Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects

Restoring the Great Lakes’ 

Coastal Future

Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation 

of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects

2011
i Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

Copyright © 2011 by National Wildlife Federation

Prepared by

Patty Glick, National Wildlife Federation

Jennie Hoffman, EcoAdapt

Melinda Koslow, National Wildlife Federation

Austin Kane, National Wildlife Federation

Doug Inkley, National Wildlife Federation

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the staff at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Gildo Tori of Ducks Unlimited, Kimberly Hall of The Nature Conservancy, Laura Rubin of the Huron River 

Watershed Council, and Bruce Stein, Michael Murray, and Celia Haven of the National Wildlife Federation for 

reviewing this publication. We would also like to thank Maja Smith of MajaDesign, Inc. for the graphic design 

work. Financial support for this publication was provided by NOAA (Grant Number NA10NMF4630088) and 

the Kresge Foundation. 

Cover photo by Don Breneman

Suggested citation: Glick, P., J. Hoffman, M. Koslow, A. Kane, and D. Inkley. 2011. Restoring the Great Lakes’ 

Coastal Future: Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects. 

National Wildlife Federation, Ann Arbor, MI.

National Wildlife Federation

Great Lakes Regional Center

213 W. Liberty Street

Suite 200

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

734.769.3351

www.nwf.org
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects ii

Restoring the Great Lakes’ 

Coastal Future

Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation 

of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects

Sharply Done
iii Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

U.S. Geological Survey

Contents

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................................................1

I. Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................................3

II. Coastal Restoration in the Great Lakes: Setting the Stage ..........................................................................4

III. Overarching Principles for Climate-Smart Restoration ................................................................................ 9

IV. Planning and Designing Climate-Smart Coastal Restoration Projects ...........................................12

V. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 40

Appendix A. Vulnerability Assessment: A Key Tool for Climate-Smart Restoration ..................42

Appendix B. Additional Resources ................................................................................................................................... 55

Endnotes ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 57
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 1

 he Great Lakes region is home 

 to 20 percent of the world’s 

 freshwater reserves, a rich array 

of species and habitats, and tens of millions 

of people. One of the most significant 

challenges to the well-being of the region is 

climate change. We are already feeling the 

effects of climate change, and those effects 

will only intensify in the future. As a result 

the past alone is no longer a sufficient guide 

for conservation decisions. To effectively 

protect, manage, and restore freshwater 

coastal ecosystems in the Great Lakes we 

must integrate the reality of current and 

future climatic changes into our work. 

Making our projects “climate-smart” in this 

way will enhance their value and durability 

over the long term.

The purpose of this Restoring the Great 

Lakes’ Coastal Future is to provide an 

initial suite of tools and methods to assist 

in the planning and implementation of 

climate-smart restoration by the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) and its partners and grantees. The 

guidance is intended to be a living document 

that evolves in response to workshops, 

trainings, on-the-ground projects, and other 

stakeholder input. Some ways that habitat 

restoration efforts funded under NOAA and 

partner programs in the Great Lakes region 

could be vulnerable to climate change 

impacts include: 

• Changes in water temperatures and 

flow regimes may result in reduced use by 

target species or degradation of restored 

in-stream habitats.

Executive Summary

T

Making our projects “climate-smart” 

will enhance their value and durability 

over the long term.

Michigan Sea Grant
2 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

• Warmer water may also facilitate the 

establishment of southern fish species such 

as smallmouth bass in the Great Lakes or 

the contraction northward of cold-water 

dependent species. 

• Climate-related changes such as 

increasing temperatures, changing lake 

levels, reduced ice cover, and altered 

runoff patterns and lake chemistry will 

interact with a range of existing stressors, 

including increased input and toxicity of 

contaminants in freshwater systems. 

This guide presents a project-based 

approach to adjusting restoration activities 

to address the realities of climate change. 

The steps are as follows:

1. Identify Restoration Goals and 

Targets (e.g., restoring critical habitat for 

a particular endangered species or setting 

maximum allowable pollutant levels).

2. Identify Restoration Project 

Approaches (e.g., dam removal, 

revegetation, or recreating channels).

3. Assess Vulnerability of Targets/

Project Approaches to Change (e.g., 

the influence of temperature on species’ 

health and reproduction or the toxicity 

of pollutants).

4. Identify Climate-Smart Management 

Options. (e.g., restore critical habitat in 

both current and possible future ranges of 

target species).

5. Select and Implement Management 

Options.

6. Monitor, Review, Revise.

Throughout this guidance, case examples 

illustrate how to apply this climate-smart 

restoration framework to the actual 

practice of restoration. These examples, 

including the restoration of whitefish 

spawning habitat and sea lamprey control, 

are presented in tabular format for easy 

reference. Tables review vulnerability of 

project goals, targets, and approaches to 

climate change, and present options for 

reducing that vulnerability on a number 

of levels. The body of this guidance is 

designed to provide an overall framework; 

more detailed information on conducting 

a vulnerability assessment and additional 

resources on restoration, climate change 

adaptation and the Great Lakes region are 

provided in appendices. 

National Park Service
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 3

 limate change has become the 

 defining conservation issue of 

 this century. Given current trends, 

the environment in which the planet’s 

living resources – humans, plants, and 

animals alike – will exist in the future will 

be vastly different from the one we have 

experienced over the past several centuries, 

during which our conservation traditions 

evolved. In the United States, we are 

already seeing a plethora of changes, from 

higher average air and water temperatures 

and greater extremes in precipitation 

events to accelerating sea-level rise and an 

increase in the intensity of tropical storms.1 

Furthermore, these and other physical 

changes associated with climate change are 

having a significant biological impact across 

a broad range of natural systems.2,3,4

Scientists and managers are examining 

how to balance near-term restoration goals 

for species and habitats with achieving 

ecologically functional, self-sustaining 

systems that can persist under likely future 

conditions.5 Managers can no longer 

assume that historical averages or trends 

will remain unchanged when setting their 

conservation and restoration goals, and 

must instead anticipate an increasingly 

variable and uncertain climate.6 Given this 

new reality, state and federal agencies, 

non-governmental organizations, and 

others concerned with conservation 

are challenged with designing and 

implementing projects that will maximize 

the effectiveness of restoration investments 

under both current and expected future 

climate conditions (i.e., projects that are 

climate-smart).

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), which is dedicated 

to the management and protection of the 

nation’s treasured coastal and marine 

systems, is striving to safeguard its coastal 

investments in light of climate change 

and use those investments to enhance 

ecosystem resilience.7 This Technical 

Guidance provides information to assist 

in the planning and implementation of 

climate-smart restoration by NOAA and 

its partners and grantees, beginning 

with efforts in the Great Lakes region. 

The guidance is intended to be an ongoing 

work-in-progress, informed by workshops, 

trainings, on-the-ground projects, and 

other stakeholder-driven efforts.

I. Introduction

C

Studio A, Inc.
4 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

 s the single largest source of 

 surface freshwater in the world, 

 North America’s Great Lakes are 

a vital ecological and economic resource. 

More than 33 million U.S. and Canadian 

citizens call the coastal towns and cities of 

the Great Lakes Basin home. In addition, 

its scenic lake shores, unique wildlife, and 

diverse recreational opportunities draw 

millions of tourists to the region annually. 

Unfortunately, growth in urban 

development, agriculture, industry, 

and tourism has brought enormous 

conservation challenges to the Great 

Lakes, even before the threat of climate 

change. Evidence of continuing problems 

has sparked concerns that the region’s 

ecological systems may be nearing a tipping 

point of irreversible changes.8 A legacy 

of toxic pollution and contamination from 

substances such as mercury and PCBs 

threaten the health of people and wildlife 

alike; populations of important native fish 

species have seen major declines due to 

overfishing and invasive species such as 

sea lampreys, zebra mussels, and common 

reed (Phragmites); the recurrence of 

anoxia/hypoxia and harmful algal blooms 

continues to plague coastal waters; and 

dredging activities and infrastructure 

development for water diversions, 

transportation, and other uses have 

damaged and fragmented habitats for fish 

and wildlife. Continued human population 

growth and increasing demands for 

freshwater are placing additional strain on 

Great Lakes resources.

Recognition that these and other serious 

problems must be addressed has prompted 

extensive restoration efforts in the Great 

Lakes region, across multiple scales – 

from local, community-based projects to 

major bi-national initiatives. Today, much 

of the Great Lakes restoration agenda 

follows from the Great Lakes Regional 

Collaboration (GLRC) Strategy, which was 

developed by a team of more than 1,500 

people representing federal, state, local, 

and tribal governments; non-governmental 

organizations; and private citizens. 

Building on the GLRC Strategy, President 

Barack Obama and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator 

Lisa Jackson, in collaboration with 15 other 

federal agencies, have made restoring the 

Great Lakes a national priority. In February 

2009, the President proposed $475 million 

II. Coastal Restoration 

in the Great Lakes

Setting the Stage

A

Michigan Sea Grant
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 5

for a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative 

(GLRI), which is focused on five key 

challenges identified as the most significant 

environmental problems in the Great Lakes 

(other than water infrastructure):9

1. Cleaning up toxic substances and Areas 

of Concern (AOCs). * 

2. Preventing or removing invasive species.

3. Improving nearshore health and 

reducing/preventing nonpoint source 

pollution.

4. Restoring and protecting habitat and 

wildlife. 

5. Promoting and facilitating accountability, 

education, monitoring, evaluation, 

communication, and partnerships. 

Notably, the GLRI defines a successfully 

restored system as one in which 

potential threats or future damage have 

been eliminated or reduced as much 

as possible, and the restored system is 

able to withstand future threats. This 

approach does not necessarily mean the 

system has been changed back to preEuropean settlement conditions, but it does 

acknowledge that “a restored ecosystem 

does attempt to emulate those conditions 

to the extent possible under presentday chemical, physical and biological 

conditions.”10 

NOAA supports the GLRI through its Great 

Lakes Habitat Restoration Program, which 

plans, implements, and funds coastal 

habitat restoration projects throughout 

the region. NOAA’s efforts focus largely on 

community-identified restoration priorities 

in AOCs, with the objective of delisting of 

fish and wildlife-related Beneficial Use 

Impairments (BUIs) . ** 

A critical question is, How can these 

and other restoration efforts best be 

accomplished in light of the significant 

impacts the region is already facing, and 

will likely continue to experience, due 

to changing climatic conditions? Recent 

trends and projections include: 11

• Increase in average annual air 

temperatures;

• Increase in average precipitation, 

especially in winter and spring;

• Increase in the intensity and frequency of 

heavy rainfall events (see Figure 1);

• Increased evaporation and drought 

conditions in summer;

* Areas of Concern (AOCs) are formally defined in the 1987 amendments to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 

as areas “that fail to meet general or specific objectives of the Agreement,” with resulting beneficial use impairments 

(BUIs). Building on earlier work, the U.S. and Canadian governments (in cooperation with the states, provinces, and 

International Joint Commission) identified 43 AOCs, where a common cause of BUIs is high levels of toxic chemicals. 

Following remediation and restoration work, two Canadian AOCs and one U.S. AOC have been formally delisted. 

Information on U.S. Great Lakes AOCs and BUIs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc. 

** A Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI) is a change in the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of the Great Lakes 

system sufficient to cause any of 14 use impairments such as restrictions to fish consumption, water consumption 

or recreational activities covered by Article IV of the Boundary Waters Treaty Agreement. Source: International 

Joint Commission. 
6 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

• Earlier last spring freeze and longer 

growing season;

• Decrease in ice and snow cover and 

duration, and earlier spring snowmelt;12

• Increase in Great Lakes water 

temperatures and increase in the duration 

of summer stratification;13 and

• Increase in the frequency and duration 

of low Great Lakes water level events and 

declining long-term average lake levels. 

(See Tables B and C in Appendix A for 

more detail).

This Technical Guidance presents a 

practical approach for restoration project 

planners to assess the vulnerability of their 

projects to climate change and identify 

ways to avoid or minimize expected climate 

change impacts that would jeopardize the 

achievement of project objectives over the 

expected life of the project.16 Many of the 

most prevalent habitat restoration efforts 

funded under NOAA’s programs in the 

Great Lakes region could be vulnerable 

to a wide variety of climate change 

impacts. For example:

• Changes in water temperatures and 

flow regimes may result in reduced target 

species utilization or degradation of 

restored in-stream habitats.17 

• Coastal marsh restoration along the 

Great Lakes may be adversely affected by 

reductions in the frequency and duration of 

Percentage Change in Very Heavy Precipitation

0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% >60%

23%

16%

15%

9%

20%

31%

67%

37%

12%

Figure 1. This map show the percentage increases in very heavy precipitation 

(defined as the heaviest one percent of all events) from 1958 to 2007 for each region 

of the United States. There are clear trends toward more very heavy precipitation for 

the nation as a whole, and particularly in the Northeast and Midwest.14,15
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 7

freshwater inundation due to altered lake 

levels and streamflows.18

• Warming waters may facilitate the 

invasion and establishment of southern 

fish species such as smallmouth bass in the 

Great Lakes or the contraction northward 

of cold-water dependent species.19

• Climate change impacts such as 

changing temperatures, lake levels, ice 

cover, runoff patterns, and lake chemistry 

will interact with a range of issues 

related to contaminants, including 

changing the availability or toxicity of a 

number of contaminants and changing 

the pattern of input of toxic materials into 

freshwater systems.20 

• Toxicants can also increase species’ 

sensitivity to various climate change 

impacts, for instance by decreasing thermal 

tolerance.21

In addition to considering how climate 

change might affect the ability of a 

restoration project to achieve existing 

restoration goals and objectives, it is also 

important that NOAA and others concerned 

with coastal conservation address climate 

change from a broader perspective – one 

that seeks to ensure that coastal systems 

across the landscape are as healthy 

and productive as possible in an era of 

climate change. Ultimately, this may entail 

reprioritizing current efforts as well as 

identifying new goals and objectives to 

reduce overall ecosystem vulnerability 

to climate change. While the toolbox 

of possible restoration activities is not 

inherently different for achieving these two 

goals, the process of strategy development 

is. In the climate change adaptation 

literature, these two approaches are 

sometimes termed “bottom-up” and “topdown”.22,23 For this guidance, we describe 

them as “project-based” and “landscapebased” approaches, respectively.

• A project-based approach addresses 

the question: What are my conservation 

activities today, and how should I adjust 

them to address the realities of climate 

change?24 The approach starts with 

specific conservation or management 

goals (e.g., protecting or restoring critical 

habitat for a particular endangered 

species, managing a particular wildlife 

refuge, or setting maximum allowable 

pollutant levels); identifying how climatic 

variables influence those conservation 

goals (e.g., the influence of temperature 

on species’ health and reproduction or 

the toxicity of pollutants); determining 

plausible physical and ecological changes 

under a range of climate scenarios; and 

finally, identifying and evaluating options 

for reducing the vulnerability of one’s 

restoration or conservation goals to those 

projected changes. A useful example of 

a project-based approach to developing 

a climate change adaptation strategy 

is the Alligator River Climate Change 

Adaptation Pilot Project initiated by The 

Nature Conservancy.25 This project focuses 

specifically on promoting resilience while 

mitigating the effects of climate change 

on the Albemarle Peninsula of North 

Carolina, an important conservation area 

that includes the Alligator River National 

Wildlife Refuge and associated systems. The 

project focuses on the impacts of current 

and projected sea-level rise and includes 

tactics such as hydrologic restoration; land 

restoration, reforestation, and shoreline 

transition; oyster reef restoration; and 

measuring and monitoring project impacts 

on carbon sequestration.
8 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

• A landscape-based approach, on 

the other hand, addresses the broader 

question: What changes are projected to 

occur in my region of interest, and how 

can I respond? This approach starts with 

looking at one or more scenarios for shifts 

in climate (e.g., projections for sea-level 

rise/lake level changes, 

temperature changes, 

and/or extreme rainfall 

events); assessing what 

the future landscape 

might look like under 

those scenarios (e.g., 

what are some or all of 

the plausible ecological 

effects of the projected 

physical changes); and finally, setting 

specific conservation objectives and 

management priorities designed to 

address those projected future changes. 

The landscape-based adaptation planning 

approach is particularly useful for broadscale efforts, such as those conducted at 

regional, state, or national levels for one 

or more sectors (e.g., agriculture, coastal 

communities, freshwater, human health, 

etc.). The Wisconsin Initiative on Climate 

Change Impacts (WICCI), which culminated 

in the recent release of Wisconsin’s 

Changing Climate: Impacts and Adaptation, 

is a classic example of the landscape-based 

approach.26 The WICCI is a collaborative 

effort among a diverse group of experts and 

stakeholders to: 1) assess and anticipate 

climate change impacts on Wisconsin’s 

natural and build environments; 2) 

evaluate risks and vulnerabilities within 

the state’s ecosystems, infrastructure, 

industries, agriculture, tourism, and 

other human and natural systems; and 3) 

recommend practical adaptation strategies 

and solutions that businesses, farmers, 

public health officials, municipalities, 

resource managers, and other stakeholders 

can implement. The project-based and 

landscape-based approaches to climate 

change adaptation planning are not 

mutually exclusive. For example, some of 

the specific recommendations under the 

WICCI support a project-based approach of 

developing climate-smart 

restoration projects.27

This guidance focuses 

primarily on the projectbased approach to assist 

NOAA and others in 

minimizing the adverse 

impacts of climate change 

on particular restoration 

projects with defined goals. Ultimately, a 

more landscape-based approach will be 

useful for developing or revising broader 

coastal restoration priorities across 

the region to reduce overall ecosystem 

vulnerability to climate change. For 

example, NOAA’s report, Adapting to 

Climate Change: A Planning Guide for 

State Coastal Managers, provides coastal 

managers with a useful landscape-based 

approach to help them incorporate climate 

change in state and local planning.28

National Park Service
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 9

 efore getting into specific 

 guidance for the development 

 of climate-smart restoration 

projects, we explore some overarching 

principles for thinking about coastal 

restoration in a truly climate-smart frame.

1. Look to the Future 

while Learning from 

the Past 

Developing climate-smart restoration 

projects requires an understanding of 

the current and potential impacts of 

climate change on the ecosystems in 

which those projects are situated, and of 

the vulnerability of projects themselves 

to those impacts. This, in turn, requires 

a deeper understanding of how systems 

function. Relying solely on historical 

trends and past ranges of variability for 

factors such as streamflows, sediment 

sources, temperature regimes, and 

Great Lakes water levels is unlikely 

to be sufficient as a guide for project 

design. Nor can we assume that baseline 

conditions or reference habitats against 

which we can measure project success 

will remain static. Increasingly, we will 

need to incorporate projections for future 

conditions based on models and other 

sources of information. This will entail 

confronting two key challenges: 1) getting 

information at an appropriate scale for 

decisions, and 2) identifying and choosing 

an appropriate suite of climate change 

scenarios to constrain project planning and 

implementation (this topic is addressed 

further in Appendix A).

That said, the importance of using 

projections for project design does not mean 

that historical information is irrelevant. 

Indeed, natural climatic variability and 

extreme events/disturbances have played 

a significant role in shaping our planet’s 

ecological and human communities, and a 

species’ or system’s current and historical 

climatic context informs its sensitivity to 

future changes. Understanding how both 

ecosystems and societies have responded 

to climatic variability and disturbances 

provides a useful analog for how such 

systems might respond to changes such 

as more frequent flooding or drought 

conditions or more variable lake levels 

in the future. 

III. Overarching 

Principles for ClimateSmart Restoration

B

Developing climate-smart restoration 

projects requires an understanding 

of the current and potential impacts 

of climate change on the ecosystems 

in which those projects are situated, 

and of the vulnerability of projects 

themselves to those impacts.
10 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

3. Emphasize 

Restoration of 

Ecological Processes 

and Dynamic Systems 

Climate-smart coastal restoration also 

necessitates greater emphasis on restoring 

the ecological processes fundamental 

to a dynamic, resilient coastal system, 

rather than recreating a snapshot from 

the past.32 In its most general sense, 

ecological resilience refers to the ability 

of a system to recover from a disturbance 

or change without significant loss of 

function.33 Particularly in already highlymodified landscapes, achieving a fully “selfsustainable” system may not be possible. 

However, there are several ways in which 

restoration projects can achieve at least 

some degree of resilience.34 For example, 

restoration efforts can seek opportunities 

to develop/protect habitat buffers (e.g., 

removing natural or anthropogenic barriers 

to habitat/species migration) to provide 

systems with greater capacity to track shifts 

in climate.35 In areas where ecological 

engineering is necessary, efforts that 

place greater emphasis on ways to mimic 

ecological processes under current and 

future conditions may be more effective in 

promoting resilience of the system being 

restored than focusing on a particular 

habitat structure.36 

It is also important to recognize that 

promoting resilience from a broad 

perspective may not be a sufficient 

restoration objective. An ecosystem that 

is resilient to drought is not necessarily 

resilient to flood; one that is resilient 

to heat waves may not be resilient to 

cold snaps. Thus, a targeted approach to 

2. Adopt a Broader, 

Landscape Approach 

to Selecting and 

Managing Restoration 

Projects

The overarching threat of climate change 

underscores the value of approaching 

restoration from a broader, more 

landscape-level perspective – one that 

emphasizes cumulative threats as well as 

cumulative benefits from the restoration 

projects themselves. The ecological 

impacts associated with climate change 

do not exist in isolation, but combine 

with, exacerbate, and are exacerbated by 

existing stresses on our natural systems. 

Understanding those interactions is critical 

to designing effective restoration projects. 

Further, climate change will require that we 

think and plan within the context of larger 

spatial scales, even when our management 

needs are very local. For example, many 

species are expected to shift ranges in 

response to shifting climates. As a result, 

our existing portfolio of protected areas 

and wildlife management areas may no 

longer support the suite of species for 

which they had originally been established.31

The ecological impacts associated with 

climate change do not exist in isolation, 

but combine with, exacerbate, and are 

exacerbated by existing stresses on our 

natural systems.
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 11

building resilience should explicitly address 

those climatic changes and impacts that 

are regarded as the most significant threats 

to overall ecosystem function. This may 

be the most likely changes or impacts, the 

most extreme of the plausible changes or 

impacts, or the changes to which the system 

is most sensitive. 

Finally, promoting resilience is not the 

only available adaptation strategy, and 

may not always be the optimal strategy. In 

some instances, we may want to focus on 

approaches to build resistance to climaterelated stressors, which refers to the ability 

of a system to withstand (rather than 

recover from) a disturbance or change 

without significant loss of ecological 

function. Resistance strategies may be 

appropriate for maintaining high-value 

species or systems (e.g., controlling new 

invasive species). Increasingly, we may 

need to employ transformation strategies 

that anticipate and facilitate ecological 

transitions that reflect the changing 

environmental conditions (e.g., use of 

species or genetic material in replanting 

that are optimized for future, rather than 

historical conditions).37, 38 

4. Embrace 

Uncertainty

Perhaps most importantly, we will need 

to embrace decision-making under 

uncertainty. By its very nature, there will 

always be a degree of uncertainty about 

climate change as well as how, when, 

and where it will affect natural systems. 

Increased monitoring and research on the 

known and potential impacts will help 

close the gap in knowledge, but we will 

never know exactly when and where we 

will experience the impacts in the future. 

This does not mean we should not take 

climate change into consideration in our 

conservation efforts today. Rather, the very 

fact that there is risk – and the potential 

for climate change to lead to irreversible 

damages – necessitates precautionary 

action. For restoration efforts, this may 

mean focusing on developing robust

projects – ones that are likely to provide 

benefits under multiple scenarios of future 

climate conditions – as well as taking an 

adaptive management approach to project 

design and implementation.39 This will 

require greater investment in monitoring 

project performance over time.

Michigan Sea Grant

A targeted approach to building 

resilience should explicitly address 

those climatic changes and impacts that 

are regarded as the most significant 

threat to overall ecosystem function. 
12 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

 he process of developing 

 climate-smart coastal restoration

 projects is fundamentally 

no different from the process used for 

planning successful coastal restoration 

projects in general. It entails defining your 

restoration targets and goals; assessing 

the condition of your target system and 

the challenges at hand; identifying and 

implementing appropriate restoration 

strategies; and managing and assessing 

project performance. Making coastal 

restoration efforts climate-smart requires 

looking at each of these steps through 

a climate change lens, mindful of the 

overarching principles highlighted above. 

The framework illustrated in Figure 2 

identifies some key steps that project 

planners can take to help ensure that 

restoration efforts are climate-smart. Each 

step is explained in detail throughout 

this document. In the short term, the first 

two steps will likely be predetermined, 

at least in a general sense, given current 

restoration efforts. Climate-smart planning 

will come into play more explicitly during 

the vulnerability assessment stage and 

in identifying specific management 

responses. As projects move forward, 

taking an adaptive management approach 

will be important. Ultimately, as you 

implement your plan and monitor your 

project outcomes, you may determine that 

additional revisions to targets, goals, and 

approaches will be warranted. Climatesmart restoration, like most conservation 

efforts, is necessarily an iterative process.

IV. Planning and 

Designing Climate-Smart 

Coastal Restoration 

Projects

T

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 13

Step 1: Identify 

Restoration Goals 

and Targets

The development of any restoration 

project requires, first and foremost, 

the identification of restoration goals 

and targets. At a regional level, many 

restoration efforts currently underway 

are implemented, funded, or otherwise 

supported by existing programs such as 

the GLRI, which have been developed 

largely to deal with familiar stressors such 

as pollution, habitat fragmentation and 

destruction, invasive species, etc. These 

problems remain relevant regardless of 

climate change; it is the combined effects 

of climate change and existing problems 

that must be anticipated and addressed in 

conservation and restoration.40 

As you look at your targets and goals 

through a climate change lens, however, 

some priorities may change. For example, 

warmer temperatures may enable a 

potentially problematic invasive species to 

expand into new areas. Project managers 

may decide to proactively devote additional 

resources toward halting the spread of this 

invasive species before it arrives in the 

Figure 2. Framework for Developing Climate-Smart Restoration Projects

1. Identify Restoration 

Goals and Targets

2. Identify Restoration

Project Approaches

3. Assess Vulnerability of

Targets/Project Approaches

to Climate Change

4. Identify Climate-Smart

Management Options

5. Select and Implement

Management Options

6. Monitor, Review, Revise

Species

Habitat

Ecosystem

Improve terrestrial/Aquatic connectivity

Reduce existing stressors

Protect key ecosystem features

Maintain/improve diversity

Restore/emulate natural functions

Determine objectives and scope

Assess the components of vulnerability (sensitivity,

exposure, and adaptive capacity)

Summarize vulnerability

Strategies to reduce sensitivity

Strategies to reduce exposure

Strategies to enhance adaptive capacity

Prioritize options by importance/urgency

Prioritize options by likely benets/performance

Prioritize options by costs/feasibility

Incorporate new science

Evaluate effectiveness of management efforts

Revisit one or more of the previous steps
14 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

region, something they may not 

have chosen as a restoration priority 

without this knowledge. Assessing the 

vulnerability of your targets and goals to 

climate change, as described below, will 

help inform these decisions.

In the Great Lakes region, much of NOAA’s 

restoration work is focused on communitybased efforts to address fish and wildlife 

habitat-related BUIs (e.g., degradation of 

fish and wildlife population, loss of fish 

and wildlife habitat, and degradation of 

benthos) in U.S. Great Lakes AOCs.41 Under 

the GLRI, the overarching goal for Habitat 

and Wildlife Protection and Restoration 

is the protection and restoration of 

ecosystems: the Great Lakes, the coastline, 

wetlands, rivers, connecting channels, 

and watersheds.42 The following are 

identified as Principal Actions to Achieve 

Progress in this area:

• Improve Aquatic Ecosystem 

Resilience. Protect and restore aquatic 

habitats for fish and wildlife populations 

by reconnecting habitats through corridors 

to enhance biological diversity, reducing 

sediment and nutrient inputs, restoring 

natural hydrological processes, improving 

water quality, restoring ecosystem services, 

and increasing populations of native 

fish and wildlife through coordinated 

management actions.

• Maintain, Improve, or Enhance 

the Populations of Native Species.

Implement restoration actions identified 

in species recovery and management 

plans; quantify habitat needs for depleted 

migratory bird species; propagate lake 

trout, coaster brook trout, lake sturgeon, 

and other similar fingerlings for suppressed 

fish populations; assess fish populations; 

and protect and restore culturally 

significant species.

• Enhance Wetlands, WetlandAssociated Uplands, and High Priority 

Coastal, Upland, and Inland Habitats. 

Protect, restore, or enhance habitats by 

acquiring properties that are important 

to sustain fish and wildlife populations, 

restoring natural hydrological regimes, 

improving water quality, and restoring the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity 

of ecosystems in each Great Lakes basin.

• Identify, Inventory, and Track 

Progress on Great Lakes Habitats, 

Including Coastal Wetlands 

Restoration. Assess progress toward 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 15

restoring Great Lakes habitats by 

establishing baseline conditions and 

tracking trends; highlight the importance 

of coastal wetland conservation and 

restoration by implementing a long-term 

coastal wetland monitoring program and 

enhancing the National Wetlands Inventory.

• Restore Habitat Function in Areas 

of Concern. Improve habitats in degraded 

urban environments and AOCs where BUIs 

affect ecosystem functioning by restoring 

habitats for native species populations and 

removing or isolating contaminants.

Step 2. Identify 

Restoration Project 

Approaches

The general toolbox of restoration 

approaches is likely to remain largely 

unchanged for climate-smart projects, 

although the risks associated with climate 

change may require changes in some of the 

assumptions that go into 

project design as well as 

the types of approaches 

to use. Again, climate 

change vulnerability 

assessments will help in 

determining whether and 

how certain restoration 

or management practices 

might be appropriate to 

ameliorate the impacts 

while promoting coastal 

restoration goals.43

Climate-smart restoration underscores the 

importance of restoring ecological function 

and resilience – concepts that already 

are fundamental to the GLRI and other 

restoration initiatives.44 As mentioned 

previously, resilience is generally defined 

as the ability of a system to recover from a 

change or disturbance without significant 

loss of function. In the climate change 

adaptation literature, the discussion of how 

to promote resilience typically emphasizes 

four key objectives:45 

• Prioritizing connectivity of habitat.

• Reducing existing stressors.

• Protecting key ecosystem features.

• Maintaining biological diversity.

Arguably, these objectives are important 

for ecological restoration regardless of 

climate change. The key question is how 

effective these approaches are likely to be 

given the multitude of impacts affecting 

the systems being addressed, including 

climate change. For example, while it is 

widely recognized that reducing habitat 

fragmentation and increasing habitat 

connectivity are important conservation 

tools, climate change requires managers 

to look at a range of factors that could 

determine whether or not these measures 

will truly be effective in 

achieving the desired 

conservation outcome: 

are we connecting the 

most beneficial habitats 

given projections for 

species range shifts or the 

movements of individual 

organisms? Are our target 

species even likely to shift 

their range under climate 

change in the first place?46 

Similarly, climate change may require us 

to re-prioritize which existing stressors 

we address or to address them in different 

ways. This is not to say that we should 

ignore existing stressors. In some cases, 

focusing on those stressors may well be our 

Climate-smart restoration 

underscores the importance 

of restoring ecological 

function and resilience – 

concepts that already are 

fundamental to 

the GLRI and other 

restoration initiatives. 
16 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

best restoration or conservation option in 

the near term. For species that are already 

highly endangered, for example, failure 

to reduce or eliminate immediate threats 

such as habitat destruction may lead to 

extinction before climate change becomes 

a significant factor. In addition, dealing 

with non-climate stressors may be our 

only option in cases where our ability to 

ameliorate some of the more direct impacts 

of climate change, such as higher air and 

water temperatures, may be exceedingly 

difficult, if not impossible. Increasingly, 

however, we will likely be faced with the 

need to modify our priorities and actions: 

current allowable contaminant levels may 

need to be tightened for contaminants 

that interact with climate change; fish 

passage structures may become more or 

less important under altered streamflow 

regimes; critical habitat designations may 

need to include future as well as current 

population centers; and invasive species 

control may be more important where 

habitats are perturbed by extreme events. 

Step 3. Assess 

Vulnerability of 

Targets/Project 

Approaches to 

Climate Change

Developing climate-smart restoration 

projects requires managers to go through 

an explicit process for bringing climate data 

and ecological understanding to bear on 

their planning.47 A key tool for doing this is 

climate change vulnerability assessment. In 

this context, climate change vulnerability 

refers to the extent to which a species, 

habitat, or ecosystem that is the target of 

restoration efforts is susceptible to harm 

from climate change impacts. It also refers 

to the extent to which climate change 

impacts might influence the ultimate 

effectiveness of particular restoration 

projects in meeting one’s conservation 

objectives. Vulnerability assessment is 

Eyecrave, LLC.
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 17

not an end in itself – it is one step in the 

broader process of developing climatesmart strategies and projects. 

Like other vulnerability or risk 

assessments, climate change vulnerability 

assessments can vary considerably in terms 

of scope and complexity – from general, 

qualitative assessments based on expert 

knowledge, to formalized expert elicitation 

processes, to highly detailed, quantitative 

analysis using ecological models. There 

is no single right approach, and greater 

levels of complexity do not necessarily 

mean greater accuracy or utility. Rather, 

the design and execution of an assessment 

must be based on a firm understanding of 

the user needs, the decision processes, and 

the availability of resources such as time, 

money, data, and expertise. 

Appendix A provides a detailed overview 

of climate change vulnerability assessment, 

including some examples of relevant 

information for Great Lakes species and 

habitats. The following is a brief summary 

of the key steps and questions that 

restoration project planners must address 

to determine whether, how, and to what 

extent your restoration projects and goals 

might be vulnerable to climate change and 

related impacts. 

A. Determine Scope 

and Objectives 

A critical first step in conducting a 

vulnerability assessment is to determine 

your scope and objectives, including: 

identifying your restoration targets, goals, 

and approaches; defining the geographical 

scale of your project; and establishing your 

timeline (i.e., the lifespan of the project). 

For project-level restoration planning, 

much of this will be determined under 

steps 1 and 2, above. Essentially, this 

information establishes the baseline level 

of vulnerability irrespective of potential 

effects of future climate change (i.e., it 

identifies the reasons the particular species, 

habitats, or ecosystems are targeted for 

restoration efforts in the first place).

B. Assess the Components 

of Vulnerability

The next step is to assess the components 

of vulnerability to climate change:

• Sensitivity. How and to what degree 

are your restoration targets and/or project 

approaches sensitive to climate conditions/

variables? The sensitivity of a species, 

habitat, ecosystem, or restoration project 

approach reflects the degree to which 

that system is or is likely to be affected 

by or responsive to climatic changes (e.g., 

a species with a narrow temperature 

tolerance is likely to be more affected by 

warmer temperatures than a species with a 

broader temperature tolerance). 

U.S. Air Force
18 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

• Exposure. Even if your target system 

is inherently sensitive to climate change, 

its vulnerability also depends on the 

character, magnitude, and rate of changes 

to which it is exposed (e.g., temperature 

and precipitation, altered streamflows). 

Is evidence of climate change already 

being observed in your planning area? 

How are climatic conditions projected to 

change in the region? Focus particularly 

on those climatic variables likely to be 

most important to your restoration target/

project. The choice of which climate change 

scenarios to use will depend on factors 

such as the length of your planning horizon, 

the level of confidence in the projections, 

and the level of acceptable risk. Appendix 

A provides greater detail on how to 

determine appropriate scenarios for your 

assessment.

• Adaptive Capacity. Are systems in your 

planning area able to accommodate or 

cope with the impacts of climate change? 

Adaptive capacity may reflect both internal 

traits (e.g., mobility, plasticity) and external 

conditions (e.g., structural barriers, 

pre-existing stressors, institutional/

financial restrictions).

C. Summarize Vulnerability

The final step in a vulnerability 

assessment is to combine your findings 

about sensitivity, exposure, and adaptive 

capacity to determine which of your 

conservation goals/approaches are 

vulnerable to climate change and why. 

While vulnerability is often characterized 

by relative values (e.g., low, medium, 

high), it is also important to provide more 

descriptive information to better inform 

possible adaptation approaches. 

Sample Illustrative Examples of 

Vulnerability Assessments of Various 

Restoration Projects

The following tables (1-9) provide some 

general, hypothetical examples of how 

the various components of vulnerability 

might come into play for coastal restoration 

efforts supported by NOAA and others.48 

These illustrative examples include the 

following projects:

Table 1: Fish Passage Restoration

Table 2: Drowned River-Mouth Wetland 

 Habitat Restoration 

Table 3: Coaster Brook Trout Habitat 

Restoration

Table 4: Whitefish Habitat Restoration

Table 5: Invasive Species Management

Table 6: Water Quality Restoration

Table 7: Oil Spill Damage Assessment, 

Remediation, Restoration

Table 8: Amphibian Habitat Restoration

Table 9: Wild Rice Habitat Restoration

Much of the information included in the 

tables is based on a preliminary review of 

existing literature. There are a number of 

readily available studies that can provide 

you with information to determine one or 

more of the components of vulnerability 

for species and systems in the Great Lakes 

region (see Appendix B). In cases where we 

were unable to find relevant information, 

we used our best judgment. Furthermore, 

we did not explicitly express levels of 

confidence in these sample answers. 

Rather, the information provided in these 

tables is illustrative – they do not represent 

comprehensive assessments for direct use 

by project planners. Individual projects will 

have unique needs that warrant a more 

thorough, targeted process than these 

examples suggest.
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 19

Each table examines the vulnerability of 

targets, goals, and approaches of various 

restoration projects. For every example, 

vulnerability is examined by a set of 

questions outlined below:

A. Scope and Objectives

• What are your current restoration goals?

• What are your restoration targets?

• What is the current status of your 

restoration target (e.g., what factors are 

contributing to BUIs)? 

• What restoration approaches are you 

planning/implementing to improve the 

status of your target?

• What is the expected lifetime of your 

project?

B. Components of Vulnerability

• How and to what degree is your 

restoration target sensitive to climate 

conditions/variables?

• How and to what degree is your 

restoration approach sensitive to climate 

conditions/variables?

• How are climate conditions projected to 

change in the area, and is there evidence of 

climate change already being observed in 

your planning area?

• What is your system’s adaptive capacity 

relative to climate change?

C. Vulnerability Summary

• What is the relative vulnerability of your 

restoration project (including your targets, 

goals, and approaches)? What are the 

primary reasons?

Michigan Sea Grant
20 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

Table 1. Fish Passage Restoration Project: Illustrative Vulnerability Assessment

A. Scope and Objectives

·	 What are your current restoration 

goals?

Improve habitat connectivity; reduce existing stressors; restore/emulate 

ecosystem functions.

·	 What are your restoration targets? Native fish species.

·	 What is the current status of your 

restoration target (e.g., what factors 

are contributing to BUIs?)

Existing dam has altered natural river flows and blocked fish passage.

·	 What restoration approaches are you 

planning/implementing to improve the 

status of your targets?

Construction of fish passage structure and flow management.

·	 What is the expected lifetime of the 

project?

Infrastructure elements of project are expected to last 30-50 years 

before they need to be repaired/ rebuilt.

B. Components of Vulnerability

Sensitivity

·	 How and to what degree are your 

restoration targets sensitive to climate 

conditions/variables?

Streamflows are sensitive to precipitation patterns, groundwater input 

(base flow), and evaporation49 Target fish species are sensitive to timing 

and volume of streamflows for migration and spawning, although 

sensitivity varies by species.50

·	 How and to what degree are your 

restoration approaches sensitive to 

climate conditions/variables?

Effectiveness of fish passage design is sensitive to changes in the extent 

and timing of high and/or low flows.

Exposure

·	 How are climate conditions projected 

to change in the area?

Continuing trend of heavier rainfall events in fall/winter; reduced 

precipitation, lower streamflows/groundwater input in summer.51

·	 Is there evidence of climate change 

already being observed in the area?

Heavier rainfall events are becoming more frequent.52 Snowmelt and 

runoff are occurring earlier in the year.53

Adaptive Capacity

·	 What is your system’s adaptive 

capacity relative to climate change?

The existence of a dam limits the natural adaptive capacity of the river 

system and associated species. Adaptive capacity of various project 

approaches will depend on relative ability to alter project design. 

Changes in flow management may face constraints due to other 

demands for water resources in the region.

C. Vulnerability Summary

·	 What is the relative vulnerability of 

your restoration project (including 

your targets, goals, and approaches)?

Medium/High

·	 What are the primary reasons? Some changes in flow regimes are already occurring, and more 

extremes in the future may make it more difficult for fish to navigate 

the river barrier (e.g., low flows may make navigation around/over 

barrier difficult/impossible in summer; high flows may prevent passage 

of species that are not able to expend the necessary energy). There 

is relatively high adaptive capacity for this project if design takes into 

consideration the projected changes, but effectiveness will depend on 

overcoming possible management constraints.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 21

Table 2. Drowned River-Mouth Wetland Habitat Restoration Project: Illustrative Vulnerability 

Assessment

A. Scope and Objectives

·	 What are your current restoration goals? Improved habitat connectivity; maintain/improve diversity; 

reduce existing stressors; restore/emulate ecosystem 

functions.

·	 What are your restoration targets? Drowned river-mouth wetland habitat for multiple species.

·	 What is the current status of your restoration 

target (e.g., what factors are contributing to 

BUIs?)

Part of project area has wetland disconnected from lake 

influence due to existence of a dike. This has reduced 

habitat quality for target species.

·	 What restoration approaches are you planning/

implementing to improve the status of your 

targets?

Construct and maintain structures to allow for optimal water 

level and river flow processes in diked wetland.

·	 What is the expected lifetime of the project? Infrastructure expected to last 30-50 years before it needs to 

be repaired/rebuilt.

B. Components of Vulnerability

Sensitivity

·	 How and to what degree are your restoration 

targets sensitive to climate conditions/variables?

These wetlands are sensitive to changes in the timing, 

duration, and height/elevation of annual and seasonal lake 

water levels and river flows54

·	 How and to what degree are your restoration 

approaches sensitive to climate conditions/

variables?

Effectiveness of water flow management structures is 

sensitive to changes in average lake levels as well as 

changes in extremes in both lake levels and streamflows.

Exposure

·	 How are climate conditions projected to change 

in the area?

In general, average Great Lakes water levels are projected 

to decline by mid-century due to a combination of increased 

evaporation and decreased inflow from surface and 

groundwater.55 Evapotranspiration is likely to increase in 

all seasons. Continuing trend of heavier rainfall events in 

fall/winter; reduced precipitation, lower streamflows in 

summer.56

·	 Is there evidence of climate change already being 

observed in the area?

The region is experiencing higher average air and lake 

surface temperatures and reduced duration and extent of 

lake ice cover/increased stratification.57 This is considered 

to be a precursor to declining average lake levels. Heavier 

rainfall events are becoming more frequent.58 Snowmelt and 

runoff are occurring earlier in the year.59

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

(table continued on page 22)
22 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

Adaptive Capacity

·	 What is your system’s adaptive capacity relative 

to climate change?

Annual and perennial vegetation of marsh wetlands in 

undiked areas may be able to migrate in response to 

water level declines, depending on sediment, slope, seed 

bank, existence of other barriers.60 On the other hand, 

changes in temperature or hydrological regime that benefit 

invasive species may further stress native wetland species 

(e.g., low water levels correlate with greater abundance 

of Phragmites).61 Adaptive capacity of various project 

approaches will depend on relative ability, time needed 

and/or resources available to alter project design if 

necessary.

C. Vulnerability Summary

·	 What is the relative vulnerability of your 

restoration project (including your targets, goals, 

and approaches)?

Medium. 

·	 What are the primary reasons? Recent extreme low lake level events, while not necessarily 

linked directly to climate change, illustrate how these 

wetland systems are likely to respond to extreme water level 

change. Perturbations can alter the natural succession of 

plants in wetlands, which influences the species, diversity, 

and number of fish and wildlife a wetland can support.62,63,64 

Ultimately, conditions may become favorable for some 

species and detrimental to others (e.g., shallow wetlands 

with greater coverage by emergent vegetation may benefit 

some water birds such as yellow rails but would be less 

favorable for other waterfowl).65 Water flow management 

is sensitive to changes in lake level and streamflow; lower 

water levels encourage the spread of invasive plant species. 

There is relatively high adaptive capacity for this project if 

design takes into consideration the projected changes, but 

effectiveness will depend on the types of species restored 

and other management issues.

(table continued from page 21)

• 

• 

• 

Michigan Sea Grant
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 23

Table 3. Coaster Brook Trout Habitat Restoration Project: Illustrative Vulnerability Assessment

A. Scope and Objectives

·	 What are your current restoration 

goals?

Reduce existing stressors; protect key ecosystem features; maintain 

diversity.

·	 What are your restoration targets? Coaster brook trout habitat.

·	 What is the current status of your 

restoration target (e.g., what factors 

are contributing to BUIs?)

Historical population declines due to over-fishing, habitat loss, human 

activities such as logging and mining, and invasive species.

·	 What restoration approaches are you 

planning/implementing to improve the 

status of your targets?

Build or maintain spawning areas; mitigate siltation that may have 

occurred following agricultural clearing or other development; begin/

continue/modify hatchery stocking, create/continue/modify restrictions 

on recreational harvest.66

·	 What is the expected lifetime of the 

project?

Indefinite.

B. Components of Vulnerability

Sensitivity

·	 How and to what degree are your 

restoration targets sensitive to climate 

conditions/variables?

Coaster brook trout rely on both lake and stream habitats and are 

sensitive to higher water temperatures and changes in oxygen levels.67

·	 How and to what degree are your 

restoration approaches sensitive to 

climate conditions/variables?

Spawning habitat restoration efforts are likely to be sensitive to altered 

temperature and flow regimes.

Exposure

·	 How are climate conditions projected 

to change in the area?

Average lake temperatures are projected to continue to increase; 

average stream temperatures also are projected to increase (with 

localized variation due to factors such as shade, and water flow 

regimes).68

·	 Is there evidence of climate change 

already being observed in the area?

The region is experiencing higher average air and lake surface 

temperatures and reduced duration and extent of lake ice cover.69, 70

Heavier rainfall events are becoming more frequent.71 Snowmelt and 

runoff are occurring earlier in the year.72

Adaptive Capacity

·	 What is your system’s adaptive 

capacity relative to climate change?

Cool/cold water fish species may be able to accommodate periodic 

increases in water temperature if they have access to refugia such as 

deep pools, tributaries, or shaded riparian areas.73 Adaptive capacity 

of various project approaches will depend on relative ability to alter 

project design (e.g., costs, planning needs), potential for institutional 

changes to fisheries management, etc.

C. Vulnerability Summary

·	 What is the relative vulnerability of 

your restoration project (including your 

targets, goals, and approaches)?

High.

·	 What are the primary reasons? Higher lake temperatures could reduce favorable spawning habitat 

and juvenile incubation; longer periods of stratification in summer 

may limit availability of nutrients and phytoplankton; nearshore water 

quality could decline.9 Altered streamflow regimes and higher stream 

temperatures will reduce quality of stream habitat. Success of stream 

restoration efforts is sensitive to climate change, although there is 

relatively high adaptive capacity for accommodating climate impacts 

via project design.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
24 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

Table 4. Whitefish Habitat Restoration Project: Illustrative Vulnerability Assessment

A. Scope and Objectives

·	 What are your current restoration goals? Reduce existing stressors that inhibit spawning; restore habitat to more favorable conditions.

·	 What are your restoration targets? Whitefish spawning habitat.

·	 What is the current status of your restoration target (e.g., what factors are contributing to BUIs?)Excess nutrients, degraded spawning habitat, impacts from 

invasive species (e.g., dreissenid mussels).

·	 What restoration approaches are you planning/implementing to improve the status of your 

targets?

Reduce phosphorus loads and control invasive species to 

enhance health of spawning areas.

·	 What is the expected lifetime of the project? Indefinite.

B. Components of Vulnerability

Sensitivity

·	 How and to what degree are your restoration 

targets sensitive to climate conditions/variables?

Whitefish are sensitive to the availability of ice cover during 

the spawning season, as well as sensitive to temperatures 

outside their optimal water ranges and changes in water 

quality.75

·	 How and to what degree are your restoration 

approaches sensitive to climate conditions/variables?

Efforts to address nutrient loading will be sensitive to changes 

in flow regimes (e.g., heavy rainstorm events may lead 

to greater runoff and increased pollutant loads into lake 

systems); invasive species controls may be sensitive to similar 

changing conditions.

Exposure

·	 How are climate conditions projected to change 

in the area?

The duration of ice cover is projected to decline by several 

weeks to several months by mid- to-late century.76

·	 Is there evidence of climate change already being 

observed in the area?

Ice and snow cover and duration have decreased across 

the Great Lakes, more rapidly than any changes that have 

occurred over at least the last 250 years.77 Increases in nearshore water temperatures of the Great Lakes are lengthening 

the period of summer stratification.78

Adaptive Capacity

·	 What is your system’s adaptive capacity relative 

to climate change?

These species are likely to have relatively low adaptive 

capacity, as they are specialists with respect to their dependence on cold water and lake ice.

C. Vulnerability Summary

·	 What is the relative vulnerability of your restoration project (including your targets, goals, and 

approaches)?

High. 

·	 What are the primary reasons? Reduced ice cover could mean greater mortality of whitefish 

eggs, which rely on the formation of ice over shallow waters 

for protection from wind and waves. Increased variability associated with climate change could make spawning/nursery 

conditions unfavorable for this species in some areas.79

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 25

Table 5. Invasive Species Management Project: Illustrative Vulnerability Assessment 

A. Scope and Objectives

·	 What are your current restoration goals? Reduce existing stressors, including sea lamprey populations.

·	 What are your restoration targets? Sea lamprey control to reduce decimation of native fish species 

populations.

·	 What is the current status of your restoration 

target (e.g., what factors are contributing to 

BUIs?)

Sea lamprey were first observed in Lake Erie in the 1920s and 

have since colonized the upper lakes and contributed greatly to 

the decline of native salmonid populations.

·	 What restoration approaches are you 

planning/implementing to improve the status 

of your targets?

Aggressive sea lamprey control programs already exist, so 

it is important to focus on how to enhance or improve these 

programs. Two ways to control lamprey population include: 

construction of low-head dams to block upstream migration and 

extensive use of lampricides in spawning tributaries. 

·	 What is the expected lifetime of the project? Indefinite.

B. Components of Vulnerability

Sensitivity

·	 How and to what degree are your restoration 

targets sensitive to climate conditions/

variables?

Sea lamprey and host species (lake trout, whitefish) are 

sensitive to water temperatures.80 Sea lamprey thrive (both size 

and reproduction) in warmer temperatures while host species 

require colder temperatures.

·	 How and to what degree are your restoration 

approaches sensitive to climate conditions/

variables?

Effectiveness of lamprey control may be sensitive to changing 

conditions that affect lamprey productivity. For example, studies 

suggest that variations in streamflows due to rainfall events may 

increase risk of dilution and lead to sublethal applications.81

Exposure

·	 How are climate conditions projected to 

change in the area?

Average lake/stream temperatures are projected to continue to 

increase, as is the length of the summer stratification period.82

More-extreme precipitation events are likely.

·	 Is there evidence of climate change already 

being observed in the area?

Average lake temperatures are increasing.83 Increases 

in nearshore water temperatures of the Great Lakes are 

lengthening the period of summer stratification.84 Heavier 

rainfall events are becoming more frequent.85 Snowmelt and 

runoff are occurring earlier in the year.86

Adaptive Capacity

·	 What is your system’s adaptive capacity 

relative to climate change?

Sea lampreys appear to have been able to capitalize 

on changes in lake conditions in some areas as higher 

temperatures to increase their metabolic rate.87 In addition, 

scientists believe that longer periods of lake stratification 

increase the amount of time in which lake trout spend in their 

preferred thermal range, which is providing sea lampreys with 

more time to feed on this important host species.88, 89

C. Vulnerability Summary

·	 What is the relative vulnerability of your 

restoration project (including your targets, 

goals, and approaches)?

Medium. 

·	 What are the primary reasons? A continued increase in lake temperatures and longer periods 

of stratification may exacerbate sea lamprey predation if host 

species are restricted to areas that overlap lamprey. As lake 

temperatures rise, host species may face declines due to factors 

additional to lamprey. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
26 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

Table 6. Water Quality Restoration Project: Illustrative Vulnerability Assessment

A. Scope and Objectives

·	 What are your current restoration goals? Reduce existing stressors; restore/emulate ecosystem 

functions.

·	 What are your restoration targets? Aquatic fish and wildlife.

·	 What is the current status of your restoration 

target (e.g., what factors are contributing to 

BUIs?)

Hypoxia/anoxia events have long been a concern in Great 

Lakes waters, primarily due to phosphorus pollution.

·	 What restoration approaches are you planning/

implementing to improve the status of your 

targets?

Reduction in anoxia/hypoxia events through efforts to 

reduce nutrient loading.

·	 What is the expected lifetime of the project? Indefinite.

B. Components of Vulnerability

Sensitivity

·	 How and to what degree are your restoration 

targets sensitive to climate conditions/variables?

Higher lake temperatures and increased stratification can 

exacerbate anoxia/hypoxia events.90 Increased runoff into 

lakes during heavy precipitation events could introduce 

additional pollutants.

·	 How and to what degree are your restoration 

approaches sensitive to climate conditions/

variables?

Efforts to reduce pollutants are likely to be sensitive to runoff 

(e.g., heavier downpours may carry more phosphorus into 

lake waters).

Exposure

·	 How are climate conditions projected to change 

in the area?

Average lake temperatures are projected to continue to 

increase, as is the length of the summer stratification period. 

Heavy precipitation events will increase in frequency and 

intensity.

·	 Is there evidence of climate change already being 

observed in the area?

Increases in nearshore water temperatures of the Great 

Lakes are lengthening the period of summer stratification.91

Heavier rainfall events are becoming more frequent. 

Adaptive Capacity

·	 What is your system’s adaptive capacity relative 

to climate change?

The adaptive capacity of species that may be affected by 

longer periods of stratification/dead zones will depend on 

their ability to find refugia.

C. Vulnerability Summary

·	 What is the relative vulnerability of your 

restoration project (including your targets, goals, 

and approaches)?

Medium/High. 

·	 What are the primary reasons? In all lakes, the duration of summer stratification is projected 

to increase, adding to the risk of oxygen depletion and 

dead zones.92 These changes could alter the dominant 

species found in a lake and potentially contribute to the 

extirpation of some fish species such as lake trout.93

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 27

Table 7. Oil Spill Damage Assessment, Remediation, Restoration: Illustrative Vulnerability 

Assessment

A. Scope and Objectives

·	 What are your current restoration goals? Reduce existing stressors; restore/emulate ecosystem 

functions.

·	 What are your restoration targets? Affected habitat/species.

·	 What is the current status of your restoration 

target (e.g., what factors are contributing to 

BUIs?)

Dealing with polluting spills of chemicals, oil, hydrocarbons, 

and wastes are a relatively common problem in some areas.

·	 What restoration approaches are you planning/

implementing to improve the status of your 

targets?

Installation of containment and absorbent booms, physical 

clean-up of ecologically sensitive areas.

·	 What is the expected lifetime of the project? As needed, short term.

B. Components of Vulnerability

Sensitivity

·	 How and to what degree are your restoration 

targets sensitive to climate conditions/variables?

If spill is located in floodplain, the area is sensitive to 

extreme precipitation events and flooding. Toxicity of the 

spill may be sensitive to temperatures.94

·	 How and to what degree are your restoration 

approaches sensitive to climate conditions/

variables?

Effectiveness of barriers and absorbent booms will be 

sensitive to extreme events such as storms.

Exposure

·	 How are climate conditions projected to change 

in the area?

Continuing trend of heavier rainfall events in fall/

winter; reduced precipitation in summer; higher average 

temperatures.

·	 Is there evidence of climate change already being 

observed in the area?

Heavier rainfall events and flooding are becoming more 

frequent.

Adaptive Capacity

·	 What is your system’s adaptive capacity relative 

to climate change?

There may be some adaptive capacity of the coastal habitat 

If the spill occurs in an area that has natural buffers/

filters (e.g., dunes and beach grass). Adaptive capacity 

of response will depend on ability to anticipate and 

accommodate for possible extreme events.

C. Vulnerability Summary

·	 What is the relative vulnerability of your 

restoration project (including your targets, goals, 

and approaches)?

Low. 

·	 What are the primary reasons? The increased potential for flooding during spill events is 

a concern, as it could pass oiled sediment and materials 

downstream or into neighborhoods. That said, cleaning up 

the initial spill is the priority regardless of climate change 

but should consider existing trends/conditions, especially 

extreme rain events.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
28 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

Table 8. Amphibian Habitat Creation Project: Illustrative Vulnerability Assessment

A. Scope and Objectives

·	 What are your current restoration goals? Improve habitat connectivity; restore/emulate ecosystem 

functions.

·	 What are your restoration targets? Native amphibian species, floodplain pool habitat.

·	 What is the current status of your restoration 

target (e.g., what factors are contributing to 

BUIs?)

River modifications (e.g., channelization and filling, 

reduction in riparian vegetation) have reduced the quality 

and availability of seasonal and permanent floodplain pools 

used as breeding habitat.

·	 What restoration approaches are you planning/

implementing to improve the status of your 

targets?

Constructing floodplain pools, with connection to associated 

stream.

·	 What is the expected lifetime of the project? Infrastructure expected to last 30-50 years before it needs to 

be repaired/rebuilt.

B. Components of Vulnerability

Sensitivity

·	 How and to what degree are your restoration 

targets sensitive to climate conditions/variables?

Timing and quantity of water available for pond habitat is 

sensitive to flow regimes. Water temperatures in pools are 

sensitive to changes in air temperatures. Many amphibian 

species are sensitive to changes in temperature and/or 

precipitation.95

·	 How and to what degree are your restoration 

approaches sensitive to climate conditions/

variables?

Effectiveness of project design will be sensitive to 

consideration of future streamflows and temperatures.

Exposure

·	 How are climate conditions projected to change 

in the area?

Continuing trend of heavier rainfall events in fall/winter; 

earlier peak flows in spring; reduced precipitation in 

summer; higher average temperatures.

·	 Is there evidence of climate change already being 

observed in the area?

Greater extremes in precipitation events in the region as well 

as earlier peak snowmelt are altering the timing and volume 

of streamflows.

Adaptive Capacity

·	 What is your system’s adaptive capacity relative 

to climate change?

Availability of refugia from high temperatures and altered 

flows will enhance adaptive capacity.

C. Vulnerability Summary

·	 What is the relative vulnerability of your 

restoration project (including your targets, goals, 

and approaches)?

Medium. 

·	 What are the primary reasons? Changes in the timing of runoff may reduce availability 

of water inputs to floodplain pools at key times for 

amphibian breeding; higher temperatures and increased 

drought conditions in summer may adversely affect these 

temperature-sensitive species.96 Certain habitat features may 

provide refugia.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 29

Table 9. Wild Rice Habitat Restoration Project: Illustrative Vulnerability Assessment

A. Scope and Objectives

·	 What are your current restoration goals? Reduce existing stressors; restore/emulate ecosystem functions.

·	 What are your restoration targets? Wild rice habitat for harvest/wildlife conservation.

·	 What is the current status of your restoration 

target (e.g., what factors are contributing to 

BUIs?)

Changes in hydrology due to dams/dikes, road construction; 

loss of vegetation cover to coastal development; invasive species 

encroachment (e.g., purple loosestrife).97

·	 What restoration approaches are you 

planning/implementing to improve the status 

of your targets?

Construction of water flow control structures; periodic beaver dam 

removal to maintain optimal water levels; sowing wild rice seeds.

·	 What is the expected lifetime of the project? Indefinite.

B. Components of Vulnerability

Sensitivity

·	 How and to what degree are your restoration 

targets sensitive to climate conditions/

variables?

Wild rice habitats are sensitive to changes in the timing, duration, 

height/elevation of annual and seasonal lake water levels and 

water flows.98

·	 How and to what degree are your restoration 

approaches sensitive to climate conditions/

variables?

Effectiveness of water flow management structures is sensitive to 

changes in average lake levels as well as changes in extremes.

Exposure

·	 How are climate conditions projected to 

change in the area?

In general, average Great Lakes water levels are projected 

to decline by mid-century due to a combination of increased 

evaporation and decreased inflow from surface and groundwater.99

Evapotranspiration is likely to increase in all seasons. Continuing 

trend of heavier rainfall events in fall/winter; reduced precipitation, 

lower streamflows in summer.100

·	 Is there evidence of climate change already 

being observed in the area?

The region is experiencing higher average air and lake surface 

temperatures and reduced duration and extent of lake ice cover/

increased stratification.101 This is considered to be a precursor 

to declining average lake levels. Heavier rainfall events are 

becoming more frequent.102 Snowmelt and runoff are occurring 

earlier in the year.103

Adaptive Capacity

·	 What is your system’s adaptive capacity 

relative to climate change?

Adaptive capacity over the long term Is somewhat limited, as 

wild rice generally prefers minimal annual fluctuations in water 

level and stable or gradually receding water levels during the 

growing season.104

C. Vulnerability Summary

·	 What is the relative vulnerability of your 

restoration project (including your targets, 

goals, and approaches)?

Medium. 

·	 What are the primary reasons? Access for human harvest may be limited during extreme low 

water events. Greater fluctuations in lake levels in the near term 

and decreases in average levels over the longer term could 

make current habitat areas unfavorable. Deep or flooding waters 

in early spring could delay germination of seed, leading to 

crop failures. Lower water levels late in summer could lead to 

more competition with other shallow water species. Long-term 

reductions in average lake levels may contribute to loss in wild 

rice habitat overall.105, 106

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
30 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

Step 4. Identify 

Climate-Smart 

Management Options

Once you have a sense of how climate 

change and related impacts are likely to 

affect your particular restoration targets 

and objectives and what the primary 

sources of vulnerability are, the next step 

is to develop a possible strategy or set of 

strategies to achieve your overarching 

conservation goals in the face of climate 

change. At this stage, be creative rather 

than selective. Information on the various 

components of vulnerability can guide the 

identification of possible conservation/

restoration decisions to reduce that 

vulnerability. This might include efforts to 

reduce sensitivity, reduce exposure, and/

or increase the adaptive capacity of your 

restoration target. For example:

• A strategy to reduce the sensitivity of a 

riverine wetland being restored might be to 

plant a diversity of species that can tolerate 

a range of flow conditions and disturbances 

(i.e., flooding and drought).

• A strategy to reduce the exposure of 

a target cold-water fish species facing 

increases in stream temperatures might be 

to identify and protect areas of potential 

cold-water refugia or enhance riparian 

vegetation. 

• A measure to improve the adaptive 

capacity of a coastal marsh to withstand 

greater extremes in lake levels might be 

to remove existing barriers that limit the 

ability of the marsh to migrate. Another 

strategy could be to design coastal marsh 

water management structures to facilitate 

optimal marsh conditions under a range of 

hydrologic extremes.

Similarly, it may be possible to identify 

specific actions to address one or more of 

the factors contributing to vulnerability 

of your particular restoration approach. 

For example: 

• Designing fish passage structures that 

are effective under projected future river 

flow regimes will reduce the sensitivity 

and/or increase the adaptive capacity of 

that project to such changes.

• You may be able to reduce exposure of 

a culvert project to extreme flooding by 

also restoring currently impervious areas 

upstream to more pervious systems.

There are numerous examples of 

management strategies that can help 

address climate change in coastal 

restoration. It is important to recognize 

that, to date, much of the literature 

on adaptation options for species and 

ecosystem management focus on general 

principles rather than specific, actionable 

measures.107 Often, these include: reduce 

other, non-climate stressors; manage 

NOAA
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 31

for ecological function and protection of 

biological diversity; establish habitat buffer 

zones and wildlife corridors; implement 

proactive management and restoration 

strategies; and increase monitoring and 

facilitate management under uncertainty.108

While these measures are intuitively 

correct, applying them in practice, 

especially for specific, on-the-ground 

restoration, requires consideration of some 

of the unique features and systems that 

influence your particular project site.109

For example, streams across the U.S. Great 

Lakes Basin exhibit considerable seasonal, 

temporal, and geographical diversity.110 

Trends during the mid- to late-20th century 

indicate that annual yield (streamflow per 

unit watershed area) was greatest from 

watersheds with greater topographic relief 

and forest cover, while February yield 

was greatest from small, lower elevation 

watersheds having a smaller portion of 

wetland area. Understanding these trends 

can assist in evaluating potential future 

changes relevant for a particular project 

area. Similarly, there are a number of 

different factors that determine stream 

temperatures (e.g., catchment topography, 

tributary inflow, the interface between 

surface and groundwater, and riparian tree 

cover).111 Understanding the relative role 

of each of these factors can help determine 

potential options for moderating rising 

stream temperatures due to climate change.

Table 10 (page 32) identifies possible 

adaptation options for the cases highlighted 

in the vulnerability assessment section, 

above. These illustrative examples offer 

generalized management options, although 

we recognize that greater detail will be 

necessary for real life application. 

We would like to emphasize that these are 

only a sampling of adaptation options. We 

encourage you to also develop some of 

your own based on your specific project 

vulnerabilities, goals, and approaches.

NOAA
32 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

Table 10. Linking Adaptation to Vulnerability: Potential Adaptation Options for Restoration 

Projects from Tables 1 – 9

Restoration Project Relevant Vulnerabilities to 

Climate Change

Potential Adaptation Options

1. Fish Passage Restoration Medium/High. 

Some changes in flow regimes are 

already occurring, and more extremes 

in the future may make it more difficult 

for fish to navigate the river barrier 

(e.g., low flows may make navigation 

around/over barrier difficult/

impossible in summer; high flows 

may prevent passage of species that 

are not able to expend the necessary 

energy).

Design fish passage based on 

projected low/high flow levels as 

well as shifts in timing of flows to at 

least mid-century, based on expected 

lifespan of infrastructure. Consider 

benefits to multiple species. 

2. Drowned River-Mouth 

Wetland Habitat Restoration 

Medium. 

Heavy rainfall events may contribute 

to upstream erosion and additional 

sediment loading in the lake if 

runoff is by-passed around the diked 

wetland area. Perturbations can 

alter the natural succession of plants 

in wetlands, which influences the 

species, diversity, and number of fish 

and wildlife a wetland can support.

Ultimately, conditions may become 

favorable for some species and 

detrimental to others (e.g., shallow 

wetlands with greater coverage by 

emergent vegetation may benefit 

some water birds such as yellow 

rails but would be less favorable for 

waterfowl).

In terms of the restoration approach, 

water flow management is sensitive to 

changes in lake level and streamflow; 

lower water levels encourage the 

spread of invasive plant species. 

Design restoration infrastructure 

that has potential to accommodate 

high variability in lake levels and 

streamflows over the short term and 

lower average lake levels over the 

longer term. Increase awareness 

of possible spread of new invasive 

species. Timing of dewatering and 

reflooding of managed wetlands 

should consider the diverse needs 

of target species under a changing 

climate (e.g., facilitate flooding of 

key waterfowl areas during drought 

or low lake level events). Plans also 

should consider costs of maintaining/

adapting water control infrastructure 

under changing conditions.

3. Coaster Brook Trout Habitat 

Restoration

High. 

Higher lake temperatures could 

reduce favorable spawning habitat 

and juvenile incubation; longer 

periods of lake stratification in summer 

may limit availability of nutrients 

and phytoplankton; nearshore 

water quality could decline. Altered 

streamflow regimes and higher stream 

temperatures will reduce quality of 

stream habitat.

Increase areas of riparian vegetation 

over open water and connecting 

stream channels to moderate 

temperatures. Add woody debris 

or other shade-providing in-stream 

materials. Create adjacent cool, deep 

pools to provide refugia.

(table continued on page 33)
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 33

4. Whitefish Habitat Restoration High. 

Reduced ice cover could mean greater 

mortality of whitefish eggs, which 

rely on the formation of ice over 

shallow waters for protection from 

wind and waves. Increased variability 

associated with climate change could 

make spawning/nursery conditions 

unfavorable for this species in some 

areas. Measures to ameliorate loss of 

ice cover are likely to be limited.

Construct spawning areas with as 

little surface area as possible so that 

ice will remain and thicken. Reduce 

water temperatures by shading 

waterways. Redouble efforts to 

reduce phosphorus loading. Consider 

possible upstream/upland actions that 

enhance habitats to filter nutrients. 

Restoration efforts may require 

looking for alternative spawning sites 

in areas that might provide refugia 

and protection during low ice cover 

years. 

5. Invasive Species Management 

(Sea lamprey control)

Low/Medium. 

A continued increase in lake 

temperatures and longer periods of 

stratification may exacerbate sea 

lamprey predation.

Increase sea lamprey control efforts 

in areas of high lake temperatures. 

Initiate early detection/rapid 

response measures.

6. Water Quality Restoration Medium/High. 

In all lakes, the duration of summer 

stratification is projected to increase, 

adding to the risk of oxygen depletion 

and dead zones. These changes could 

alter the dominant species found in a 

lake and potentially contribute to the 

extirpation of some fish species such 

as lake trout.

Redouble efforts to reduce nutrient 

loads, with consideration of changes 

in precipitation/flow regimes. Identify 

and protect possible areas of refugia 

from thermal stratification.

7. Oil spill Damage Assessment, 

Remediation, Restoration

Low. 

The increased potential for flooding 

during spill events is a concern, 

as it could pass oiled sediment 

and materials downstream or into 

neighborhoods. Cleaning up the 

initial spill is the priority regardless of 

climate change but should consider 

existing trends/conditions.

Design oil barriers and absorbent 

booms to accommodate more 

extreme flood events given recent 

trends. 

(table continued on page 34)

(table continued from page 32)
34 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

8. Amphibian Habitat 

Restoration

Medium. 

Changes in the timing of runoff may 

reduce availability of water inputs 

to floodplain pools at key times 

for amphibian breeding; higher 

temperatures and increased drought 

conditions in summer may adversely 

affect these temperature-sensitive 

species. Success of habitat restoration 

efforts is sensitive to climate change, 

although there is relatively high 

adaptive capacity for accommodating 

climate impacts via project design.

Location/design of pool connections 

to the mainstream will need to 

consider altered flow regimes; depth 

of constructed pools may need to be 

altered to provide additional refugia; 

consider enhancing forest cover 

for summer habitat to help modify 

temperatures.

9. Wild Rice Habitat Restoration Medium. 

Access for human harvest may be 

limited during extreme low water 

events. Greater fluctuations in 

lake levels in the near term and 

decreases in average levels over 

the longer term could make current 

habitat areas unfavorable. Deep or 

flooding waters in early spring could 

delay germination of seed, leading 

to crop failures. Lower water levels 

late in summer could lead to more 

competition with other shallow water 

species. Long-term reductions in 

average lake levels may contribute to 

loss in wild rice habitat overall.

Management of wild rice habitat 

may require great consideration of 

extreme events, including protecting 

areas against excessive flooding 

and aggressively controlling invasive 

species in low level periods. Long 

term efforts may include planting 

species in new areas.

(table continued from page 34)

U.S. National Park Service
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 35

Dealing with Uncertainty in 

Developing Climate-Smart 

Restoration Projects – A Role 

for Scenario-Based Planning

As highlighted in Overarching Principles, 

resource managers often must make 

conservation decisions under 

uncertainty, particularly where 

information about future 

conditions must be considered. 

This is true not just for climate 

change, but for factors such as 

land use, population trends, 

and invasive species as well. 

Some management responses 

will be effective in meeting 

conservation goals under a 

range of potential climate 

futures, while others may need 

to be tailored to more specific 

conditions.112 When future 

conditions are fairly certain, 

it makes sense to ask: Which actions will 

produce the single best outcome? When 

there is significant uncertainty about 

future conditions, answering that question 

becomes increasingly difficult because the 

answer depends on which future comes to 

pass. In such situations it may make more 

sense to ask: Which actions give me the 

best chance of an acceptable outcome? This 

approach is called robust decision making; 

it is essentially a bet-hedging strategy. 

Rather than maximizing the chance of the 

single best outcome, it seeks to maximize 

the likelihood of an acceptable outcome. 

One tool that can help you navigate 

through such decisions is scenario-based 

management planning.

Scenario-Based Management Planning 

is based on explicitly identifying a 

suite of plausible futures and exploring 

management options across that suite 

of futures. Just as the use of a range of 

scenarios (including not just climate change 

but ecological and societal responses to 

it) can help address inherent uncertainty 

in assessing vulnerability, they also can 

provide a useful framework for informing 

possible climate-smart restoration options, 

particularly in cases where 

the levels of uncertainty 

about potential future 

conditions are especially 

high and uncontrollable.113 

The goal here is to consider 

a broad range of possible 

responses to the array of 

future scenarios, and what 

management or restoration 

mechanisms you can put 

into place that will allow you 

the maximum likelihood of 

success and flexibility given 

the array of possible futures. 

Scenarios, at their simplest, are 

descriptions of some plausible future. They 

are not predictions or forecasts, are not 

necessarily limited to the climatic changes 

themselves, and scenario planners make no 

assumptions about which scenario is most 

likely (if you knew which was most likely, 

you would not need scenario planning). 

Scenario planning exercises typically use 

around three to five scenarios. Ideally, 

they will: 1) bracket the range of plausible 

futures, and 2) highlight those elements of 

uncertainty most important to management 

and planning outcomes. “Bracketing the 

range of plausible futures” does not mean 

simply choosing several values along a 

single continuum; ideally the scenarios 

will represent divergent possibilities along 

two or more axes. Having developed the 

scenarios, managers and planners then 

brainstorm possible management options 

Scenario-Based 

Management 

Planning is based 

on explicitly 

identifying a suite 

of plausible futures 

and exploring 

management 

options across that 

suite of futures. 
36 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

Addressing possible changes in Great Lakes water levels will no doubt be one of the major factors under consideration when planning climatesmart restoration, as the implications for greater extremes in water level fluctuations as well as possible changes in long term averages are 

significant for both project design and ultimate conservation objectives. While there is moderate confidence among scientists that Great Lake 

water levels will decline, on average, toward the latter half of this century (see Figure 3), it is not so clear cut in the shorter-term.114 Under a 

handful of plausible scenarios, water levels in some lakes may even increase.115, 116 Certainly, this makes restoration planning for the next few 

decades somewhat tricky. 

Despite uncertainty in determining an overall trend, however, lake levels themselves will continue to fluctuate seasonally and annually, as they 

have historically. Great Lakes water levels are influenced by several natural and anthropogenic factors, including climatic variability. Lake 

levels tend to decline during periods of high air temperatures and low ice cover and rise during periods with cooler, wetter conditions.117 It is 

also important to recognize that the water levels of Lake Superior and Lake Ontario are formally regulated.

To a certain extent, both coastal habitats and human communities are adapted to seasonal and interannual fluctuations in lake levels, within 

a certain range, duration, and rate of change.118 Understanding how different wetland types respond to these fluctuations can help inform 

proactive restoration responses under a range of potential future conditions.119 For example, coastal marshes adapt more readily to lower 

levels than swamps because their vegetation can establish itself more quickly.120 If climate change contributes to a decline in the mean annual 

water level, as some models suggest, restoration efforts may need to include more hands-on measures to facilitate swamp regeneration. On 

the other hand, wetlands in gradually sloped, open shores may have more room to migrate upland during higher levels – or shoreward during 

lower levels – than those in enclosed bays and in areas with natural or human barriers.121 Given either of these potential scenarios, a robust 

restoration approach might be to remove and/or prevent coastal armoring or other infrastructure to enable habitats to shift in response to 

fluctuating water levels and then monitor the situation to determine when/where swamp regeneration efforts might be warranted in the future. 

Box 1. Coastal Restoration under Uncertainty: The Case of Great Lakes Water Levels Change in Lake Level (feet)

1961-1990 1996-2006 2010-2039 2040-2069 2070-2099

Observed Projected

Lake Superior

Lake Erie

Lake Ontario

Lake Michigan/Huron

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5 Figure 3. Average Great Lakes 

levels depend on the balance 

between precipitation and 

corresponding runoff in the Great 

Lakes Basin and evaporation 

and outflow. Under a lower 

emissions scenario (IPCC B1), 

(not shown here), little change 

is projected in lake levels over 

the coming century. This graphic 

shows projected changes under 

the higher (IPCC A1FI) scenario, 

which suggest average lake level 

decreases on the order of 0.5 up 

to nearly 2.0 feet towards the end 

of the century.122 See Appendix A 

for more information on the IPCC 

emissions scenarios.
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 37

and look at the performance of those 

options across all scenarios. Are there 

management approaches that are effective 

in all scenarios? Are there management 

options that are highly effective in one but 

disastrous in others? As you go through 

this exercise, you can highlight areas where 

uncertainty about climate change or the 

system’s response to it is more or less 

important. Box 1 provides a simplified 

example of how scenario-based planning 

might inform restoration in the face of 

changing Great Lakes water levels. 

Step 5. Select 

and Implement 

Management Options

Having identified possible management 

options for your project, it is time to choose 

which ones to implement. Your choice may 

depend on a range of factors, depending 

on your particular needs, interests, and 

resources. One or more of the following 

criteria will likely be important:123 

• Importance. What is at stake if you 

do not do anything? Are there unique or 

critical resources whose vulnerability 

should be reduced? 

• Urgency. What are the costs of delaying 

action, both in terms of what you might 

lose and in terms of what it would cost to 

implement later rather than now? 

• No regrets* and co-benefits. Do 

the benefits (including non-climaterelated benefits) exceed the cost of 

implementation? Will there be significant 

beneficial outcomes even if the adaptation 

benefits do not pan out as expected? 

• Economic efficiency. What are the 

expected benefits of this project relative 

to using the same resources elsewhere? 

Are there possibilities to pool resources by 

engaging other stakeholders?

• Cost. How costly will the strategy be in 

terms of time, money, or other resources?

• Unintentional effects on climate 

change. Will the suggested action increase 

the emission of greenhouse gases, or lead to 

undesirable changes in the local or regional 

climate? 

• Performance under uncertainty.

What is the project’s likely performance 

across the range of plausible changes in 

climate for your region?

• Equity. Does the project benefit some 

people, places, or interests at the expense 

of others? Will this project have strong 

negative effects on any people, places, or 

interest?

• Institutional feasibility. Is the 

proposed project possible given existing 

institutions, laws, and regulations? To 

what degree is the public likely to accept 

the project?

• Technical feasibility. Is the project 

technically possible to implement? Do we 

have or can we access the necessary tools 

and other resources?

* “No regrets” actions can be defined as actions that meet existing priority conservation needs but also 

address climate change; this term is also used to refer to actions that are robust across multiple climate 

change scenarios.
38 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

• Consistency. Is the proposed project 

consistent with existing national, state, 

community, or private values, goals, and 

policies?

Designing an implementation plan for a 

climate-smart project will be very similar 

to developing one for any project. The 

steps can be as simple as outlining: 1) who 

is responsible for each action of the project 

and for overseeing the project; 

2) what are the anticipated resources 

(e.g., financial, staff, and technical) 

needed for each action and are they 

secured; and 3) the timeline for each 

action. An implementation plan could 

also include information on communication 

strategies with stakeholders and/ or the 

public, if necessary. 

Step 6. Monitor, 

Review, Revise

Because climatic changes, their impacts, 

and the effectiveness of various 

management options are uncertain, 

monitoring will be especially important. 

Monitoring may require significant 

commitment and resources, but it is likely 

to reduce costs stemming from climate 

change-related surprises. Monitoring 

allows for testing project assumptions 

and evaluating effectiveness of project 

actions (e.g., about how the system in 

question will respond to climate change, 

what climate changes may happen, and the 

effects of particular management actions). 

In turn, monitoring results allow project 

managers to refine project goals or actions 

as needed – a fundamental step in adaptive 

management (see Box 2).124 

NOAA
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 39

While monitoring is not a new concept 

for restoration projects, climate-smart 

monitoring does entail some new ways of 

thinking about some of the key elements 

of your monitoring approach. The Estuary 

Restoration Act, for example, identifies 

five key elements critical to monitoring 

restoration projects:129 

1. Monitoring parameters must be directly 

linked to the goals established for the 

project and/or the restoration of the 

watershed as a whole.

2. Methods for evaluating results must be 

established (for example, statistical tests 

of hypotheses, trend analysis, or other 

quantitative or qualitative approaches) that 

directly relate to the goals for the project 

and/or watershed.

3. To establish initial conditions for each 

measure included in the monitoring plan, 

pre-construction or pre-design (baseline) 

monitoring must occur.

4. Project sites should be compared 

to a reference site or historical data 

representing a reference condition in order 

to evaluate progress toward reaching goals.

5. Monitoring must be conducted in a 

timely fashion with a frequency and length 

of time appropriate to each parameter in 

the context of project goals and the status 

of the project.

In thinking about each of these five 

elements for developing a monitoring 

plan, there are several key places where 

it will be imperative to integrate climate 

change considerations and variables. 

For example, when establishing initial 

baseline conditions, it will be important to 

consider the fact that historical conditions 

and trends may no longer be sufficient. 

Similarly, the choice of reference sites 

and conditions against which to measure 

progress will need to factor in the potential 

impacts climate change will have on that 

site over time. Finally, it will be increasingly 

important for restoration project managers 

to monitor conditions over the long term, 

which will require a commitment of time, 

effort, and resources. 

Adaptive management is defined as a systematic 

approach for improving resource management 

by learning from management outcomes.125 It is 

useful not only when the future is uncertain, but 

when there is uncertainty about which management 

approach is best or how the system being managed 

functions even under today’s conditions. Although 

it provides a mechanism for natural resource 

managers and other decision makers to develop 

restoration or conservation projects with incomplete 

information, simply picking up one management 

approach and adjusting it as needed is not, in the 

narrow sense, adaptive management. True adaptive 

management involves exploring alternative ways 

to meet management objectives, predicting the 

outcomes of alternatives based on the current state 

of knowledge, implementing one or more of these 

alternatives, monitoring to learn about the impacts 

of management actions, and then using the results 

to update knowledge and adjust management 

actions.126 Adaptive management may be 

particularly useful in cases where immediate action 

is required to address short-term and/or potentially 

catastrophic long-term consequences, such as the 

collapse of important ecosystem services, or where 

management actions are likely to have no regrets 

near-term benefits.127, 128 

Box 2. Adaptive Management and 

Climate-Smart Restoration – New 

Impetus for a Familiar Concept
40 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

 limate change is a universal 

 reality that can no longer be 

 ignored. The long-term success of 

conservation efforts, in this case restoration 

of coastal habitats in the Great Lakes, 

is dependent on accounting for climate 

change in project objectives, design, and 

execution. In the interest of maximizing 

success with utilizing limited resources, 

NOAA and many other government 

agencies across the country are beginning 

to require the consideration of climate 

change in conservation efforts. 

Successful restoration in a changing climate 

requires learning from past conservation 

experiences, while at the same time 

accounting for how the climate will change 

and how these changes will potentially 

impact target conservation areas. 

Successful resource managers will be those 

who consider dynamic changes in climate 

rather than supposing future conditions 

similar to past climate. 

Given that species will respond in 

individualistic ways to climate change, 

ecological communities will not remain 

intact. Accordingly, it may no longer be 

effective or appropriate to manage systems 

based on a paradigm of maintaining some 

pre-existing condition, or restoring species 

or habitats to a previous desired state. 

This is all the more important given the 

uncertainty about future conditions, as well 

as the likely greater extremes in various 

climatic factors (such as temperatures and 

rainfall events). 

V. Conclusion

C

Michigan Sea Grant
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 41

Climate-smart restoration follows the same 

basic principles of any good management 

system, which includes: defining goals, 

assessing current status and challenges, 

identifying and implementing appropriate 

strategies, and managing and assessing 

project performance. Projects become 

climate-smart when at each step of the 

process the potential effects of climate 

change are considered as another factor. 

While a diversity of management 

techniques exist, a changing climate is 

likely to increase the importance of 

certain priority approaches, including 

maintaining or re-establishing connectivity 

of habitats, reducing key existing stressors, 

protecting key ecosystem features, and 

maintaining diversity. These approaches 

are likely be particularly effective at 

providing fish, wildlife, and plants with 

the greatest opportunity to survive 

climate change and thus meet appropriate 

conservation objectives. 

Assessment of climate change impacts at 

the various stages of management requires 

information on projected climate changes 

and an assessment of those changes on 

existing species, habitats, and conservation 

objectives. Modeling and expert opinion are 

both options to find this information, either 

alone or combined. Once likely impacts are 

assessed, then managers have the means 

by which to adjust conservation objectives 

if necessary, and select appropriate 

management techniques that are likely 

to be most effective in light of expected 

climate impacts. As is necessary in any 

good management system, monitoring of 

results and adjustment of management 

techniques to account for lessons learned, 

and now for continuing changes in climate, 

are necessary.

Climate change neither renders 

past conservation efforts useless nor 

precludes continuing restoration efforts. 

Instead, we must take climate change 

into consideration to improve our 

conservation successes and protect our 

restoration investments. 

Projects become climate-smart 

when at each step of the process the 

potential effects of climate change are 

considered as another factor. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service
42 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

 limate change vulnerability 

 assessments provide 

 an essential tool for informing the 

development of climate change adaptation 

plans and strategies. There is no single 

right approach to vulnerability assessment 

that applies to all situations. Rather, the 

design and execution of your assessment 

may depend on a host of factors, including 

availability of already existing information, 

the level of expertise, time and budget 

constraints, and so on. For example, while 

there are a growing number of models 

available that can project the impacts of 

climate change on plant and animal ranges, 

the availability to conduct more detailed 

analyses such as modeling the dynamic 

ecological responses among diverse species 

within and among ecosystems is still 

relatively limited. In many cases, focusing 

quantitative assessments more broadly 

on habitat changes and then applying 

qualitative assessments of potential species 

responses may be the best approach given 

existing information. Additional studies 

can then be undertaken as information and 

resources allow. 

Components of 

Vulnerability

Vulnerability to climate change, as it is 

commonly defined, has three principal 

components: sensitivity, exposure, 

and adaptive capacity (see Figure 

A.1).130 Understanding these individual 

components of vulnerability (whether 

explicitly or implicitly) is important in 

that it can help project planners identify 

more clearly which of your target species, 

habitats, and/or ecosystems are vulnerable 

to climate change and, perhaps more 

importantly, why they are vulnerable. 

• Sensitivity. Sensitivity is the degree to 

which a system (whether built, natural, 

or human) is or is not likely to be affected 

by or responsive to changes in climate 

and/or its related impacts.131 Sensitivity 

of a particular species may depend 

on innate physiological or biological 

variables. For example, a species with a 

narrow temperature tolerance range may 

not be able to survive increases in the 

Appendix A. 

Vulnerability Assessment

A Key Tool for Climate-Smart Restoration

C

Figure A-1. Key components of vulnerability, 

illustrating the relationship among exposure, 

sensitivity, and adaptive capacity.

Exposure Sensitivity

Potential

Impact

Adaptive

Capacity

Vulnerability
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 43

average temperature of its habitat due to 

climate change. That species is therefore 

considered “sensitive” to at least one 

element of climate change, higher average 

temperature. Sensitivity may also be a 

factor of specific physical or ecological 

factors. For example, a local river habitat 

that depends on snowmelt to maintain 

sufficient instream flows for fish is likely 

to be sensitive to reductions in average 

snowpack due to climate change, as 

well as to changes in the timing and 

intensity of precipitation. 

• Exposure. Even if a particular species 

or system (human or natural) is inherently 

sensitive to climate change, its vulnerability 

also depends on the character, magnitude, 

and rate of changes to which it is exposed. 

For example, a specific population of a 

temperature-sensitive species may inhabit 

an area likely to be sheltered from rapid 

temperature increases, such as a northfacing, highly vegetated forest or highelevation headwater stream (i.e., refugia). 

In such instances, the population may have 

a lower vulnerability than others of its 

species given its lower level of exposure. 

The use of projections at various scales 

as well as understanding current factors 

creating climatic differences across the 

land- or waterscape can help managers 

get a sense for where and how much 

change might be expected to affect a given 

conservation target.

• Adaptive Capacity. Adaptive capacity 

refers to the ability of a species or system to 

accommodate or cope with climate change 

impacts with minimal disruption. Broadly, 

adaptive capacity reflects both particular 

internal traits, such as the ability of a 

species to move in search of more favorable 

habitat conditions, adapt evolutionarily, or 

modify its behavior as climate changes, and 

external conditions, including the existence 

of structural barriers such as urban areas, 

bulkheads, or dikes that may limit the 

ability of that species or habitat to move.

The distinctions among sensitivity, 

exposure, and adaptive capacity are 

not always clean. Species mobility, for 

example, could reasonably be included in 

all categories. There are no hard-and-fast 

rules for where each of these components 

should explicitly fit as part of the overall 

vulnerability assessment. However, 

explicitly considering all three components 

of vulnerability may be particularly useful 

for informing management responses, 

especially when the influence of other 

stressors (e.g., overharvest, increased 

impervious surfaces) are evaluated.

Depending on the scope and nature of 

your project, assessing sensitivity or 

vulnerability to climate change could 

range from a less involved “thought 

exercise” up to a process that involves 

commissioning new model results. No 

Natural Resources Conservation Service
44 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

matter what level of complexity your 

assessment entails, the following are key 

steps to guide the process:132

1. Determine objectives and scope.

2. Assess components of vulnerability.

3. Summarize vulnerability

Key Steps for Climate 

Change Vulnerability 

Assessment

A. Determine Objectives 

and Scope

Assessment Targets 

A critical first step in conducting a 

vulnerability assessment is to define 

your specific restoration targets, goals, 

and approaches. First, consider relevant 

mandates, goals, and objectives that already 

exist. As highlighted in Section II, many 

of these goals and objectives have been 

identified under the GLRC Strategy and 

the GLRI. From here, you can identify your 

relevant assessment targets (i.e., species, 

habitats, and/or ecosystems of concern). 

For example, one of your restoration 

objectives may be to restore connectivity of 

tributary spawning habitat for native fish 

species in a particular AOC. To determine 

the vulnerability of this project to climate 

change (e.g., whether and how climate 

change might affect your ability to reach 

your objectives) you will want to assess 

the vulnerability of the stream habitat 

in the area and, perhaps, the native 

fish species itself. You also may need to 

assess the vulnerability of your various 

restoration approaches themselves (e.g., 

culvert infrastructure). 

Geographic Scale

It also will be important early on to 

determine the appropriate spatial for your 

assessment. Again, this may be informed 

or pre-determined by an existing policy or 

program. For example, the GLRI is focused 

on specified AOCs; many project-specific 

assessments will start at that scale. Projects 

more broadly targeted to ecosystem 

resilience, on the other hand, will likely 

focus on a larger scale. Even in the former 

case, however, it will be important to 

look beyond the confines of a specific 

jurisdictional line. By its nature, climate 

change will require that we think and plan 

within the context of larger landscapes, 

even when our management needs are very 

local. The appropriate geographic scale 

must reflect both particular management 

jurisdictions or requirements, and the 

geographic requirements of the species or 

ecosystems you are targeting.

Temporal Scale 

Another primary consideration is your 

timeframe. One question that restoration 

planners will need to ask is: Will significant 

climate changes occur during the life 

span of the project? For many restoration 

projects, anticipated life span – the length 

of time that ecological services or other 

benefits are expected to accrue from the 

project – is long enough that significant 

changes will almost certainly occur. A 

restored wetland, for instance, would be 

expected to remain functional as a wetland 

for decades; restoration should thus be 

carried out in a way that maximizes the 

chance the wetland will remain functional 

regardless of future changes in factors such 

as lake level and precipitation. Indeed, 

as noted below, many regions, including 

the Great Lakes, are already experiencing 
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 45

changes consistent with climate change. 

Accordingly, even projects that might be 

considered over a shorter life span should 

at least recognize any of the climate 

conditions under which they are being 

developed that likely no longer reflect 

historical conditions.

Once you have determined your objectives/

targets and geographical/temporal scales, 

gather the relevant data and expertise to 

help you assess the vulnerability of your 

project. For many projects, much of the 

information you will need may be available 

in scientific literature. You also may want to 

inquire with outside experts for their input. 

In addition to the citations referenced in 

the following tables, Appendix B of this 

report identifies some useful sources for 

more information.

B. Assess the Components 

of Vulnerability

Assessing Sensitivity

Assessing the sensitivity of your restoration 

targets/goals to climate change requires 

knowledge of how factors such as the 

life-cycle and habitat needs of species, the 

components and structure of habitats, 

and ecosystem processes are affected 

by climatic variables. In many cases, 

restoration project planners will already 

have at least a general sense of whether 

and how their targets are likely to be 

sensitive to general changes in these types 

of variables. Factors related to sensitivity 

to climate change will vary depending on 

whether your targets are species, habitats, 

or ecosystems (see Table A). 

Table A. Elements of Climate Change Sensitivity among Species, 

Habitats, Ecosystems

Biological 

Level

Sensitivity Factor Examples

Species Physiological factors Changes in temperature, moisture, 

CO2 concentrations, pH, salinity may 

affect a species sensitivity to climate 

change.

Dependence on sensitive 

habitats

Species that breed in vernal pools, 

ephemeral wetlands, intermittent 

streams and species that live in lowlying coastal zones are examples of 

species that will be more sensitive to 

climate change.

Ecological linkages Impacts on predators, competitors, 

prey, forage, host plants, diseases, 

parasites, etc. will affect sensitivity.

Phenological changes Events such as leafing and flowering 

of plants, emergence of insects, 

migration of birds may be affected by 

climate change.

Population growth rates Species that can quickly recover from 

low population numbers are likely to 

be less sensitive to climate change/

disruptions.

Degree of Specialization Generalist species, such as those that 

use multiple habitats, have multiple 

prey, etc. are likely to be less sensitive 

than specialists.

Reproductive strategy Species with long generation times 

and fewer offspring are likely to be 

more sensitive to climate change

Interactions with other 

stressors

Some factors may exacerbate 

sensitivity (e.g., exposure to pollutants 

may increase sensitivity to temperature 

changes).

Habitats Sensitivity of component 

species

Sensitivity of dominant species, 

ecosystem engineers, keystone 

species, etc. will influence sensitivity 

of habitat type

Community structure The level of diversity and redundancy 

of component species and functional 

groups may affect sensitivity to climate 

change.

Degree if intactness Degraded habitats may have 

insufficient species diversity or 

population sizes to resist or recover 

from flood or drought.

Ecosystems Sensitivity of component 

species

As with habitats, sensitivities of 

dominant, keystone, and indicator 

species are likely to have large 

influences on sensitivity of the 

ecosystem.

Sensitivity of ecosystem 

processes

Many ecosystem processes, such as 

decomposition, nutrient transport, 

sedimentation, streamflow, etc. are 

sensitive to changes in temperature 

and precipitation.
46 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

The recognition that many freshwater 

and marine fish species have specific 

temperature tolerances is a useful example 

of species’ sensitivity to climatic variables. 

In the Great Lakes, for instance, common 

species are classified as either warm-, 

cool-, or cold-water fish, depending on 

their optimal temperature ranges (see 

Figure A.2). Changes in temperatures can 

contribute to changes in fish distribution as 

well as fish productivity. Another example 

of sensitivity to climate change is the extent 

and composition of wetland vegetation 

types and associated wildlife species, which 

may be sensitive to changes in average 

water depths. For example, many waterbird 

species have certain preferred water depths 

for foraging.133 Accordingly, these species 

may be considered vulnerable to changes 

in average water depths due to altered 

temperature or precipitation patterns and 

relevant changes in wetland habitat. 

Assessing Exposure

The primary ways to assess exposure to 

climate change and related impacts is 

through a solid understanding of current 

regional climatology and the use of climate 

and ecological models. However, in all 

likelihood, those involved in the design 

and on-the-ground implementation of 

restoration projects will not be conducting 

sophisticated and complex climate 

modeling themselves but will instead 

rely on existing scenarios and make use 

of available downscaled projections. In 

some cases, project managers may rely on 

application of ecological models, although 

even those models may be supplanted 

or bolstered by existing studies in the 

scientific literature or by means other than 

modeling, such as consulting experts. 

Figure A.2. Common Fish Species of the Great Lakes Region, 

Grouped into Thermal Guilds.134 Source: Based on information 

provided by Brain Shuter. Credit: Amanda Walt/DG 

Communications
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 47

Climate-Related Changes

Here, we provide a few examples of 

the key climate-related changes that 

have been observed and projected 

for the Great Lakes region. In 

addition to the studies referenced 

in the following tables, Appendix B 

identifies several useful resources 

for identifying both observed and 

projected climate change impacts 

in the region. Note that for many of 

the variables, both past and future 

exposure may be strongly influenced 

by land use change.

Observed Trends 

One of the most important things 

to consider is the fact that climate 

change is not just about what will 

happen decades from now. The Great 

Lakes region is already experiencing 

significant changes consistent with 

climate change, as highlighted in 

Table B.135 Many of these trends 

are relevant for consideration in 

restoration project design and 

implementation in the short 

term, even as projections remain 

unavailable or uncertain. 

Projected Climate Change

While many planners, designers, and 

others commonly integrate future 

conditions, including uncertainty, into 

their thinking, doing so is novel for 

many, and climatic uncertainty has 

been less commonly addressed than 

political or social uncertainty. Table 14 

provides a general (i.e., not comprehensive) 

list of projections that will be important for 

restoration project design. These are not 

Table B. 20th Century Climate Trends for the Great Lakes Region

Temperature Average annual temperatures have increased across the region since 

the mid-1950s, especially in winter months.136

The date of the last spring freeze occurs about one week earlier and 

the length of the growing season is about one week longer than it was 

in the early 20th century.137

Precipitation Increases in fall precipitation since the mid-1900s is resulting in 

increased annual mean and low flow of streams, without any changes 

in annual high flow.138

There has been an increase in average annual lake effect snow during 

the 20th century, which may be a result of warmer Great Lakes surface 

waters and decreased ice cover.139

There has been a doubling in the frequencies of heavy rain events 

(defined as occurring on average once per year during the past 

century) and an increase in the number of individual rainy days, 

short-duration (1-7 days) heavy rain events, and week-long heavy rain 

events.140,141

Hydrology Since 1960, average spring snow cover has decreased, followed by 

earlier dates for spring melt, and peak stream flow and lake levels.142

Ice and snow cover and duration have decreased across the Great 

Lakes, more rapid than any changes that have occurred over at least 

the last 250 years (1975-2004).143

There has been a significant shift in the timing and range of the 

seasonal hydrological cycle for Lake Michigan-Huron over the past 

century, with greatest changes occurring during winter and spring as 

snowmelt and runoff are shifting earlier in the year.144, 145

The formation of ice on inland lakes is occurring later in the year than 

it did a century ago, and a there is a shorter overall duration of winter 

lake ice, with some years being entirely ice-free.146

There has been a significant decrease in Lake Michigan annual 

maximum ice concentration, from its long-term (1963-2001) average 

of 33% to the most recent 4-year average (1998-2001) of 23%, 

setting a new record low.147

Great Lakes near-shore water temperatures (measured at Sault Ste. 

Marie and Put-In-Bay) have been rising about 0.1 degree C per 

decade, accompanied by an increase in the duration of summer 

stratification of more than two weeks, since the early 1900s.148

Lake Superior summer (July-September) surface water temperatures 

have increased approximately 2.5 degrees C over the interval 

1979-2006, significantly in excess of regional atmospheric warming. 

The discrepancy is caused by declining winter ice cover, which 

is causing the onset of the positively stratified season to occur 

earlier and increasing the period over which the lake warms during 

summer months.149

Ecological 

Impacts

Plants are leafing out and blooming up to two weeks earlier in spring 

than they did in the early- to mid-1900s.150
48 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

predictions of what will be – no one has 

a crystal ball. Rather, they are projections 

based on studies using a range of models, 

approaches, and assumptions, and they 

represent a range of levels of uncertainty. 

For example, some projections – such as 

for temperatures – show considerable 

agreement across multiple studies, while 

others – such as for Great Lakes water 

levels – do not. These discrepancies can 

be due to a number of factors, such as 

which emissions scenarios and/or models 

are used. One way to interpret these 

discrepancies is from the perspective of the 

level of confidence you might place on any 

given set of projections. 

Before highlighting some of the recent 

projections for climate change in the 

Great Lakes region, we address three key 

questions project developers should ask 

about climate scenarios: how much detail 

they really need, at what scale they need it, 

and, if they need detailed scenarios, what 

set of scenarios to use.

• Level of Detail. In general, the level of 

detail you need in projections of future 

climate is roughly the level of detail about 

current climatic conditions you typically 

use in developing project plans. If you use 

hard numbers for maximum expected 

rainfall per 24-hour period, first frost date, 

or growing degree-days, it may be useful 

to you to get numerical projections for 

the variables you use. For many planning 

decisions, however, it may not be essential 

to know the specific climate projections. 

In many cases, knowing the general 

direction and range of likely changes 

(e.g., warmer water temperatures, higher 

spring streamflows, less winter ice cover) 

will be sufficient to make some general 

planning decisions. Often, people become 

too invested in the details of the particular 

scenarios they are using, or become 

distracted from their overall goals in favor 

of debating the certainty or plausibility of 

particular scenarios. People may also invest 

significant time and resources on issues 

related to getting downscaled climate 

projections only to find that they have 

not even begun to address other critical 

issues such as how species may respond to 

changing conditions.

• Downscaled Climate Projections.

One of the primary concerns that resource 

managers frequently express in terms of 

incorporating climate change into their 

respective activities is the perceived lack of 

sufficiently “downscaled” studies in terms 

of both localized projections of climate 

change and the potential responses of 

species and ecosystems to those changes.151

There have been considerable advances 

in model development in recent years, 

including methods to synthesize results 

from global climate models (GCMs) to 

a geographic scale considered to be 

better suited for resource management 

decisions. Many of the resources identified 

in Appendix B include studies using 

downscaled approaches. 

Despite their level of specificity and detail, 

downscaled models are not necessarily 

more “accurate” than models focused 

at a larger scale. Rather, the degree of 

uncertainty in these models may be equal 

to or greater than in broader-scale models, 

and no model will ever predict the future 

with complete certainty. In some cases, 

broader regional projections may suffice in 

informing restoration decisions. In others, 

even downscaled model results might not 

be sufficient, such as in areas where there 

is considerable diversity in geographical 

features or other factors that might 

contribute to “micro-climates” (e.g., north-
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 49

facing, highly-vegetated slopes). In these 

cases, supplementing information from 

models with on-the-ground knowledge 

and/or monitoring may be particularly 

important. In all cases, managers should 

avoid falling into a “predict and provide” 

mental framework based on the output 

of one or a few model projections. 

Nevertheless, it will be important for 

restoration project planners to work with 

scientific experts in the region to assist in 

identifying and/or developing downscaled 

projections relevant for project design 

at a localized level. The newly-formed 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives 

(LCCs) (including the Upper Midwest/Great 

Lakes LCC) and Climate Science Centers 

(including the Northeast Climate Science 

Center) will be important resources for 

scientific information on climate change 

(see Appendix B for contact information). 

• Considerations for Choosing Climate 

Change Scenarios. Which scenarios are 

most appropriate depends on factors such 

as the length of your planning horizon, the 

sensitivity of key species or processes, the 

level of confidence in the projections, and 

the level of acceptable risk. 

The suite of climate change scenarios on 

which most projections are based come 

from a set of scenarios developed by 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) in its Special Report on 

Emissions Scenarios (SRES) in 2000.152 The 

scenarios span a range of possibilities for 

future greenhouse gas emissions. The lowemissions scenarios (e.g., B1) are no longer 

plausible, given current and likely nearterm future emissions. Current emissions 

trajectories are higher than those in the 

IPCC’s highest emissions scenario, A1FI, 

but strong emissions reduction initiatives 

would allow us to track moderate emissions 

scenarios such as the IPCC’s A2 and A1B 

scenarios. These are the most commonly 

used scenarios, and have the richest data 

available for modeling and projections.

Ideally, restoration investments will endure 

for many decades to come – from that 

perspective, knowing what the climate 

might look like 50-100 years from now 

is important. However, some changes are 

likely to happen gradually over time, and 

the most significant impacts may not be 

realized within the realistic lifespan of 

project-related infrastructure. In such 

cases, it might be sufficient to plan for 

projected changes in the relative near term, 

say 20-30 years, with the understanding 

that modifications in project design and/

or implementation might be necessary 

down the road. Also, typically, near term 

projections of climate change scenarios 

have a higher degree of certainty than 

those that look farther out. This is true 

for many reasons, not least because it is 

difficult to anticipate how greenhouse 

gas emissions might change in the future, 

whereas the climate change we experience 

over the next few decades will be heavily 

influenced by past emissions. On the other 

hand, not all climate change impacts will 

happen gradually – in fact, it is likely that 

we will experience extreme events and 

even surprises along the way. Accordingly, 

designing projects to be robust to climatic 

variability and disturbances from the start 

will be important in some cases. 

Table C provides a summary of some of the 

general and downscaled climate change 

projections that have been developed for 

the Great Lakes region. These projections 

should not be considered recommended 

scenarios for your assessment. Rather, they 

represent a range of information based on 

the best available science to date.153
50 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

Ecological Responses to Climate Change 

In addition to projecting climate changes 

themselves, models can provide an 

important means for projecting possible 

responses of species, habitats, and 

ecosystems to those changes. Ecological 

response models are a critical part of 

the overall vulnerability assessment 

process, and there are numerous types 

of models available, ranging from basic 

conceptual models that provide qualitative 

descriptions and diagrams of key attributes 

and processes related to species or 

systems of concern, to detailed ecological 

models that can evaluate how climate 

change variables affect fundamental 

ecological processes. 

Table C. 21st Century Climate Change Projections for the Great Lakes Region

Temperature Based on statistical downscaling methods applied to a relatively coarse-scale atmosphere-ocean GCM 

(AOGCM), annual temperatures in the U.S. Great Lakes region are projected to increase 1.4 +/- 0.6 degrees 

C over the near term (2010-2039), by 2.0 +/- 0.7 C under lower and 3 +/- 1 C under higher emissions by 

midcentury (2040-2069) and by 3 +/- 1 C under lower and 5.0 +/- 1.2 C under higher emissions by end-ofcentury (2070-2099), relative to the historical reference period 1961-1990. Simulations also suggest seasonal 

and geographical differences in warming, consistent with recent trends.154

Precipitation The region is projected to see Increases in winter and spring precipitation of up to 20% under lower and 

30% under higher emissions are projected by end-of-century, while projections for summer and fall remain 

inconsistent.155

Average annual precipitation is projected to increase across the majority of Great Lakes basins by 2050, 

ranging from a 4.1% increase (+/- 4.9% uncertainty) for Lake Superior, 12.5% (+/- 4.5%) for Lake Michigan, 

10.9% (+/- 4.8%) for Lake Huron, 21.8% (+/- 8%) for Lake Erie, and 19% (+/- 5%) for Lake Ontario.156

Precipitation may decrease along the Southwestern edge of the Great Lakes region, however.157

Hydrology Downscaled regional projections of precipitation and air temperature changes in the four states surrounding 

Lake Michigan based on IPCC emissions scenarios suggest that impacts on streamflow on early- (water years 

2010-2039) and mid-century (water years 2040-2069) streamflow was highly variable; however, by the latecentury period (water years 2070-2099) annual streamflow was found to have increased in all rivers studied.158

Summer and fall low flows in some river basins are projected to become even lower due to higher air 

temperatures, greater evapotranspiration losses, a longer evapotranspiration/evaporation season and 

reductions in groundwater base flow.159, 160

As air temperatures increase, Great Lakes surface water temperatures are projected to increase, along with 

increases in the duration of summer stratification.161

Average lake temperatures are projected to increase 1.5 degrees C above the base case (1960-2000) by 2050 

in Lake Superior, 0.2 degrees C in Lake Michigan, 0.3 degrees C in Lake Huron, 0.8 degrees C in Lake Erie, 

and 0.37 degrees C in Lake Ontario.162

Great Lake 

Water Levels

Studies using scenarios from two of the primary GCMs project significant declines in mean Great Lake 

water levels by the 2030s due to a combination of increased evaporation and decreased runoff, including a 

22-centimeter decline under the baseline level for Lake Superior; a 72-centimeter decline for Michigan-Huron; a 

60-centimeter decline for Erie; and a 35-centimeter decline for Ontario.163, 164

Competing effects of shifting precipitation and warmer temperatures suggest little change in Great Lakes levels 

until the mid- to late-21st century, when significant net decreases are expected under higher emissions.165

According to a 2009 study that applied the output of 565 model runs from 23 different GCMs to a lake-level 

model developed by the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, the impact of climate change on Great 

Lakes water levels will vary based on which emissions scenario is used. For Lake Michigan-Huron, the median 

changes in lake levels at 2080-2094 were -0.25, -0.28, and -0.41 meters for low, medium, and high emission 

scenarios, respectively. Similar trends were projected for Lakes Erie and Ontario, while Lake Superior showed a 

relatively smaller response. Under some scenarios, lake levels rose by up to 1.5 meters.166
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 51

However, as with climate change, it is 

unlikely that on-the-ground restoration 

planners and managers will actually 

conduct extensive modeling as part of the 

planning process. More often, it will be 

important to rely on existing information 

from the scientific literature, much of 

which is based on the more complicated 

modeling work (see, for example, Table D). 

Several additional sources of information 

are listed in Appendix B under Climate 

Change Impacts. It is important to 

recognize that many of the impact studies 

incorporate two of the three components 

Table D. Summary of Climate Change Impacts on Great Lakes Coastal Wetland 

Hydrogeomorphic Site Types167

Wetland Site 

Type

Major Characteristics Main Impacts of Climate Change

Lacustrine ·	 Open to and most affected by 

Great Lakes, including water 

level fluctuations, nearshore 

currents, ice scour, and 

seiches (standing waves).

·	 Wetlands in open and 

protected bays.

·	 Varying degrees of organic 

sediment and vegetation 

development.

·	 Bathymetry, gentle to steep 

slope, dependent on degree 

of protection from lake effects 

and geology (ice scour and 

seiches).

·	 Potential for more exposure to extreme winter storms and 

less ice protection.

·	 Aquatic, submergent and emergent vegetation may migrate 

lakeward with lower levels if suitable sediment, slope, and 

seed banks exist.

·	 Drier vegetation communities (sedges, grasses, and shrubs) 

expand in current wetland.

·	 Warmer temperatures may result in vegetation community 

shifting over decades and centuries, starting with changes 

in species composition and dominance, if seed access (e.g., 

corridor, birds).

·	 Cumulative stresses may encourage spread of invasive species.

·	 Loss and contamination from increased demands for 

dredging.

·	 Mud flats exposed.

·	 Less interspersion.

Riverine ·	 Occur near the mouth of 

tributaries to and connecting 

channels of the Great Lakes.

·	 Water quality, inflow and 

sediment loading are strongly 

influenced by runoff from the 

watershed but also affected by 

the lake.

·	 Often protected from waves.

·	 Types include: open to the 

lake, along connecting 

channels, behind barrier bars, 

and in delta.

·	 Steep river bank and river 

channel, with flat flood plain.

·	 More variable river flooding regimes affect wetland which 

can lessen influence of lake levels.

·	 More sedimentation from more extreme precipitation events 

causing more erosion upstream; vegetation covered with 

sediments and fish and wildlife habitat adversely affected.

·	 Lower flows may increase pollutant concentrations.

·	 Warmer water temperatures decrease dissolved oxygen.

·	 May be able to migrate toward river-mouth as levels decline 

but dependent on sediment, slope, and seed bank.

·	 Warmer temperatures may result in vegetation community 

shift over decades and centuries, starting with changes in 

species composition and dominance.

·	 Cumulative stresses may encourage spread of invasive 

species.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

(table continued on page 52)
52 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

of vulnerability: sensitivity and exposure. 

Thus, they fit into the top three boxes 

of the framework illustrated in Figure 

A.1, above. As we describe below and 

elsewhere in this guidance, assessing the 

other key component – adaptive capacity 

– may require additional attention in the 

restoration planning process. 

Assessing Adaptive Capacity

Determining the adaptive capacity of your 

restoration targets/objectives entails 

asking several questions, including: 

whether and how much those targets are 

already able to accommodate changes 

in climate (e.g., innate features such as 

dispersal abilities); whether and to what 

extent barriers exist that limit your targets’ 

adaptive capacity (e.g., natural or physical 

structures that prevent habitat migration, 

or institutional restrictions such as inability 

to manage impacts beyond existing 

jurisdictional boundaries); and are there 

additional stressors that limit the adaptive 

capacity of your targets (e.g., the presence 

of an opportunistic invasive species that 

outcompetes restored vegetation).168 Table 

E highlights elements of adaptive capacity 

for restoration targets.

Many of resources available on species/

ecosystem sensitivity also will be useful 

for determining innate features that might 

contribute to or limit adaptive capacity. 

Similarly, for regions such as the Great 

Lakes in which existing stressors have been 

extensively analyzed and documented, 

there will likely be a considerable body of 

information available to help determine 

how they might come into play with climate 

change as an added stressor. 

BarrierEnclosed·	 Occur behind a barrier beach 

formed by coastal processes.

·	 Gradual slope but barrier 

beach is an obstruction 

to downslope vegetation 

movement once a particular 

water level threshold has been 

reached.

·	 Generally protected from 

waves but may be lakeconnected during high water 

periods (or extreme storms).

·	 Varying connectivity to lake 

and influence by lake water 

levels.

·	 Includes barrier beach and 

swale complexes between 

relic beach ridges with 

decreasing lake level influence 

as move landward.

·	 More prevalent in lower lakes 

where more coastal sediments 

are available.

·	 Unable to shift lakeward with lower lake levels so gradual 

drying of wetland; dominated by meadow, shrub, and tree 

communities with associated shift in diversity, productivity, 

and habitat value.

·	 Drying may increase risk of fire.

·	 Shifting coastal processes may alter barrier or re-form a 

lakeward one.

·	 Warmer temperatures may result in vegetation community 

shift over decades and centuries, starting with changes in 

species composition and dominance, if seed access (e.g., 

corridor, birds).

·	 Warmer water temperatures decrease dissolved oxygen.

·	 Cumulative stresses may encourage spread of invasive 

species.

·	 Wetland area decreases.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

(table continued from page 51)
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 53

C. Summarize Vulnerability

Once you have an understanding of the how 

each of the components of vulnerability 

applies to your project goals/approaches, 

the next step in the assessment process 

is to summarize overall vulnerability 

based on your findings.169 Vulnerability 

assessments can provide two essential 

types of information needed for restoration 

planning: 1) identifying which species 

or systems are likely to be most strongly 

affected by projected changes, and 2) 

understanding why they are likely to be 

vulnerable. This information will help you 

set priorities as well as provide a basis 

for developing appropriate management 

responses. How to characterize the results 

of your vulnerability assessment may 

range from a general determination of the 

relative degree of vulnerability (e.g., low, 

medium, high), to detailed narratives that 

delve into specific information regarding 

your assumptions, results, etc. The more 

descriptive you are in your assessment 

results, the more useful the information 

is likely to be in helping you determine 

possible management approaches. Tables 

1-9 in Section IV of this guidance illustrate 

how one might characterize vulnerability 

for several hypothetical Great Lakes 

restoration projects.

More detailed information about climate 

change vulnerability assessments, along 

with a number of case studies, can be found 

in Glick, P., B.A. Stein, and N.A. Edelson, 

editors. 2011. Scanning the Conservation 

Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change 

Vulnerability Assessment. National 

Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.: 

www.nwf.org/vulnerabilityguide. 

Table E. Elements of Adaptive Capacity among Species, Habitats, and Ecosystems

Biological 

Level

Adaptive Capacity Factor Examples

Species Plasticity The ability for a species to modify its physiology or behavior to 

synchronize with changing conditions or coexist with different 

competitors, predators, etc.

Dispersal abilities Some species may be able to disperse over long distances (e.g., seeds 

may be carried to new areas by birds). Other species, such as those 

that have evolved in patchy or rare habitats, may have lower dispersal 

ability.

Evolutionary potential Traits such as generation time, genetic diversity, and population size 

can affect the ability of species to adapt evolutionarily to climate 

change. For example, populations with high genetic diversity for traits 

related to climate tolerance are more likely to contain individuals with 

heritable traits that reduce sensitivity.

Habitats Permeability of landscape More permeable landscapes with fewer barriers to dispersal and/

or seasonal migration will likely result in greater adaptive capacity. 

Relative permeability of a landscape may depend on natural and 

anthropogenic factors

Ecosystems Redundancy and response 

diversity within functional 

groups

In ecological communities, functional groups can include primary 

producers, herbivores, carnivores, decomposers, etc. In systems where 

each functional group is represented by multiple species and the 

response to environmental change varies significantly among species 

in the group, the system’s resilience to climate change is likely to be 

higher.
54 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

Assessing the vulnerability of species, habitats, or ecosystems to most stressors, and certainly to climate change, 

is complex, and there are different levels of certainty and confidence in each piece of scientific information and 

expert knowledge that are integrated together to produce a vulnerability assessment. Uncertainty is a reality: 

No one knows exactly how climate may change or how ecological or human systems may respond to change, 

in any particular location. Nevertheless, management decisions can proceed in the face of uncertainty. A useful 

way to characterize uncertainty in the assessment process is the level of confidence in a given input or outcome. 

In some instances we will have a high level of confidence in some or all of the parts determining climate change 

vulnerability, and in other cases we may be less certain in one or more of the vulnerability factors.

The goal should be to use the best available information on the uncertainties involved in estimating vulnerability, 

while recognizing that it may be necessary to reassess vulnerability and the associated uncertainties in an iterative 

fashion as new information becomes available. Being transparent about the general magnitude of uncertainty 

and understanding the range of possibilities given the uncertainty allows managers to articulate the reasoning for 

making a decision.

Box A.1. Addressing Uncertainty in Vulnerability Assessments

Anne de Haas Photography
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 55

Organizations and 

Web-Based Resources

• The Upper Midwest/Great Lakes LCC 

website: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/

climate/LCC/UpperMidwest.

• The Northeast Climate Science Center 

website: http://www.doi.gov/whatwedo/

climate/strategy/Northeast_CSC.cfm. 

• Researchers at the University of Michigan 

have recently compiled an annotated 

bibliography on some useful resources, 

including direct links to the respective 

publications: http://snre.umich.edu/

events/2011-03-31/assisting_great_

lakes_coastal_communities_with_climate_

change_adaptation_master039.170 

• The Climate Adaptation Knowledge 

Exchange (CAKE) website also provides 

an extensive, searchable selection of 

climate change information and resources, 

which is being regularly updated: 

http://www.cakex.org.

• NOAA’s Coastal Services Center has 

a website dedicated to providing key 

resources on coastal adaptation, including 

relevant climate science and impacts: 

http://collaborate.csc.noaa.gov/

climateadaptation/default.aspx. 

• The NOAA-funded Great Lakes 

Regional Integrated Sciences and 

Assessments (GLISA) program conducts 

research on regional and localized impacts 

of climate change: http://www.graham.

umich.edu/centers/glisa.php

• Regional Sea Grant offices also 

are a good resource for climate change 

information: http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/

seagrant/, as is the Wisconsin Initiative 

on Climate Change Impacts: http://

www.wicci.wisc.edu/.

Climate Change Trends 

and Projections 

• The following study provides useful 

“downscaled” climate change projections 

for the region: Hayhoe, K., J. VanDorn, T. 

Croley II, N. Schlegal, and D. Wuebbles. 

2010. Regional climate change projections 

for Chicago and the U.S. Great Lakes. Journal 

of Great Lakes Research 36: 7-21. http://

www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.

jglr.2010.03.012. 

• In 2000, the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program undertook a comprehensive 

national assessment of climate change 

impacts in the United States, with 

summaries focused on the Great Lakes 

and other regions. While there have 

been more recent modeling efforts, these 

assessments provide a useful foundation: 

Sousounis, P.J. and J.M. Bisanz, editors. 

2000. Preparing for a Changing Climate: 

The Potential Consequences of Climate 

Variability and Change, Great Lakes. 

U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

Appendix B. 

Additional Resources
56 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

Change and Water Quality in the Great Lakes 

Region: Risks, Opportunities, and Responses

(2003): http://www.ijc.org/rel/pdf/

climate_change_2003_part3.pdf.

• Environment Canada also has published 

a detailed vulnerability assessment for 

coastal wetland communities, with a focus on 

lake level changes: Mortsch, L., J. Ingram, A. 

Hebb, and S. Doka. 2003. Great Lakes Coastal 

Wetland Communities: Vulnerabilities to 

Climate Change and Response to Adaptation 

Options. http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/

projdb/pdf/86b_e.pdf. 

Climate Change 

Adaptation

• The U.S. Climate Change Science Program 

(CCSP) has developed a Preliminary Review 

of Adaptation Options for Climate-sensitive 

Ecosystems and Resources (2008): http://

downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/

sap4-4/sap4-4-final-report-all.pdf. 

• The Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies has developed Voluntary 

Guidance for States to Incorporate 

Climate Change into State Wildlife 

Action Plans and Other Management 

Plans (2009): http://www.fws.gov/

southwest/Climatechange/docs/

afwaClimatechangeGuidanceDcument_

UpdatedSept3_FINAL.pdf.

• In addition, numerous articles on the 

subject are available in the scientific 

literature.171, 172, 173

Washington, D.C. http://www.gcrio.

org/NationalAssessment/greatlakes/

greatlakes.pdf. 

• Mortsch and Quinn (1996) compiled a 

range of possible climate change scenarios 

for use in Great Lakes Basin ecosystem 

studies, based on results from running 

several general circulation models under 

a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 

present (1990s) levels (which is plausible 

by mid-century). They project both direct 

and indirect impacts on the Great Lakes 

ecosystem, including significant spatial 

variability on a tributary river-basin scale. 

http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_41/

issue_5/0903.pdf. 

Climate Change 

Impact Studies

• The Union of Concerned Scientists 

report, Confronting Climate Change 

in the Great Lakes Region (2003) and 

accompanying website provide a 

comprehensive summary of the state of the 

science of climate change and its impacts 

in the region: http://www.ucsusa.org/

greatlakes.

• The National Park Service has developed 

a useful summary guide, Understanding the 

Science of Climate Change: Talking Points – 

Impacts to the Great Lakes (2010): http://

www.nature.nps.gov/climatechange/

docs/GreatLakesTP.pdf. 

• Researchers at Environment Canada/

University of Waterloo and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency compiled 

an excellent overview report for the 

Great Lakes Water Quality Board of the 

International Joint Commission, Climate 
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 57

1 U.S. Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change 

Impacts in the United States. Karl, T.R., J.M. 

Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds.). Cambridge 

University Press, New York, NY.

2 Parmesan, C. and H. Galbraith. 2004. 

Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change 

in the U.S. Pew Center on Global Climate 

Change, Arlington, VA.

3 Kelly, A.E. and M.L. Goulden. 2008. Rapid 

shifts in plant distribution with recent 

climate change. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences 105: 11823-11826.

4 Root, T. and L. Hughes. 2005. Present and 

future phenological changes in wild plands 

and animals. Pages 61-69 in T.E. Lovejoy 

and L. Hannah (eds.) Climate Change 

and Biodiversity. Yale University Press, 

New Haven, CT.

5 Choi, Y.D., V.M. Temperton, E.B. Allen, 

A.P. Grootjans, M. Halassy, R.J. Hobbs, 

M.A. Naeth, and K. Torok. 2008. Ecological 

restoration for future sustainability 

in a changing environment. Ecoscience

15: 53-64.

6 Milly, P.C.D., J. Bentancourt, M. 

Falkenmark, R.M. Hirsch, Z.W. Kundzewicz, 

D.P. Lettenmaier, and R.J. Stouffer. 2008. 

Stationarity is dead: Whither water 

management? Science 319: 573-574.

7National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA). 2010a. 

Programmatic Framework for Considering 

Climate Change in Coastal Investments. 

NOAA Office of Coastal and Resource 

Management and Office of Habitat 

Conservation, Silver Spring, MD.

8 Bails, J., A. Beeton, J. Bulkley, M. 

DePhilip, J. Gannon, M. Murray, H. Regier, 

and D. Scavia. 2005. Prescription for 

Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection and 

Restoration (Avoiding the Tipping Point of 

Irreversible Changes). 

9 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). 

2010. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative 

(GLRI) Action Plan FY2010-FY2014. 

White House Council on Environmental 

Quality; U.S. Department of Agriculture; 

U.S. Department of Commerce; U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services; 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security; 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development; U.S. Department of State; U.S. 

Department of the Army; U.S. Department 

of the Interior; U.S. Department of 

Transportation; and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.

10 Ibid, p. 8.

11 USGCRP 2009. 

12 Magnuson, J.J. 2002. Signals from ice 

cover trends and variability. In Fisheries 

in a Changing Climate. N.A. McGinn, ed. 

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

13 McCormick, M.J. and G.L. Fahnenstiel. 

1999. Recent climatic trends in nearshore 

water temperatures in the St. Lawrence 

Great Lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 

44: 530-540.

14 USGCRP 2009.

Endnotes
58 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

15 Groisman, P.Ya., R.W. Knight, T.R. Karl, 

D.R. Easterling, B. Sun, and J.H. Lawrimore. 

2004. Contemporary changes in the 

hydrological cycle over the contiguous 

United States, trends derived from in situ 

observations. Journal of Hydrometeorology 

5: 64-85. 

16NOAA 2010a.

17 Rahel, F.J., B. Bierwagen, and Y. Taniguchi. 

2008. Managing aquatic species of 

conservation concern in the face of climate 

change and invasive species. Conservation 

Biology 22: 551-561.

18 Mortsch, L.D. 1998. Assessing the impact 

of climate change on the Great Lakes 

shoreline wetlands. Climatic Change 40: 

391-416.

19 International Association for Great Lakes 

Research. 2002. Research and Management 

Priorities for Aquatic Invasive Species in the 

Great Lakes. (Available at http://www.

iaglr.org/scipolicy/ais/index.php.) 

20 Mortsch, L., M. Alden, and J.D. Scheraga. 

2003a. Climate Change and Water Quality in 

the Great Lakes Region: Risks, Opportunities, 

and Responses. A Report Prepared for the 

Great Lakes Water Quality Board of the 

International Joint Commission.

21 Messaad, I.A., E.J. Peters, and L. Young. 

2000. Thermal tolerance of red shiner 

(Cyprinella lutrensis) after exposure to 

Atrazine, Terbufos, and their mixtures. 

Bulletin of Environmental Contamination 

and Toxicology 64: 748-754.

22Hansen, L. and J. Hoffman. 2011. Climate 

Savvy. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

23 Mastandrea, M.D., N.H. Heller, T.L. Root, 

and S.H. Schneider. 2010. Bridging the gap: 

Linking climate-impacts research with 

adaptation planning and management. 

Climatic Change 100: 87-101.

24Hoffman, J. 2010. “Adapting conservation 

and management to climate change: An 

overview.” Presentation for the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Climate Change Webinar 

Series, February 9, 2010. http://training.

fws.gov/EC/Resources/csp_climate_

change_series/ClimateChangeWebinars_

NCTC.html. Accessed March 4, 2011.

25 The Nature Conservancy. “Adapting 

to Climate Change: Inundation on the 

Albermarle Sound.” http://www.nature.

org/initiatives/climatechange/work/

art26197.html. Accessed March 4, 2011.

 

26 Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change 

Impacts (WICCI). 2011a. Wisconsin’s 

Changing Climate: Impacts and Adaptation. 

Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, 

University of Wisconsin-Madison and 

the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. http://

www.wicci.wisc.edu/publications.php. 

Accessed March 4, 2011.

27 Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change 

Impacts. 2011b. Coldwater Fish and 

Fisheries Working Group Report. http://

www.wicci.wisc.edu/report/ColdwaterFish-and-Fisheries.pdf. Accessed 

March 4, 2011.

28 NOAA. 2010b. Adapting to Climate 

Change: A Planning Guide for State Coastal 

Managers. Office of Ocean and Coastal 

Resource Management, Silver Spring, MD.

29 Williams, J.W. and S.T. Jackson. 2007. 

Novel climates, no-analog communities and 
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 59

ecological surprises. Paleoecology

5: 475-482.

30 Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, J.D. Allan, 

P.S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. 

Clayton, C.N. Dahm, J. Follstad Shah, D.L. 

Galat, S.G. Loss, P. Goodwin, D.D. Hart, B. 

Hassett, R. Jenkinson, G.M. Kondolf, R. Lave, 

J.L. Meyer, T.K. O’Donnell, L. Pagano, and E. 

Sudduth. 2005. Standards for ecologically 

successful river restoration. Journal of 

Applied Ecology 42: 208-217.

31 Hannah, L., G. Midgley, S. Andelman, M. 

Araújo, G. Hughes, E. Martinez-Meyer, R. 

Pearson, and P. Williams. 2007. Protected 

area needs in a changing climate. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 

5: 131-138.

32 Simenstad, C., D. Reed, and M. Ford. 

2006. When is restoration not? 

Incorporating landscape-scale processes 

to restore self-sustaining ecosystems into 

coastal wetland restoration. Ecological 

Engineering 26: 27-39.

 

33 Gunderson, L.H. 2000. Ecological 

resilience – in theory and application. 

Annual Review of Ecological Systems

31: 425-439.

34 Palmer et al. 2005.

35 Gunderson, L.H. 2000. Ecological 

resilience – in theory and application. 

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 

31: 425-439

36 Skidmore, P., C. Thorne, B. Cluer, G. Pess, 

T. Beechie, J. Castro, and C. Shea. 2009. 

Science Base and Tools for Evaluating 

Stream Engineering, Management, and 

Restoration Proposals. NOAA Fisheries and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

37 Heller, N.E. and E.S. Zavaleta. 2009. 

Biodiversity management in the face of 

climate change: A review of 22 years of 

recommendations. Biological Conservation 

142: 14-32.

38 Galatowitsch, S., L. Frelich, and L.PhillipsMao. 2009. Regional climate change 

adaptation strategies for biodiversity 

conservation in a midcontinental region 

of North America. Biological Conservation 

142: 2010-2022.

39 Lawler, J.J., T.H. Tear, C. Pyke, R. Shaw, P. 

Gonzalez, P. Kareiva, L. Hansen, L. Hannah, 

K. Klausmeyer, A. Aldous, C. Bienz, and S. 

Pearsall. 2010. Resource management in a 

changing and uncertain climate. Frontiers in 

Ecology and the Environment 8: 35-43.

40 Root. T.L. and S.H. Schneider. 2002. 

Climate change: Overview and implications 

for wildlife, p. 1-56. In: Wildlife Responses 

to Climate Change: North American Case 

Studies. S.H. Schneider and T.L. Root (eds.). 

Island Press, Washington, D.C.

41 NOAA Great Lakes Habitat Restoration 

Program website: http://www.habitat.

noaa.gov/restoration/programs/

greatlakes.html. Accessed January 

13, 2011.

42 GLRI 2010.

 

43 Coastal Resources Center, University of 

Rhode Island and International Resources 

Group. 2009. Adapting to Coastal Climate 

Change: A Guidebook for Development 

Planners. U.S. Agency for International 

Development, Washington, D.C.

44 Gunderson 2000.
60 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

45 Glick, P., A. Staudt, and B. Stein. 2009. 

A New Era for Conservation: Review 

of Climate Change Adaptation Literature. 

National Wildlife Federation, Washington, 

D.C.

46 Haddad, N.M. 2008. Finding the corridor 

more traveled. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences 105: 19659-19570.

47 Glick, P., B. A. Stein, and N.A. Edelson, 

editors. 2011. Scanning the Conservation 

Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change 

Vulnerability Assessment. National Wildlife 

Federation, Washington, D.C.

48 Mortsch et al. 2003a.

49 McBean, E. and H. Motiee. 2008. 

Assessment of impact of climate change on 

water resources: a long term analysis of the 

Great Lakes of North America. Hydrology 

and Earth System Sciences 12: 239-255.

50 Walker, R. 2001. Climate change 

assessment at a watershed scale. 

Proceedings of the Water and Environment 

Association of Ontario Conference. 3 April, 

Toronto, Canada.

51 Mortsch et al. 2003a.

52 Ibid.

53 Lenters, J. 2001. Long-term trends in 

the seasonal cycle of Great Lakes water 

levels. Journal of Great Lakes Research

27: 342-353.

54 Mortsch 1998. 

55 Lofgren, B.M., F.H. Quinn, A.H. Clites, R.A. 

Assal, A.J. Eberhardt, and C.L. Luukkonen. 

2002. Evaluation of potential impacts on 

Great Lakes water resources based on two 

GCM climate scenarios. Journal of Great 

Lakes Research 28: 537-544.

56 Mortsch et al. 2003a.

57 Burnett, A., M. Kirby, H. Mullins, and 

W. Patterson. 2003. Increasing Great 

Lake-effect snowfall during the twentieth 

century: A regional response to global 

warming? Journal of Climate 16: 3535-

3542.

58 Ibid.

59 Lenters 2001.

60 Mortsch 1998.

61 Galatowitsch, S.M., N.O Anderson, and 

P.D. Aschen. 1999. Invasiveness in wetland 

plants in temperate North America. 

Wetlands 19: 733-755.

62 Mortsch 1998.

63 Koonce, J., W. Busch, and T. Czapia. 1996. 

Restoration of Lake Erie: Contribution 

of water quality and natural resource 

management. Canadian Journal of Fish and 

Aquatic Sciences 53: 105-112.

64 Gabriel, A., and R. Kreutzwiser. 1993. 

Drought hazard in Ontario: A review of 

impacts, 1960-1989, and management 

implications. Canadian Water Resources 

Journal 18: 117-132.

65 Wires, L.R., S.J. Lewis, g.J. Soulliere, S.W. 

Matteson, D.V. “Chip” Weseloh, R.P. Russell, 

and F.J.Cuthbert. 2010. Upper Mississippi 

Valley/Great Lakes Waterbird Conservation 

Plan. A plan associated with the Waterbird 

Conservation for the Americas Initiative. 

Final Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 61

66 Schreiner, D.R., K.I. Cullis, M.C. Donofrio, 

G.J. Fischer, L. Hewitt, K.G. Mumford, 

D.M. Pratt, H.R. Quinlan, S.J. Scott. 2008. 

Management perspectives on coaster brook 

trout rehabilitation in the Lake Superior 

Basin. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 28: 1350-1364.

67 Huckins, C.J., E.A. Baker, K.D. Fausch, 

and J.B.K. Leonard. 2008. Ecology and life 

history of coaster brook trout and potential 

bottlenecks in their rehabilitation. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 

28: 1321-1342.

68 Pilgrim, J.M., X. Fang, and H.G. Stefan. 

1998. Stream temperature correlations 

with air temperatures in Minnesota: 

Implications for climate warming. Journal 

of the American Water Resources Association

34: 1109-1121.

69 Burnett et al. 2003.

70 Austin, J.A. and S.M. Colman. 2007. Lake 

Superior summer water temperatures 

are increasing more rapidly than regional 

air temperatures: A positive ice-albedo 

feedback. Geophysical Research Letters

34: L06604.

71 Ibid.

72 Lenters 2001.

73 Wang, L., J. Lyons, and P. Kanehl. 2002. 

Effects of watershed best management 

practices on habitat and fish in Wisconsin 

streams. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association 38: 663-680.

74 Meisner, J.D., J.L. Goodier, H.A. Regier, 

B.J. Shuter, and W.J. Christie. 2009. An 

assessment of the effects of climate 

warming on Great Lakes Basin fishes. 

Journal of Great Lakes Research 

13: 340-352.

75 Christie, G.C., and H.A. Regier. 1988. 

Measures of optimal thermal habitat 

and their relationship to yields of four 

commercial fish species. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

45: 301-314.

76 Sousounis, P.J. and J.M. Bisanz, editors. 

2000. Preparing for a Changing Climate: 

The Potential Consequences of Climate 

Variability and Change, Great Lakes 

Overview. A Report of the Great Lakes 

Regional Assessment Group for the 

U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

Washington, D.C.

77 Jensen, O.P., B.J. Benson, J.J. Magnuson, 

V.M. Card, M.N. Futter, P.A. Soranno, and 

K.M. Stewart. 2007. Spatial analysis of ice 

phenology trends across the Laurentian 

Great Lakes region during a recent warming 

period. Limnology and Oceanography 52: 

2013-2026.

78 McCormick and Fahnenstiel 1999.

79 McKenna, J.E., Jr. and J.H. Johnson. 

2008. Spatial and temporal variation in 

distribution of larval lake whitefish in 

Eastern Lake Ontario: Signs of recovery? 

Journal of Great Lakes Research 35: 94-100.

80 Rahel, F.J. and J.D. Olden. 2008. Assessing 

the effects of climate change on aquatic 

invasive species. Conservation Biology 22: 

521-533.

81 McDonald, D.G. and C.S. Kolar. 2007. 

Research to guide the use of lampricides 

in controlling sea lamprey. Journal of Great 

Lakes Research 33: 20-34.
62 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

82 McBean and Motiee 2008.

83 Austin and Colman 2007.

84 McCormick and Fahnenstiel 1999.

85 Ibid.

86 Lenters 2001.

87 Moody, E.K., B.C. Weidel, T.D. Ahrenstorff, 

W.P. Mattes, and J.F. Kitchell. 2010. 

Evaluating the growth potential of sea 

lampreys (Petromyzon marinus) feeding on 

siscowet lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) 

in Lake Superior. Journal of Great Lakes 

Research. doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2011.01.007.

88 Hochanadel, D. “Sea lamprey increase 

could be due to rising Lake Superior 

temperatures.” Lake Scientist, March 

1, 2010. http://www.lakescientist.

com/2010/sea-lamprey-increasecould-be-due-to-rising-lake-superiortemperatures. Accessed March 7, 2011.

89 Climate Change Increases Sea Lamprey 

Impact in Lake Superior. University of 

Wisconsin Sea Grant. http://seagrant.

wisc.edu/home/Topics/ClimateChange.

aspx. Accessed May 17, 2011.

90 Snucins, E. and J. Gunn. 2000. 

Interannual variation in the thermal 

structure of clear and colored lakes. 

Limnology and Oceanography 45: 

1639-1646.

91 McCormick and Fahnenstiel 1999.

92 Blumbert, A. and D. Di Toro. 1990. Effects 

of climate warming on dissolved oxygen 

concentrations in Lake Erie. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society

119: 210-223.

93 Hesslein, R.H., M.A. Turner, S.E.M. 

Kasian, and D.Guss. 2001. The Potential 

for Climate Change to Interact with the 

Recovery of Boreal Lakes from Acidification 

– A Preliminary Investigation using ELA’s 

Database. Report prepared for the Climate 

Change Action Fund.

94 Gaur, J.P. and A.K. Singh. 1991. Regulatory 

influence of light and temperature on 

petroleum toxicity to Anabaena doliolum. 

Environmental Toxicology 6: 341-350.

95 Blaustein, A.R. and D.B. Wake. 1990. 

Declining amphibian populations – a 

global phenomenon. Trends in Ecology and 

Evolution 5: 203-204.

96 Casper, G.S. 2009. Vulnerability to 

climate change in amphibians and reptiles. 

Presentation to Lake Michigan State of the 

Lake Conference, 29 September 2009. 

97 Save our Rice Alliance. Wild Rice 

Conservation. http://www.saveourrice.

org/wild_rice_conservation.html.

Accessed March 8, 2011.

98 Mortsch 1998.

99 Lofgren et al. 2002.

100 Mortsch et al. 2003a.

101 Burnett et al. 2003.

102 Ibid.

103 Lenters 2001.

104 Thompson, A.L. and C.S. Luthin. 

2010. Wetland Restoration Handbook 

for Wisconsin Landowners. 2nd Printing. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, Madison, WI.
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 63

105 Schramm, A. and R. Loehman. 2010. 

Understanding the Science of Climate 

Change: Talking Points – Impacts to the 

Great Lakes. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, CO.

106 USGCRP 2009. 

107 Heller and Zavaleta 2009.

108 Glick, P., A. Staudt, and B. Stein. 2009. 

A New Era for Conservation: Review of 

Climate Change Adaptation Literature. 

National Wildlife Federation, Washington, 

D.C.

109 Wilby, R.L., H. Orr, G. Watts, R.W. 

Battarbee, P.M. Berry, R. Chadd, S.J. 

Dugdale, M.J. Dunbar, J.A. Elliott, C. Extence, 

D.M. Hannah, N. Holmes, A.C. Johnson, 

B. Knights, N.J. Milner, S.J. Ormerod, D. 

Solomon, R. Timlett, P.J. Whitehead, and P.J. 

Wood. 2010. Evidence needed to manage 

freshwater ecosystems in a changing 

climate: Turning adaptation principles into 

practice. Science of the Total Environment 

408: 4150-4164.

110 Johnston, C.A., and B.A. Shmagin. 2008. 

Regionalization, seasonality, and trends of 

streamflow in the U.S. Great Lakes Basin. 

Journal of Hydrology 362: 69-88.

111 Malcolm, I.A., D.M. Hannah, M.J. 

Donaghy, C. Soulsby, and A.F. Youngston. 

The influence of riparian woodland on the 

spatial and temporal variability of stream 

water temperatures in an upland salmon 

stream. Hydrology and Earth System 

Sciences 8: 449-459.

112 Lawler, J.J., T.H. Tear, C. Pyke, R. Shaw, P. 

Gonzalez, P. Kareiva, L. Hansen, L. Hannah, 

K. Klausmeyer, a. Aldous, C. Bienz, and S. 

Pearsall. 2010. Resource management in a 

changing and uncertain climate. Frontiers in 

Ecology and the Environment 8: 35-43.

113 Peterson, G.D., G.S. Cummings, and S.R. 

Carpenter. 2003. Scenario planning: A tool 

for conservation in an uncertain world. 

Conservation Biology 17: 358-366.

 

114 Hayhoe, K., J. VanDorn, T. Croley II, N. 

Schlegal, and D. Wuebbles. 2010. Regional 

climate change projections for Chicago and 

the U.S. Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes 

Research 36: 7-21.

115 Angel, J.R., and K.E. Kunkel. 2010. The 

response of Great Lakes water levels to 

future climate scenarios with an emphasis 

on Lake Michigan-Huron. Journal of Great 

Lakes Research 36 (Supplement 2): 51-58.

116 Sousounis and Bisanz 2000.

117 Mortsch et al. 2003a.

118 Mortsch 1998. 

119 Chow-Fraser, P. 2005. Ecosystem 

response to changes in water level of 

Lake Ontario marshes: lessons from the 

restoration of Cootes Paradise Marsh. 

Hydrobiologia 539: 189-204.

120 Mortsch. L., H. Hengeveld, M. Lister, 

B. Lofgren, F. Quinn, M. Silvitzky, and L. 

Wenger. 2000. Climate change impacts 

on the hydrology of the Great LakesSt. Lawrence system. Canadian Water 

Resources Journal 25: 153-179.

121 Bedford, B., R. Emanuel, J. Erickson, 

S. Rettigh, R. Richards, S. Skavroneck, M. 

Vepraskas, R. Walters, and D. Willard. 

1976. An Analysis of the International Great 

Lakes Levels board Report on Regulation 
64 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

of Great Lakes Water Levels: Wetlands, 

Fisheries, and Water Quality. RF Monograph 

76-04, IES Working Paper 30, Institute 

for Environmental Studies, University of 

Wisconsin-Madison, 92 pp.

122 Hayhoe et al. 2010.

123 Hansen and Hoffman 2011.

124 Ibid.

125 Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. 

Shapiro. 2007. Adaptive Management: The 

U.S. Department of the Interior Technical 

Guide. Adaptive Management Working 

Group, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Washington, D.C.

 

126 Ibid.

127 Ojima, D., and R. Corell. 2009. 

Adaptation to land use and global change 

thresholds. IOP Conference Series: Earth 

and Environmental Science 6: 342012. 

Doi:10.1088/1755-1307/6/4/342012.

128 Climate Change Wildlife Action Plan 

Working Group. 2008. Voluntary Guidance 

for States to Incorporate Climate Change 

into State Wildlife Action Plans and Other 

Management Plans. Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies, Washington, D.C.

129 Monitoring Requirements under the 

Estuary Restoration Act. http://www.era.

noaa.gov/pdfs/era_mon_req.pdf

130 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (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.

131 Snover, A.K., L. Whitely Binder, J. 

Lopez, E. Willmott, J. Kay, D. Howell, 

and J. Simmonds. 2007. Preparing for 

Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, 

Regional, and State Governments. In 

association with and published by ICLEI 

– Local Governments for Sustainability, 

Oakland, CA.

132 Glick et al. 2011.

133 Tori, G.M., S. McLeod, K. McKnight, T. 

Moorman, and F.A. Reid. 2002. Wetland 

conservation and Ducks Unlimited: 

Real world approaches to multispecies 

management. Waterbirds 25: 115-121.

134 Kling, G.W., K. Hayhoe, L.B. Johnson, J.J. 

Magnuson, S. Polasky, S.K. Robinson, B.J. 

Shuter, M.M. Wander, D.J. Wuebbles, and 

D.R. Zak. 2003. Confronting Climate Change 

in the Great Lakes Region. The Union of 

Concerned Scientists and the Ecological 

Society of America, Washington, D.C.

135 Hayhoe et al. 2010.

136 USGCRP 2009.

137 Robeson, S. 2002. Increasing growingseason length in Illinois during the 20th 

century. Climatic Change 52: 219-238.

138 Small, D., S. Islam, and R. Vogel. 2006. 

Trends in precipitation and streamflow in 

the eastern U.S.: Paradox or perception? 

Geophysical Research Letters 33: LO3403.

139 Burnett et al. 2003.
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects 65

140 Kunkel, K., K. Andsager, and D. 

Easterling. 1999. Long-term trends in 

extreme precipitation events over the 

conterminous United States. Bulletin of the 

American Meteorological Society 79: 1357-

1366.

141 Angel, J. and F. Huff. 1997. Changes in 

heavy rainfall in Midwestern United States. 

Water Resources 123: 246-249.

142 Dyer, J. and T. Mote. 2006. Spatial 

variability and trends in observed snow 

depth over North America. Geophysical 

Research Letters 33: L16503.

143 Jensen, O.P., B.J. Benson, J.J. Magnuson, 

V.M. Card, M.N. Futter, P.A. Soranno, and 

K.M. Stewart. 2007. Spatial analysis of ice 

phenology trends across the Laurentian 

Great Lakes region during a recent warming 

period. Limnology and Oceanography 52: 

2013-2026.

144 Argyilan, E. and S. Forman. 2003. 

Lake level response to seasonal climatic 

variability in the Lake Michigan-Huron 

system from 1920 to 1995. Journal of Great 

Lakes Research 29: 488-500.

145 Lenters 2001.

146 Magnuson, J.J., B.J. Benson, O.P. Jensen, 

T.B. Clark, V. Card, M.N. Futter, P.A. Soprano, 

and K.M. Stewart. 2005. Persistence of 

coherence of lake ice-off dates for inland 

lakes across the Laurentian Great Lakes. 

International Association of Theoretical and 

Applied Limnology 29: 521-527.

147 Assel, R., K. Cronk, and D. Norton. 2003. 

Recent trends in Laurentian Great Lakes ice 

cover. Climatic Change 57: 185-204.

148 McCormick and Fahnenstiel 1999. 

149 Austin, J.A. and S.M. Colman. 2007. Lake 

Superior summer water temperatures 

are increasing more rapidly than regional 

air temperatures: A positive ice-albedo 

feedback. Geophysical Research Letters 34: 

L06604.

150 Bradley, N.L. A.C. Leopold, J. Ross and 

W. Huffaker. 1999. Phenological changes 

reflect climate change in Wisconsin. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences 96: 9701-9704.

151 Theoharides, K., G. Barnhart, and P. 

Glick. 2009. Climate Change Adaptation 

across the Landscape: A Survey of 

Federal and State Agencies, Conservation 

Organizations, and Academic Institutions 

in the United States. The Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Defenders 

of Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy, 

and the National Wildlife Federation, 

Washington, D.C.

152 Nakicenovic, N., J. Alcamo, G. Davis, B. 

deVries, J. Fenhann, S. Gaffin, K. Gregory, 

A. Grübler, T.Y. Jong, T. Kram, E. Lebre La 

Rovere, L. Michaelis, S. Mori, T. Morita, 

W. Pepper, H. Pitcher, L. Price, K. Riahi, 

A. Roehrl, H.-H Rogner, A. Sankovski, M. 

Schlesinger, P. Shukla, S. Smith, R. Swart, S. 

van Rooijen, N. Victor, and Z. Dadi. 2000. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change Special Report on Emissions 

Scenarios. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, U.K.

153 Mortsch, L.D. and F.H. Quinn. 1996. 

Climate change scenarios for Great Lakes 

Basin ecosystem studies. Limnology and 

Oceanography 41: 903-911.
66 Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future - 2011 

154 Hayhoe et al. 2010.

155 Ibid.

156 McBean and Motiee 2008. 

157 Gonzalez, P., R.P. Neilson, J.M. Lenihan, 

and R.J. Drapek. 2010. Global patterns 

in the vulnerability of ecosystems to 

vegetation shifts due to climate change. 

Global Ecology and Biogeography. 

doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00558.x.

158 Cherkauer, K.A. and T. Sinha. 2009. 

Hydrologic impacts of projected future 

climate change in the Lake Michigan region. 

Journal of Great Lakes Research 36: 33-50.

159 Mortsch, et al. 2003a.

160 Walker, R. 2001. Climate change 

assessment at a watershed scale. 

Proceedings of the Water and Environment 

Association of Ontario Conference. 3 April, 

Toronto, Canada.

161 Trumpickas, J., B.J. Shuter, and C.K. 

Minns. 2009. Forecasting impacts of 

climate change on Great Lakes surface 

water temperatures. Journal of Great Lakes 

Research 35: 454-463.

162 McBean and Motiee 2008.

163 Mortsch, et al. 2000.

164 Lofgren et al. 2002.

165 Hayhoe et al. 2010.

166 Angel and Kunkel 2010. 

167 Mortsch, L., J. Ingram, A. Hebb, and S. 

Doka. 2003b. Great Lakes coastal Wetland 

Communities: Vulnerabilities to Climate 

Change and Response to Adaptation 

Strategies. Final report submitted to the 

Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation 

Program, Natural Resources Canada. 

Environment Canada and the Department 

of Fisheries and Oceans, Toronto, Ontario.

168 Snover et al. 2007.

169 NOAA 2010b.

170 Katich, S., D. Forsyth, C. Shattuck, S. 

Casey, and R. Held. 2010. Assisting Great 

Lakes Coastal Communities with Climate 

Change Adaptation. University of Michigan 

School of Natural Resources, Ann Arbor, MI.

171 Lawler, J.J. 2009. Climate change 

adaptation strategies for resource 

management and conservation planning. 

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 

1162: 79-98.

172 Mawdsley, J.R., R. O’Malley, and 

D.S. Ojima. 2009. A review of climate 

change adaptation strategies for wildlife 

management and biodiversity conservation. 

Conservation Biology 23: 1080-1089.

173 West. J.M., S.H. Julius, P. Kareiva, C. 

Enquist, J.J. Lawler, B. Petersen, A.E. 

Johnson, and M.R. Shaw. 2009. U.S. 

natural resources and climate change: 

Concepts and approaches for management 

adaptation. Environmental Management 44: 

1001-1021. 
Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects
Great Lakes Regional Center

213 W. Liberty Street

Suite 200

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

734.769.3351

www.nwf.org