?
Google Scholar search results
Web of Science results
June, 2010
133
-------
Best Management Practice
14. This system and associated management practice are most likely to benefit from immediate
investments in research to support the development of new decision support resources to facilitate
adaptation to climate change.
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Not true
Maybe
True
Definitions: This is a synthetic question. Based on the preceding statements and information, is it likely
that: (1) this system is likely to experience significant climate impacts; (2) adaptive measures are
available; (3) implementing organizations are capable of making adaptive changes, and (4) the system and
associated practices are sufficiently well-understood scientifically to provide the basis for the
development of new decision support resources.
June, 2010
134
-------
Ecosystem Management (Tables D-1 - D-14)
Table D-1. Statement 1: Restoration or protection goals for this system are highly vulnerable to climate change
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Living Shorelines
5
5
5
Build fish passageways
4
4
4
Unclear what "system" refers to -
passageway? Stream? Fish
population?
Remove physical and chemical blockages
4
4
4
Maintain/protect upstream spawning habitats
4
4
4
Manage fishery harvest levels
4
4
4
Reviewer 1: Climate modifies effectiveness but does not
completely undo management of harvest levels.
Reviewer 2: Under "definitions" I'm not clear on what you
mean by vulnerability = f ? Is this referring to frequency?
Function? Since fishery managers commonly use the term F =
fishing mortality, I suggest changing it to some other variable
so there is no confusion.
Breed triploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
4
4
4
If system means Chesapeake Bay.
Introduce diploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
4
3
3
Unknown-maybe-3.
Phragmites australis (common reed)
3
4-5
4
4 or 5, goals are definitely vulnerable because coastal flooding
will increase area at threat to invasion by Phragmites australis.
Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife)
3
3
3
In general, the successes and failures of Nutria eradication
efforts in Louisiana should be considered when developing
restoration or protection goals for the CB. The Louisiana
wetlands system may become an important model for wetlands
further north as climate change alters northern wetlands.
Trapa natans (water chestnut)
3
3
3
I think the supporting evidence suggests there is a better
understanding of Trapa natans occurrence than perhaps is
June, 2010
135
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
warranted. The most recent infestation's origins I think were
unclear, so understanding how this species will respond to
climate change is highly uncertain. "Altered conditions" might
increase or decrease the invasiveness of this species. I
disagree with the awkwardly phrased non-sequitur in the
section responding to "The potential for adaptive
responses....mitigate impacts."
Myocastor coypus (Nutria)
3
3
3
Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussels)
3
3
3
Rebuild oyster habitats using alternative substances
4
4
4
Rebuild oyster habitats using old oyster shells
4
4
4
Create sanctuaries
4
4
4
Aquaculture
4
4
4
Employ disease-resistant management techniques
4
2-3
2
I do not agree that the long term goal of restoration is "highly"
vulnerable to climate change. The very nature of the activity
allows adaptive management to accommodate this change.
Furthermore, selective breeding for disease resistance is
iterative and dynamic. My rating 2-3.
SAV
4
1
1
The goals are an historic acreage, so future warming will in no
way affect the goals themselves. Seems to be off-question.
The question is about the goals, the rationale is describing
performance.
Table D-2. Statement 2: The performance of this management practice is highly vulnerable to climate change
Management Practice
Initial
Reviewer
Final
Reviewer Comments
Score
Score
Score
Living Shorelines
4
4
4
June, 2010
136
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Build fish passageways
3
4
4
Increased flashiness seems likely and this will affect
performance.
Remove physical and chemical blockages
3
3
3
Upstream habitat shift with temperature and flow regime are
likely to affect the timing of spawning and to change the
geography of spawning particularly for cold water species such
as yellow and white perch.
Maintain/protect upstream spawning habitats
5
5
5
Upstream habitat shift with temperature and flow regime are
likely to affect the timing of spawning and to change the
geography of spawning particularly for cold water species such
as yellow and white perch.
Manage fishery harvest levels
4
4
4
"Game" term in justification is anachronistic and implies
angling only. Suggest word change to harvest or fishery.
Climate can differentially affect recruitments of differing
components offish community upon which harvesters depend,
permitting some degree of switching or flexibility by fishers and
regulators.
Breed triploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
4
3
3
The process of hatchery production of this type of seed for
aquaculture also embraced selective breeding and
domestication, which is adaptive and responsive to gradual
changed in climate change.
Introduce diploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
4
3
3
Since introduction of ariakensis is essentially the equivalent
process of restoration of native oysters (hatchery, planting,
reefs, recruitment, etc), the same comments apply regarding
the fact that a long time span is needed and adaptive
management can be practiced during introduction. Therefore
that makes the management practice less vulnerable to
climate change.
Phragmites australis (common reed)
3
4-5
4
4 or 5, management of Phragmites australis under climate
change will be one of "moving goal posts" as suitability of
environment changes.
June, 2010
137
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife)
3
3
3
Trapa natans (water chestnut)
3
4
4
T. natans is intolerant of salinity. Climate change sea level rise
and salt intrusion will limit its ability to colonize the
Chesapeake Bay.
Myocastor coypus (Nutria)
3
3
3
Reviewer 1: The information identified is accurate, but in the
Chesapeake Bay system Nutria is not really competing with
any native species, therefore competitive advantage is not
likely to be the impact of climate change. Range extension is
more likely the issue, with climate change bringing more
moderate winter temps, thus enabling the spread of Nutria.
Reviewer 2: As wetlands form the habitat for nutria it is
possible that responses by wetlands to climate change will
affect nutria. Understanding this relationship should drive
adaptive management. Rates of loss of wetlands due to
climate change versus nutria damage may change under
different climate scenarios. It may not be appropriate to a
priori assume that any climate change scenario will result in an
increase in marsh loss due to nutria. Climate change driven
wetland loss rates may become so significant as to render the
nutria contribution insignificant. That said, current
management strategies to eradicate nutria and reduce their
contribution to wetland loss now are sound.
Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussels)
3
3
3
Rebuild oyster habitats using alternative substances
4
4
4
Rebuild oyster habitats using old oyster shells
4
4
4
Create sanctuaries
5
5
5
Aquaculture
4
2
2
The process of hatchery production of this type of seed for
aquaculture also embraced selective breeding and
domestication, which is adaptive and responsive to gradual
June, 2010
138
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
changed in climate change.
Employ disease-resistant management techniques
3
2-3
3
1 do not agree that the long term goal of restoration is "highly"
vulnerable to climate change. The very nature of the activity
allows adaptive management to accommodate this change.
Furthermore, selective breeding for disease resistance is
iterative and dynamic. My rating 2-3.
SAV
4
4
4
Yes for mesohaline Chesapeake, unknown for freshwater
Chesapeake. The table on page 2 needs substantial
corrections (e.g. there are no restoration projects in Tangier
Sound).
Table D-3. Statement 3: Planning, implementation, and performance associated with this management action will occur over a long period of time
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Living Shorelines
5
5
5
Build fish passageways
5
5
5
Should be made clearer whether performance includes post-
implementation monitoring against bench marks.
Remove physical and chemical blockages
5
5
5
Maintain/protect upstream spawning habitats
4
4
4
Manage fishery harvest levels
5
5
5
Planning period may take longer than 6 months and up to 2
years. Implementation = on-going
Breed triploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
5
1
5
Absolutely disagree.
Introduce diploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
5
5
5
Agree, but not as long as native restoration since results will
be clearer sooner. In fact, it will be very difficult to decide
whether the oyster is failing or the introduction is failing.
Phragmites australis (common reed)
5
5
5
June, 2010
139
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife)
5
5
5
Reviewer 1: Likely to be much longer than CBP 5 year,
actually a continuing issue as biogeographic provinces shift
north.
Reviewer 2: However, weather extremes especially cold can
cause high mortalities and limit expansion. If climate change
results in severe seasonally extremes, i.e. colder winters and
hotter summers, nutria expansion into Bay could be limited or
reduced.
Trapa natans (water chestnut)
5
3
5
Is this not somewhat dependent on state agencies continuing
to be committed to the management of this species?
Myocastor coypus (Nutria)
5
5
5
Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussels)
5
5
5
Rebuild oyster habitats using alternative substances
5
5
5
Rebuild oyster habitats using old oyster shells
5
5
5
Create sanctuaries
5
5
5
Aquaculture
5
1
5
Absolutely not true. If anything, aquaculture will be the fastest
response to depletion of oyster stocks, because it is not
dependent upon Federal or State programs. Rather it is driven
by private enterprise and business investment.
Employ disease-resistant management techniques
5
5
5
SAV
5
5
5
No, the planning period and implementation period is rarely
less than one year. Most projects take place for at least 3
years.
June, 2010
140
-------
Table D-4. Statement 4: The management action involves a near-term decision with important, long-term consequences
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Living Shorelines
4
4
4
Build fish passageways
4
4
4
Remove physical and chemical blockages
4
4
4
Concur although there are long-term consequences in going
from lacustrine to fluvial habitats that have not been
adequately studied.
Maintain/protect upstream spawning habitats
2
2
2
Concur although there are long-term consequences in going
from lacustrine to fluvial habitats that have not been
adequately studied.
Manage fishery harvest levels
2
2,3
3
Reviewer 1: (Agrees with score of 2) Often fishing effects are
reversible; oysters are a notable exception.
Reviewer 2: I think it should be a 3. Fishing can affect
ecosystem structure & function and may be irreversible.
Breed triploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
2
2.5
3
Depending on whether you release these or keep them
contained in aquaculture, this is NOT an irreversible decision,
that is the premise of using triploids in the first place. At the
least, it has far less "irreversibility" than diploid introduction
and shouldn't even be in the same category. The explanations
in your rational boxes do not parallel the concerns of this
question, e.g., "intent of the practice is to restore long-term
habitat" and "availability of a consistent supply of disease-
resistant seed oysters is the main constraint on the growth of
the industry", the latter of which is a comment that pertains to
native seed, not non-native seed. My rating: 2.5.
Introduce diploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
5
5
5
Phragmites australis (common reed)
3
1-2
2
I would say 1 or 2. This will be an "adaptive management"
process, no near term actions are likely to forestall future
management actions.
June, 2010
141
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife)
3
3
3
Trapa natans (water chestnut)
3
4
4
If the near term decision is to stop management of the
species, Trapa natans will spread and become more costly
and possibly more difficult to eradicate.
Myocastor coypus (Nutria)
3
3
3
Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussels)
3
3
3
Rebuild oyster habitats using alternative substances
2
2
2
Rebuild oyster habitats using old oyster shells
2
2
2
Create sanctuaries
4
4
4
Aquaculture
4
3
3
Depends whether this is a public or private activity. Your
boxes listing rationale are not consonant with the premise of
doing private aquaculture, they are addressing restoration
factors.
Employ disease-resistant management techniques
4
4
4
SAV
3
5
5
Once a site is selected, a commitment must be made if
anything is to be learned from the action.
Table D-5. Statement 5: The resource addressed by this management action is a very high priority issue for water quality or living resource restoration or protection
efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Living Shorelines
3
4
4
Seems inconsistent - top priority given in explanation (Lutz
ref) with which 1 concur.
Build fish passageways
3
4
4
While Alosa seems to be focus, recent evidence indicates that
eels are strongly curtailed by existing passageways and
impoundments. Freshwater fish will also benefit by increased
June, 2010
142
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
connectivity among habitats that passageways can afford.
Remove physical and chemical blockages
3
4
4
Re-establishing connectivity is important for non-Alosa species
such as eels, which are strongly curtailed by impoundments.
Important also to freshwater fishes such as perches which can
migrate widely within non-tidal rivers and streams.
Maintain/protect upstream spawning habitats
3
4
4
Re-establishing connectivity is important for non-Alosa species
such as eels, which are strongly curtailed by impoundments.
Important also to freshwater fishes such as perches which can
migrate widely within non-tidal rivers and streams.
Manage fishery harvest levels
3
4
4
Reviewer 1: Concur. Managing harvest levels is a needed
ingredient in Ecosystem management, but higher priority is
needed on habitat and climate issues that affect living
resources.
Reviewer 2: This should be a 4. Water quality criteria were
set in the CB for fish species and fish are one of the prime
concerns of the general public.
Breed triploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
3
2
2
Again assuming that your meaning is to use triploids for
aquaculture, there is practically no Bay wide, only very local,
benefit to even extensive aquaculture farms. The real benefit
of enabling aquaculture in a water quality sense is to have
industry interest in the health of the Bay.
Introduce diploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
3
3
3
Phragmites australis (common reed)
4
4
4
Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife)
4
4
4
Trapa natans (water chestnut)
4
4
4
Unclear which ecosystem resources might be affected by a
large Trapa natans infestation. Beyond ecosystem
disturbance this species has the potential to disrupt navigation
in a waterway that might be more significant than the
ecological consequences.
June, 2010
143
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Myocastor coypus (Nutria)
4
3
3
Nutria represent a significant problem in localized areas, not a
wide spread threat at this time.
Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussels)
4
4
4
Rebuild oyster habitats using alternative substances
3
3
3
Rebuild oyster habitats using old oyster shells
3
3
3
Create sanctuaries
3
3
3
Aquaculture
3
3
3
Given the limited ecological services likely to be provided by
aquaculture
Employ disease-resistant management techniques
3
3
3
SAV
4
4
4
Table D-6. Statement 6: This management action involves a capital intensive investment
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Living Shorelines
2
2
2
Build fish passageways
2
4
2
Problem is that evaluation of passageways is under-funded.
Annual costs should be incurred to cover long-term evaluation
of some passage-ways.
Remove physical and chemical blockages
4
4
4
Concur, but inadequate funding given to monitoring the
effectiveness of opening up new spawning habitats.
Maintain/protect upstream spawning habitats
2
2
2
Concur, but inadequate funding given to monitoring the
effectiveness of opening up new spawning habitats.
Manage fishery harvest levels
3
3
3
Reviewer 1: Concur, but insufficient investments and
coordination exist in monitoring programs. Also, most DNR
costs go towards enforcement that is unrelated to fisheries
June, 2010
144
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
management (boating, water safety, etc).
Reviewer 2: Probably an underestimate for monitoring
especially with the new demands for ecosystem-based
management.
Breed triploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
3
3
3
The so called cost of this option is one that is borne by private
investment and industry growth rather than Federal programs.
Therefore the answer depends on the context of whose cost
you mean. Public cost? No. Private cost = private
investment. This question illustrates why it is important to
better define the issue, rather than the vague "Breed triploid
oysters."
Introduce diploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
3
4-5
3
Same investment as needed for native restoration, or higher.
My rating 4-5.
Phragmites australis (common reed)
2
4
2
Aerial spraying for eradication very costly.
Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife)
2
4
2
Capital intensive to eradicate
Trapa natans (water chestnut)
2
4
2
Reviewer 1: Capital intensive to remove.
Reviewer 2: It does seem to be true that the most recent
infestations were controlled using existing funds at MD DNR.
However, that wasn't true for the Potomac River. So, the
justification actually sets up conditions that show high
uncertainty in the cost. The current management effort is
managed within existing funds (how much should be included
here), however, a massive infestation would require a capital
investment.
Myocastor coypus (Nutria)
2
4
2
Capital intensive to eradicate.
Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussels)
2
2
2
Rebuild oyster habitats using alternative substances
3
3
3
Rebuild oyster habitats using old oyster shells
4
4
4
June, 2010
145
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Create sanctuaries
2
2
2
Aquaculture
3
3
3
Not much public investment if its mostly private investment.
Employ disease-resistant management techniques
3
4-5
3
The capital investment is huge, much higher than anyone has
yet envisaged realistically. In essence, oyster restoration is
minimally vested in Maryland and grossly underinvested in
Virginia. My rating 4-5.
SAV
2
1
2
Very low cost compare to other restoration (e.g. wetland,
oyster), the costs are far higher than $100/acre. That may be
the seeding cost, but water quality and follow-up monitoring
will make the costs approximately $2K to $10K/acre.
Table D-7. Statement 7: Decision-makers have a high degree of flexibility in how they design or use this management practice
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Living Shorelines
4
4
4
Build fish passageways
5
5
5
Concur - flexibility is important to make progress.
Remove physical and chemical blockages
3
3
3
Concur but too much flexibility could be a problem in linear
systems where priority should be on downstream
impoundments.
Maintain/protect upstream spawning habitats
5
5
5
Concur but too much flexibility could be a problem in linear
systems where priority should be on downstream
impoundments.
Manage fishery harvest levels
4
4,1
2
Reviewer 1: Agree with score of 4.
Reviewer 2: Rate as 1, due to failure to effectively regulate
oyster harvests. BBCAC effort on blue crabs points way
towards integrated and effective management but this effort
has been disbanded due to lack of funding. Currently there
exists little way to effectively management living resources
June, 2010
146
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
between bay states (here 1 am not considering ASMFC -
which is a compact of coastal states, which typically
encompasses living resources at larger scale than the Bay
Ecosystem).
Breed triploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
4
4
4
WHAT management practice? Again, if you mean
aquaculture, then we have to define what the actual
management practice is for that. If you mean extensive
planting of triploids as a public resource, that is entirely
different.
Introduce diploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
4
3
3
The fact of the matter is that the science of introduction is
similar to that of restoration and has only recently been
formulated and insufficiently tested - largely owing to
insufficient SCALE. Assuming that the science will be
improved, it may be that the techniques are very precise and
relatively inflexible.
Phragmites australis (common reed)
5
4
4
In Virginia P. australis is a protected marsh type under the
Virginia Tidal Wetlands Act. It is considered of low value
however permits for displacing it are still required.
Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife)
4
4
4
Trapa natans (water chestnut)
4
4
4
Myocastor coypus (Nutria)
4
4
4
Don't know how flexible the stated rules really are with regards
to management decisions. However, 1 am assuming this is a
valid score because the eradication effort is underway and
permitted so it must be operating under fairly flexible rules and
regulations. However, if eradication is unsuccessful, it may be
necessary to further evaluate the "flexibility" of existing
regulations.
Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussels)
4
4
4
Rebuild oyster habitats using alternative substances
3
3
3
June, 2010
147
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Rebuild oyster habitats using old oyster shells
2
2
2
Create sanctuaries
2
2
2
Aquaculture
2
4
4
Presumably there is a great degree of flexibility in
implementing oyster culture regulations and policy.
Employ disease-resistant management techniques
4
3
3
The fact of the matter is that the science of restoration using
disease-resistance management techniques has only recently
been formulated and insufficiently tested - largely owing to
insufficient SCALE. Assuming that the science will be
improved, it may be that the techniques are very precise and
relatively inflexible.
SAV
2
3
3
1 think we do have a lot of flexibility relative to other kinds of
restoration. However, there are substantial geographic
constraints. 1 disagree that this is a regulatory activity. There
has only been one regulatory SAV restoration project in the
history of the Chesapeake Bay.
Table D-8. Statement 8: The institutions that carry out this management action have high levels of adaptive capacity
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Living Shorelines
NR
NR
NR
Build fish passageways
NR
NR
NR
Remove physical and chemical blockages
NR
NR
NR
Maintain/protect upstream spawning habitats
NR
NR
NR
Manage fishery harvest levels
NR
NR
NR
Breed triploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
NR
NR
NR
Introduce diploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
NR
3
3
The institutions have high adaptive capacity IF they are
June, 2010
148
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
appropriately funded and IF they achieve a level of
interagency cooperation (including flexibility in expenditure of
funds) that allows it. Now, formalities in ACE procedure
severely limit flexibility in VA. In MD I think things are in better
shape, largely because of the overarching organizational
structure of ORP.
Phragmites australis (common reed)
NR
NR
NR
Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife)
NR
NR
NR
Trapa natans (water chestnut)
NR
NR
NR
Myocastor coypus (Nutria)
NR
2
2
The agencies involved are generally focused on other issues
and not well funded. There is flexibility in defining strategy, but
not great latitude in assigning resources.
Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussels)
NR
NR
NR
Rebuild oyster habitats using alternative substances
NR
NR
NR
Rebuild oyster habitats using old oyster shells
NR
NR
NR
Create sanctuaries
NR
NR
NR
Aquaculture
NR
NR
NR
Regulations are adaptive. There really isn't a "policy" here.
Employ disease-resistant management techniques
NR
NR
NR
The institutions have high adaptive capacity IF they are
appropriately funded and IF they achieve a level of
interagency cooperation (including flexibility in expenditure of
funds) that allows it. Now, formalities in ACE procedure
severely limit flexibility in VA. In MD I think things are in better
shape, largely because of the overarching organizational
structure of ORP.
SAV
NR
1
1
The work to date has been 100% grant driven, and as such
there is little to no adaptive capability.
June, 2010
149
-------
Table D-9. Statement 9: Adaptive changes in this management practice are likely to be limited by internal constraints within the implementing organizations
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Living Shorelines
3
3
3
Build fish passageways
2
2
2
Remove physical and chemical blockages
NR
NR
NR
Unclear what EFI refers to. Never heard of this term.
Maintain/protect upstream spawning habitats
3
3
3
Unclear what EFI refers to. Never heard of this term.
Manage fishery harvest levels
3
4
4
Reviewer 1: Uprate to 4. Lack of climate considerations in
current management of living resources at Bay Program or
state levels.
Reviewer 2: 4 because collecting fishery independent data is
and will continue to be limited by funding. There are also
political constraints because of the economic considerations.
Breed triploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
2
2
2
WHAT management practice? Again, if you mean
aquaculture, then we have to define what the actual
management practice is for that. If you mean extensive
planting of triploids as a public resource, that is entirely
different.
Introduce diploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
2
2
2
Phragmites australis (common reed)
2
2
2
Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife)
2
2
2
Trapa natans (water chestnut)
2
3
3
How do you know that there won't be internal constraints? I
would think that without a justification you would need to rank
this as 3.
Myocastor coypus (Nutria)
2
3
3
Game control agencies in MD and VA have limited options for
control - basically they only regulate voluntary hunting
pressure.
June, 2010
150
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Dreissena polymorphs (zebra mussels)
2
2
2
Rebuild oyster habitats using alternative substances
NR
NR
NR
Rebuild oyster habitats using old oyster shells
NR
NR
NR
Create sanctuaries
NR
NR
NR
Aquaculture
NR
2
2
Employ disease-resistant management techniques
NR
NR
NR
The institutions have high adaptive capacity IF they are
appropriately funded and IF they achieve a level of
interagency cooperation (including flexibility in expenditure of
funds) that allows it. Now, formalities in ACE procedure
severely limit flexibility in VA. In MD 1 think things are in better
shape, largely because of the overarching organizational
structure of ORP.
SAV
4
4
4
Would de-emphasize operational constraints.
Table D-10. Statement 10: Adaptive changes in this management practice are likely to be limited by external constraints outside of the implementing organizations
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Living Shorelines
4
4
4
Build fish passageways
4
3
3
Would tend to down-rate this to 3. Seems to be growing
momentum by stakeholders to build passageways and remove
impoundments.
Remove physical and chemical blockages
4
4
4
No opinion. No justification is given for external constraints,
although external constraints on this activity can be
substantial.
Maintain/protect upstream spawning habitats
NR
NR
No opinion. No justification is given for external constraints.
Manage fishery harvest levels
4
4,3
3
Reviewer 1: Agrees with score of 4.
June, 2010
151
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Reviewer 2: Downrate to 3. ASMFC, NOAA have taken lead
at looking at climate issues, but no way currently for this
science or related regulatory tools to filter down to state level.
Breed triploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
5
5
5
WHAT management practice? Again, if you mean
aquaculture, then we have to define what the actual
management practice is for that. If you mean extensive
planting of triploids as a public resource, that is entirely
different.
Introduce diploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
5
5
5
Phragmites australis (common reed)
3
4
4
In Virginia P. australis is a protected marsh type under the
Virginia Tidal Wetlands Act. It is considered of low value
however permits for displacing it are still required.
Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife)
3
3
3
Trapa natans (water chestnut)
3
3
3
Myocastor coypus (Nutria)
3
1 or 5
1
If eradication is completed under the given management plan
and funding, then external constraints would not be barriers.
OR, 5, - if eradication isn't completed under the given
management plan and funding, then external constraints
would be barriers. I'm not sure I see a middle road here,
unless the stakeholders have long-term funding they would put
toward this problem.
Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussels)
3
3
3
Rebuild oyster habitats using alternative substances
2
2
2
Rebuild oyster habitats using old oyster shells
3
3
3
Create sanctuaries
2
2
2
Aquaculture
2
2
2
I agree.
Employ disease-resistant management techniques
3
3
3
June, 2010
152
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
SAV
NR
4
4
Only real limitations are logistics.
Table D-11. Statement 11: Relative to other systems and practices in the Chesapeake Bay, a great deal is known about ecological and environmental processes
relevant to this management action
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Living Shorelines
3
3
3
There is an increasing knowledge base, but much more work
is needed on evaluation or restored living shorelines.
Build fish passageways
3
2
3
Down-rate to 2, Efficacy of passageway inadequately known.
Remove physical and chemical blockages
3
2
3
Knowledge base is inadequate and this should be recognized.
Maintain/protect upstream spawning habitats
3
2
3
Knowledge base is inadequate and this should be recognized.
Manage fishery harvest levels
4
4
4
Breed triploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
4
4
4
If you mean aquaculture, 1 agree with your score.
Introduce diploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
2
2
2
If not lower.
Phragmites australis (common reed)
4
4
4
Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife)
4
3
4
There are a couple of compelling articles (Fransworth and
Ellis, 2001; Hager and McCoy, 1998) on the uncertainties
about the detrimental effects of L. salicaria on ecological and
environmental processes.
Trapa natans (water chestnut)
4
4
4
Myocastor coypus (Nutria)
4
4
4
Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussels)
4
4
4
Rebuild oyster habitats using alternative substances
3
3
3
Rebuild oyster habitats using old oyster shells
4
4
4
June, 2010
153
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Create sanctuaries
4
4
4
Aquaculture
4
4
4
Employ disease-resistant management techniques
3
3
3
1 think we know more than we think and that the application of
the sciences to oyster restoration has been constrained by the
lack of an overarching "czar" of restoration.
SAV
4
3
4
Far more is known about wetlands, forests, and fisheries than
SAV.
Table D-12. Statement 12: Enough information is available to anticipate the consequences of climate change for the condition of the system associated with this
management action
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Living Shorelines
3
2
2
Not adequately supported. Some literature on sea ingress on
marsh grasses and erosion should be acknowledged as
relevant.
Build fish passageways
3
2
2
Down-rate to 2, long term performance of passageways not
well known to enable predictions on how climate will affect
passageway performance.
Remove physical and chemical blockages
3
2
2
Knowledge base is inadequate and this should be recognized.
Maintain/protect upstream spawning habitats
3
2
2
Knowledge base is inadequate and this should be recognized.
Manage fishery harvest levels
3
3
3
Concur - substantial information accruing but needs to be
further developed in precautionary framework for managing
harvest levels given expected climate change.
Breed triploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
4
4
4
Introduce diploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
4
4
4
Phragmites australis (common reed)
2
3-4
3
1 would say 3 or 4. Information could be gleaned from studies
June, 2010
154
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
of other similar species (e.g. Spartina) in uptake of carbon,
influence of temp, etc. See work of Drake et al.
Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife)
2
2
2
Trapa natans (water chestnut)
2
2
2
Myocastor coypus (Nutria)
2
2
2
Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussels)
2
2
2
Rebuild oyster habitats using alternative substances
4
4
4
Rebuild oyster habitats using old oyster shells
4
4
4
Create sanctuaries
4
4
4
Aquaculture
4
4
4
Employ disease-resistant management techniques
4
4
4
SAV
4
2
2
Given the extremely small margin of the sedimentary
environment in which SAV live, and the dramatic ways in
which sea level rise might change this, I don't think we know
much about how the system itself might change.
'able D-13. Statement 13: Enough information is available to anticipate the consequences of climate change for the performance of this management action
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Living Shorelines
1
1
1
Searches are perfunctory and give little real sense of quality or
quantity of relevant work conducted. I understand that such
review would require increased scholarship, but I do not think
the program should stand by these sorts of searches of
indicative of quantity of pertinent information.
Build fish passageways
1
1
1
June, 2010
155
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Remove physical and chemical blockages
1
1
1
Concur, but search procedure is inadequate without expert
scholarship to filter down relevant scientific information.
Maintain/protect upstream spawning habitats
2
2
2
Concur, but search procedure is inadequate without expert
scholarship to filter down relevant scientific information.
Manage fishery harvest levels
1
1,2
2
Reviewer 1: Agrees with score of 1.
Reviewer 2: Uprate to 2. There is growing research and
information specific to the Chesapeake.
Breed triploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
1
1
1
Introduce diploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
2
1
1
Phragmites australis (common reed)
3
3
3
Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife)
3
3
3
Trapa natans (water chestnut)
2
2
2
Myocastor coypus (Nutria)
2
2
2
Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussels)
3
3
3
Rebuild oyster habitats using alternative substances
1
1
1
Rebuild oyster habitats using old oyster shells
2
2
2
Create sanctuaries
3
3
3
Aquaculture
5
5
5
Employ disease-resistant management techniques
2
2
2
There is as much information now to speculate on the
consequence of climate change on this management option
as there will ever be. The rest of the information is measuring
the climate change as it occurs, not anticipating it.
SAV
2
2
2
Though a Current Contents search would make a lot more
sense than a Google search.
June, 2010
156
-------
Table D-14. Statement 14: This system and associated management practice are most likely to benefit from immediate investments in research to support the
development of new decision support resources to facilitate adaptation to climate change
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Living Shorelines
4
4
4
Build fish passageways
3
4
3
Rate to 4 to reflect that current deficiency in evaluating
performance over long term will be aided the sooner we give
priority to evaluating performance.
Remove physical and chemical blockages
3
3
3
Inadequacies of research and monitoring have been long
recognized. Impoundment removal for the sake of improving
spawning habitat is currently more engineering than one that
is justified scientifically.
Maintain/protect upstream spawning habitats
4
4
4
Inadequacies of research and monitoring have been long
recognized. Impoundment removal for the sake of improving
spawning habitat is currently more engineering than one that
is justified scientifically.
Manage fishery harvest levels
4
4
4
Breed triploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
3
3
3
Enabling legislation and tech transfer is likely the most
effective means of implementation if you mean aquaculture.
Introduce diploid Asian Suminoe Oysters
3
4
3
If introduction decision is made, then more research money
will have to follow the decision, similar or of greater scope to
that put in to MAKE the decision.
Phragmites australis (common reed)
3
4
3
1 would give this a 4. Development of decision support tools
for this species taking into account climate model projections
could be very useful for management, alternative development
of this and similar species.
Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife)
3
2
3
The occurrence of L salicaria in the watershed is significant
and there is considerable uncertainty as to the role this
species plays in the ecosystem. Its ecological significance
(monoculture, pollinator shifts, biological control) needs to be
June, 2010
157
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
much better understood before reasonable restoration efforts
in a changing climate regime can be developed.
Trapa natans (water chestnut)
3
3
3
Myocastor coypus (Nutria)
3
2
3
1 might rank it as 2 right now, however, after the 5 year project
is complete you will have a better sense of how to rank this
system and the management practices for immediate
investment in research. In a truly adaptive approach you may
find at the end of the nutria eradication effort that this ranking
becomes 4 or 5.
Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussels)
3
3
3
Rebuild oyster habitats using alternative substances
4
4
4
Rebuild oyster habitats using old oyster shells
4
4
4
Create sanctuaries
4
4
4
Aquaculture
4
3
4
This question is also poorly defined. The juxtaposition of
"restore" and "aquaculture" is strange. Restoration is a public
activity and aquaculture - private. Perhaps you mean, use
aquaculture for extensive plantings for the public fishery.
Employ disease-resistant management techniques
3
3
3
SAV
4
4
4
Some very basic research needs to be done, and this would
greatly benefit our understanding of how adaptive SAV might
be to temperature changes.
June, 2010
158
-------
Water Quality (Tables D-15 - D-28)
Table D-15. Statement 1: Restoration or protection goals for this system are highly vulnerable to climate change
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Forest Conservation (Forest Conservation Act)
4
4
4
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
4
4
4
Tree Planting
2
3
3
Since this is the CB/Mid-Atlantic, urban conditions have higher
C02, other greenhouse gases, heat island effects. Tree
planting for the urban areas may be competing with successful
invasive trees like tree of heaven.
Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation
3
2,4-5
2
Reviewer 1:1 would probably rate it slightly lower, perhaps a
"2." AML reclamation will go until the worst offenders that
impact the environment are reclaimed.
Reviewer 2:1 disagree with this score, especially since there
is a strong possibility that increasing temperature throughout
coal-mining regions will accelerate microbial processes in
AMLR. Would rate as 4-5 in score.
CREP Wetland Restoration
4
3
3
Most of the wetlands in the CB watershed are non-tidal (10x
the number of tidal wetlands). CREP wetland restoration is
primarily a non-tidal wetland program, salt water intrusion is
only a minor issue for this at present, and will become
significant only under long term changes in sea level.
Changes in rainfall are more likely to be important.
Reduction in Urban Growth
3
4
4
Climate change indicates sea level and temperature rise and a
shift in aquatic and terrestrial biota.
Riparian Forest/Woodland Buffers - Agriculture
4
3
3
I think the ability to identify the best sites for
restoration/preservation and to convince (or pay) landowners
to do so would be relatively independent of climate change.
June, 2010
159
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
However, the effects of climate change on performance in
meeting water quality goals are very uncertain.
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land
4
3
3
Most wetlands are non-tidal, salt water intrusion is not that big
an issue.
POTWs Standards for Discharge Permits
4
3,3,5
4
Reviewer 1: 3. Ideally POTWs should not be affected by
increased runoff, because they should be treating municipal
sewage which would depend upon population rather than
climate change.
Reviewer 2: 3. TMDLs are based on limiting nutrient
concentrations, which won't change significantly with
temperature increases.
Reviewer 3: 5.
Stormwater Management - Dry Extended
Retention/Detention Ponds
4
4
4
Stormwater Management - Filtering Practices
4
4
4
Stormwater Management - Infiltration Practices
4
4
4
This comment applies more generally: I'd have been inclined
to look at Maryland and perhaps Center for watershed
Protection references in addition to a PA ref.
Stormwater Management - Wet Ponds & Wetlands
4
4
4
Urban Stream Restoration
4
4
4
Table D-16. Statement 2: The performance of this management practice is highly vulnerable to climate change
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Forest Conservation (Forest Conservation Act)
2
4
4
Not only does climate change affect survival rates of planted
trees, but also influences incidence of pests and pathogens,
which can affect our ability to conserve forests.
June, 2010
160
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
4
3
3
Reviewer 1:1 would rank this a 3 rather than a 4 -1 think it is
more similar to tree planting than suggested here.
Reviewer 2: if this is the restoration of the riparian buffer.
Tree Planting
2
2
2
Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation
4
4
4
CREP Wetland Restoration
4
3
3
Increased precipitation may diminish WQ services of restored
wetlands, but is more likely to make wetland restoration more
successful.
Reduction in Urban Growth
2
1
1
I might be inclined to give it a 1.
Riparian Forest/Woodland Buffers - Agriculture
4
3
3
I would assign a 3 to reflect uncertainty about how climate
change would affect buffer responses.
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land
4
3
3
Maybe due to altered precipitation.
POTWs Standards for Discharge Permits
3
2
2
Reviewer 1: Increased temperature will improve process
performance and increased precipitation will decrease point
source significance.
Reviewer 2: Reduce score for "True" to 2.
Stormwater Management - Dry Extended
Retention/Detention Ponds
4
4
4
Stormwater Management - Filtering Practices
4
4
4
Agree, but the write up refers to "infiltration." To me, "filtration"
refers to the manufactured filtering units; Infiltration is like
grassy swales, rain-gardens & porous pavements. Looking
over the two write-ups, perhaps the two should be combined or
more clearly differentiated.
Stormwater Management - Infiltration Practices
4
4
4
This is somewhat speculative, but I agree.
Stormwater Management - Wet Ponds & Wetlands
4
4
4
Urban Stream Restoration
4
4
4
June, 2010
161
-------
Table D-17. Statement 3: Planning, implementation, and performance associated with this management action will occur over a long period of time
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Forest Conservation (Forest Conservation Act)
4
4
4
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
4
4
4
Tree Planting
4
4
4
Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation
3
3
3
CREP Wetland Restoration
3
3
3
Program implementation is falling well short of goals.
Reduction in Urban Growth
5
5
5
Riparian Forest/Woodland Buffers - Agriculture
3
4
3
The higher score is based on an assumption that there might
be greater demands on forest buffers as sources of cellulose or
biomass for bioenergy. If so, the 20+ year timeframes for
'projected lifetimes' will be substantially reduced, maybe more
like a 5-6 year rotation.
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land
5
5
5
POTWs Standards for Discharge Permits
3
5
3
1 would give a score of 5 for "true". The time frame for
implementation has significant impact on the outcome.
Stormwater Management - Dry Extended
Retention/Detention Ponds
4
5
4
Might even rate a 5. Other state (e.g. MD & VA) guidelines and
information from Center for Watershed protection would be of
value.
Stormwater Management - Filtering Practices
4
4
4
Stormwater Management - Infiltration Practices
4
4
4
Stormwater Management - Wet Ponds & Wetlands
4
4
4
Urban Stream Restoration
5
5
5
The Baltimore County study is a good reference.
June, 2010
162
-------
Table D-18. Statement 4: The management action involves a near-term decision with important, long-term consequences
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Forest Conservation (Forest Conservation Act)
4
5
5
This is pretty much a certainty.
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
3
4
4
Supporting evidence seems to add that it is difficult to reverse
initial decision/action.
Tree Planting
2
3-4,4
4
Reviewer 1:1 would give this a score of 3 or 4 - there are
important, long-term consequences - it is not irreversible, but
practically so, and is important habitat creation.
Reviewer 2: Agree if this is for an existing green and open
space management action, I would disagree, give score of 4, if
this is a street tree urban tree planting, and the required
maintenance.
Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation
4
4
4
CREP Wetland Restoration
3
3
3
Reduction in Urban Growth
5
5
5
In fact, once it's developed, redevelopment at an even higher
density is quite possible.
Riparian Forest/Woodland Buffers - Agriculture
4
5
5
I believe the 10 and 25 year project lifetimes are gross
underestimates. It takes many years for a forest to develop.
Some mechanisms of nutrient retention (e.g., denitrification
could continue indefinitely and have no set "lifetime."
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land
3
4-5
4
I would score higher - 4/5. There is a nationwide federal law
for wetland protection under the Clean Water Act -
administered through the Corps. Several court cases, including
recent Supreme Court case outlines jurisdictions. Regulatory
actions have and will continue to have cumulative impacts over
time.
POTWs Standards for Discharge Permits
4
5
5
Reviewer 1: Recommend a score of 5 since the action results
in long-term consequences, particularly with respect to
irreversible actions and funding.
June, 2010
163
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Reviewer 2: Using Caps for existing plants will have major
impacts on effluent requirements and future development.
That's good, not bad.
Stormwater Management - Dry Extended
Retention/Detention Ponds
3
4
4
1 think this rates a 4, as once implemented the typical pond is in
for the duration.
Stormwater Management - Filtering Practices
4
4
4
Stormwater Management - Infiltration Practices
4
4
4
Stormwater Management - Wet Ponds & Wetlands
5
5
5
The connection between wetlands and water quality is well
established.
Urban Stream Restoration
3
4
4
This seems more like a 4.
Table D-19. Statement 5: The resource addressed by this management action is a very high priority issue for water quality or living resource restoration or protection
efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Forest Conservation (Forest Conservation Act)
4
5
5
Highest retention of water/nutrients/habitats is by forests
compared to other land uses.
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
5
5
5
Tree Planting
4
4
4
Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation
4
4
4
CREP Wetland Restoration
5
5
5
Reduction in Urban Growth
4
3
3
Depending on the interpretation of the question, 1 may be
inclined to give it a 3. While land use is a significant focus of the
C2K agreement, my sense is that there have been very little
changes in land use planning that have been driven by
Program goals.
June, 2010
164
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Riparian Forest/Woodland Buffers - Agriculture
5
4
4
Riparian buffers have indeed been selected as a high priority
restoration by CBP, but we don't know that we will actually
achieve the estimated nutrient reductions with these practices.
Perhaps other nutrient management actions should be elevated
in priority?
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land
5
5
5
POTWs Standards for Discharge Permits
5
5
5
Stormwater Management - Dry Extended
Retention/Detention Ponds
5
5
5
Stormwater Management - Filtering Practices
5
5
5
Stormwater Management - Infiltration Practices
5
5
5
Stormwater Management - Wet Ponds & Wetlands
5
5
5
Urban Stream Restoration
5
5
5
Agree, but the supporting information is pretty thin.
Table D-20. Statement 6: This management action involves a capital intensive investment
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Forest Conservation (Forest Conservation Act)
1
3
1
I would agree with a score of 1 if management action is by
developer, however question does not distinguish who pays
until you read statement 7 supporting evidence. Lifetime of
project is not the same as
establishment/afforestation/reforestation.
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
2
4
2
I am assuming that the management action is restoration of
riparian forested buffer. At 13.3 million/acre lifetime, 170K/acre
annual cost is not spare change compared to quoted cost of
nutrient removal. The cost of nutrient removal, is this on
existing or new buffers? Supporting evidence contradictory on
June, 2010
165
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
cost benefits.
Tree Planting
2
3
2
Continuing and maintenance cost in supporting evidence re
high. No implementation costs given.
Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation
4
4
4
CREP Wetland Restoration
3
3
3
Reduction in Urban Growth
1
NR
1
Riparian Forest/Woodland Buffers - Agriculture
2
2
2
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land
3
4
3
Restoration programs lag behind implementation goals, largely
for lack of funding.
POTWs Standards for Discharge Permits
3
4
3
Reviewer 1: When we go to tighter (lower) nutrient limits in the
treated effluent from POTWs, the processes are usually capital
intensive.
Reviewer 2: Disagree with 3. There is little doubt this will
involve high capital investment.
Stormwater Management - Dry Extended
Retention/Detention Ponds
4
4
4
Agree. Individually, these ponds are not as capital intensive as,
say, a wastewater plant and are often folded into the cost of
development.
Stormwater Management - Filtering Practices
4
4
4
Stormwater Management - Infiltration Practices
4
4
4
Stormwater Management - Wet Ponds & Wetlands
3
3
3
Urban Stream Restoration
3
4
3
I think this is a 4 and that the $240/foot seems low to me.
June, 2010
166
-------
Table D-21. Statement 7: Decision-makers have a high degree of flexibility in how they design or use this management practice
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Forest Conservation (Forest Conservation Act)
2
2
2
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
4
3
3
1 might rank this as 3 -1 suspect the statutory and other
authorities are conflicting and thus somewhat restrictive.
Tree Planting
4
4
4
Maybe even bump it up to a 5.
Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation
2
3
3
There is flexibility especially in terms of water treatment options
under AML projects.
CREP Wetland Restoration
2
2
2
Participation by landowners is voluntary, in addition to the land
condition requirements.
Reduction in Urban Growth
5
4
4
Efforts to severely restrict sprawl often run afoul of court
decisions or "grandfather" effects of prior planning & zoning
decisions.
Riparian Forest/Woodland Buffers - Agriculture
4
2
2
1 believe that decision makers are highly constrained in the
placement of buffers. They go mainly to sites on the properties
of willing landowners who meet the constraints to be eligible to
receive financial incentives. Restorations are opportunistic
rather than precisely targeted to give the maximum nutrient
benefit.
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land
4
3
3
POTWs Standards for Discharge Permits
3
4-5,2
3
Reviewer 1: True = 4 or 5. The degree of flexibility and a
thorough evaluation of various options and selection of key
routes for implementation is a crucial part of mitigating the
climate change effects.
Reviewer 2: No, 2. Even with nutrient trading options, effluent
caps will limit technologies that can be used and TMDLs will
limit the locations for trading.
Stormwater Management - Dry Extended
Retention/Detention Ponds
4
4
4
Agree. Not a 5 because and site planners tend not to
incorporate SWM into the site design, but assume that the
June, 2010
167
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
downstream pond will take care of things.
Stormwater Management - Filtering Practices
4
4
4
Agree with score, but don't agree with the statement that "this
BMP is highly regulated by the Feds..." "Locals" should be
listed as those with decision-making responsibility.
Stormwater Management - Infiltration Practices
4
4
4
Not sure that 1 agree with the statement that "this BMP is highly
regulated by the Feds..." It's really more of a state & local
issue.
Stormwater Management - Wet Ponds & Wetlands
4
4
4
Urban Stream Restoration
4
4
4
Agree with score, but question the omission of any MD
references. Bait. Co,. & Mont. Co have been leaders.
Table D-22. Statement 8: The institutions that carry out this management action have high levels of adaptive capacity
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Forest Conservation (Forest Conservation Act)
NR
3,2
3
Reviewer 1:1 would give it a 3, depending on the level of
government (local, state, Fed), and regional resources.
Reviewer 2: Not scored, but I would rate this as a 2.
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
NR
3
3
This was not rated, but I would score it as a 3
Tree Planting
NR
3
3
Reviewer 1: This was not rated, but I would rate it as a 3.
Reviewer 2: No score given, no documentation so I give it a 3,
maybe.
Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation
NR
3,1
Agencies implementing the program are generally resource
limited (both funding and staffing).
CREP Wetland Restoration
NR
2
2
Reviewer 1: In relation to climate change, the 3 (maybe) score
is based on that fact that the institutions may have adaptive
capacity but they may lack the necessary research or trend
data to react, in a timely fashion, to climate change impacts.
June, 2010
168
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Also, since climatic changes impacts would occur in a slow
progression over time there is a need to identify organizations
that are looking at trend data and also identify what possible
impacts will be before they occur on-the-ground.
Reviewer 2:1 would assign a 2.The organizations are limited
by the factors that you cited for item 9.
Reduction in Urban Growth
NR
3
3
There are few effective monitoring programs in place to inform
effective adaptive management.
Riparian Forest/Woodland Buffers - Agriculture
NR
2
3
Reviewer 1: The organizations are limited by the factors that
you cited for item 9.
Reviewer 2: In relation to climate change, the 3 (maybe) score
is based on that fact that the institutions may have adaptive
capacity but they may lack the necessary research or trend
data to react, in a timely fashion, to climate change impacts.
Also, since climatic changes impacts would occur in a slow
progression over time there is a need to identify organizations
that are looking at trend data and also identify what possible
impacts will be before they occur on-the-ground.
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land
NR
2
2
Reviewer 1: there are few effective monitoring programs in
place to inform effective adaptive management
POTWs Standards for Discharge Permits
NR
3,2,3
Reviewer 1: Score of 3 (none given). The adaptive capacity
depends upon management setup and financial resources.
Reviewer 2: 2, POTWs follow NPDES permits and do not have
much flexibility after permits are issued by state agencies.
Reviewer 3: Recommend a score of 3 since institutions may
have some degree of adaptive capability.
Stormwater Management - Dry Extended
Retention/Detention Ponds
NR
3
3
No score assigned. I'd assign a 3 as such organizations can
adapt, but it occurs slowly.
June, 2010
169
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Stormwater Management - Filtering Practices
NR
4
4
Stormwater Management - Infiltration Practices
NR
3
3
Stormwater Management - Wet Ponds & Wetlands
NR
3
3
Urban Stream Restoration
NR
3
3
No score assigned. I'd go with a 3.
'able D-23. Statement 9: Adaptive changes in this management practice are likely to be limited by internal constraints within the implementing organizations
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Forest Conservation (Forest Conservation Act)
2
3,4
3
Reviewer 1:1 would rate this as a 3.
Reviewer 2: 4. Definition and Rationale tend to say there are
internal limits.
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
NR
4
4
This was not scored, but I would score it as a 4.
Tree Planting
NR
4,3
4
Reviewer 1: This was not rated, but I would rate it as a 4.
Reviewer 2: No score given. So I give it a maybe for lack of
information, 3.
Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation
3
4
4
There may be severe future budget limitations at the state and
federal level that will affect the ability to attack AMLR problems.
CREP Wetland Restoration
4
4
4
Reduction in Urban Growth
3
3
3
3 is OK, but in fact state agencies are often pretty limited in the
control they exert over "sprawl-reduction" activities.
Riparian Forest/Woodland Buffers - Agriculture
4
5
5
Agree with all the cited barriers but add to it the unknown
impacts of potential climate change and the implementing
organizations will be overwhelmed.
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land
3
3
3
June, 2010
170
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
POTWs Standards for Discharge Permits
3
3
3
Agree. However, legislatures can enact restrictions that
severely increase restraints.
Stormwater Management - Dry Extended
Retention/Detention Ponds
3
4
4
1 think this one rates a 4. Change can come, but it tends to
come slowly and only after an accumulation of evidence that
such a change is warranted. The one sentence is true, but
somewhat simplistic. It took MD quite a while to institute its
new SW rules, with lots of stakeholder involvement, a few years
ago.
Stormwater Management - Filtering Practices
NR
2
2
Stormwater Management - Infiltration Practices
NR
3
3
Stormwater Management - Wet Ponds & Wetlands
NR
3
3
Urban Stream Restoration
4
4
4
Agree. Add cost to this, especially without a permitting driver.
Table D-24. Statement 10: Adaptive changes in this management practice are likely to be limited by external constraints outside of the implementing organizations
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Forest Conservation (Forest Conservation Act)
4
4
4
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
3
3
3
Tree Planting
3
3
3
Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation
5
5
5
CREP Wetland Restoration
2
4
4
The program depends on landowner willingness to participate.
Reduction in Urban Growth
4
4
4
1 agree with 4, but it's not entirely clear what is "internal" and
what is "external." i.e., if the focus is on state agencies, local
agencies would be external and can be very independent.
Riparian Forest/Woodland Buffers - Agriculture
NR
4
4
Reviewer 1: Without specific data or research on global
change impacts the external constraints on adaptive change
June, 2010
171
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
will become messy.
Reviewer 2: Constraints on the funding for restorations and the
opportunistic nature of restoration placement will limit adaptive
capacity.
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land
NR
NR
NR
Reviewer 1: Virginia major competition with mitigation banking
industry. High returns for mitigation banks reduce interest in
restoration activities.
Reviewer 2: Land use control is the nexus of the issue and
management agencies generally have no purview in that
matter.
POTWs Standards for Discharge Permits
3
4-5,4
4
Reviewer 1: True = 4 or 5. Since external constraints exert a
greater level of influence on outcome.
Reviewer 2: 4, POTWs typically face funding constraints to
implement permit requirements and do not have control over
permitting process itself.
Stormwater Management - Dry Extended
Retention/Detention Ponds
4
4
4
At this point, the Tributary Strategies have had minimal impact
on what localities elect to do.
Stormwater Management - Filtering Practices
3
3
3
Stormwater Management - Infiltration Practices
3
3
3
A 3 is probably right, but no rationale is provided.
Stormwater Management - Wet Ponds & Wetlands
3
3
3
Urban Stream Restoration
4
4
4
June, 2010
172
-------
Table D-25. Statement 11: Relative to other systems and practices in the Chesapeake Bay, a great deal is known about ecological and environmental processes
relevant to this management action
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Forest Conservation (Forest Conservation Act)
5
5
5
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
5
5
5
Tree Planting
5
5
5
Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation
3
3
3
CREP Wetland Restoration
3
3
3
Reduction in Urban Growth
5
4
5
We don't do a "5-level" job of predicting the nutrient and
sediment runoff from various land uses, nor do we have as a
good a handle on the BMP efficiencies of control practices as
we should.
Riparian Forest/Woodland Buffers - Agriculture
5
4
5
Reviewer 1: Not convinced that we understand subsurface
water movement in these systems.
Reviewer 2:1 would assign a 3. We don't know enough about
the balance among different retention mechanisms (tree
uptake, denitrification, storage in soil) in riparian zones, nor
about how that balance varies spatially and temporally. The
balance could strongly affect responses to climate change. We
also don't know enough about how knowledge of nutrient
retention along individual transects through riparian buffers
"scales up" to give effect reductions in nutrient discharges from
complex landscapes.
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land
3
3
3
POTWs Standards for Discharge Permits
5
5
5
Stormwater Management - Dry Extended
Retention/Detention Ponds
4
4
4
Stormwater Management - Filtering Practices
4
3
4
This is probably a 3.
June, 2010
173
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Reviewer
Final
Reviewer Comments
Score
Score
Score
Stormwater Management - Infiltration Practices
4
3
4
Agree, though no citations are given.
Stormwater Management - Wet Ponds & Wetlands
4
4
4
Urban Stream Restoration
4
4
4
Table D-26. Statement 12: Enough information is available to anticipate the consequences of climate change for the condition of the system associated with this
management action
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Forest Conservation (Forest Conservation Act)
4
4
4
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
4
4
4
Tree Planting
4
4
4
Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation
4
3
3
There is enough uncertainty in climate change models that 1
would be hesitant to score this as a 4. This would certainly be
the case with effects of climate change on the biochemical and
soil processes AMLR projects.
CREP Wetland Restoration
4
4
4
Reduction in Urban Growth
4
4
4
Riparian Forest/Woodland Buffers - Agriculture
4
3
3
There is a lot of uncertainty here. Changing climate could
promote forest growth (a positive) or kill off some species (a
negative). Changing climate could reduce buffer effectiveness
by modifying delivery mechanisms or enhance effectiveness by
promoting retention mechanisms (e.g., denitrification).
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land
4
4
4
POTWs Standards for Discharge Permits
4
4
4
Stormwater Management - Dry Extended
2
2
2
June, 2010
174
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Retention/Detention Ponds
Stormwater Management - Filtering Practices
2
2
2
Stormwater Management - Infiltration Practices
2
2
2
Stormwater Management - Wet Ponds & Wetlands
2
2
2
Urban Stream Restoration
4
3
3
A 3 might be better; qualitatively, 1 agree, but I'm not sure the
state of the science is prepared to give definitive answers.
Table D-27. Statement 13: Enough information is available to anticipate the consequences of climate change for the performance of this management action
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Forest Conservation (Forest Conservation Act)
3
3
3
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
2
3
3
I think we know more about the functions of the riparian buffers
than indicated.
Tree Planting
2
3
3
Reviewer 1: although could bump it up to a 3 -1 think we know
a little bit more than what is found only by Google.
Reviewer 2: We look at urban areas as future conditions of
climate change and GHG interactions. We don't study urban
trees as much as natural forested ecosystems.
Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation
1
2
2
Just because there are few connections between climate
change and AML reclamation on the web doesn't mean that we
don't know anything.
CREP Wetland Restoration
3
3
3
Information is not specific, and implications for CREP have not
been analyzed.
Reduction in Urban Growth
4
3
3
I'd be inclined to go with a 3. It seems to me there's a lot we
don't know.
June, 2010
175
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Riparian Forest/Woodland Buffers - Agriculture
2
1
1
Reviewer 1: Score = 1. Not sure that we even have enough
data on the long term performance of the practice at current
conditions no less with changes added.
Reviewer 2:1 would assign a 1 .We need more basic science
on the balances between different retention mechanisms and
how that balance varies. We also need more knowledge about
applying transect studies of riparian buffers to whole
watersheds.
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land
3
3
3
POTWs Standards for Discharge Permits
1
3
3
Current knowledge is sufficient to anticipate many of the
consequences of climate change on point source management.
Stormwater Management - Dry Extended
Retention/Detention Ponds
2
2
2
Stormwater Management - Filtering Practices
3
2
2
Might be a 2.
Stormwater Management - Infiltration Practices
3
3
3
Stormwater Management - Wet Ponds & Wetlands
2
2
2
Urban Stream Restoration
2
2
2
Table D-28. Statement 14: This system and associated management practice are most likely to benefit from immediate investments in research to support the
development of new decision support resources to facilitate adaptation to climate change
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
Forest Conservation (Forest Conservation Act)
4
4
4
Riparian Forest Buffers - Urban
4
4
4
Tree Planting
3
4
3
Mid-Atlantic urban areas are competing with invasives and are
subject to interaction of multiple stresses: elevated C02,
June, 2010
176
-------
Management Practice
Initial
Score
Reviewer
Score
Final
Score
Reviewer Comments
N0x,03, T.
Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation
3
4
3
It would not be perfect but there is a strong potential that
funding for looking at climate change and AMLR treatment
would at least identify the critical parameters needed to develop
new decision matrices. At the very least, these could be
potentially used to assist agencies that are charged with
reclamation.
CREP Wetland Restoration
3
3
3
Agree with rationale
Reduction in Urban Growth
4
5
4
1 could support a 5 on this.
Riparian Forest/Woodland Buffers - Agriculture
4
5
4
Reviewer 1: We need more basic science on the balances
between different retention mechanisms and how that balance
varies. We also need more knowledge about applying transect
studies of riparian buffers to whole watersheds.
Reviewer 2: Score = 5.
Wetlands - Mixed Open Land
4
3
4
There is always room for more research, but it is not clear that
it could make significant changes in adaptive management
capacity in the short term.
POTWs Standards for Discharge Permits
4
4
4
Disagree. I believe there is adequate information to make
informative decisions regarding this issue. What is lacking is
acceptance by much of the regulated community and policy
makers.
Stormwater Management - Dry Extended
Retention/Detention Ponds
3
3
3
Stormwater Management - Filtering Practices
3
3
3
Stormwater Management - Infiltration Practices
3
3
3
Stormwater Management - Wet Ponds & Wetlands
3
3
3
Urban Stream Restoration
4
4
4
June, 2010
177
-------
June, 2010
178
------- |