Being Prepared for Climate Change

A Workbook for Developing 

Risk-Based Adaptation Plans
Cover photograph: Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. From: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration/Department of Commerce, photographer Rick Crawford
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | i 

Being Prepared for Climate Change

A Workbook for Developing 

Risk-Based Adaptation Plans

Climate Ready Estuaries

EPA Office of Water

August 2014
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | ii
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | iii

Table of Contents

Preface........................................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction and How to Use This Workbook .......................................................................................................5

Vulnerability Assessment

Step 1—Communication and Consultation.........................................................................................................13

Step 2—Establishing the Context for the Vulnerability Assessment................................................................19

Step 3—Risk Identification.....................................................................................................................................23

Step 4—Risk Analysis .............................................................................................................................................35

Step 5—Risk Evaluation: Comparing Risks ..........................................................................................................45

Action Plan

Step 6—Establishing the Context for the Action Plan .......................................................................................51

Step 7—Risk Evaluation: Deciding on a Course..................................................................................................55

Step 8a—Finding Adaptation Actions .................................................................................................................65

Step 8b—Selecting Adaptation Actions..............................................................................................................81

Step 9—Preparing and Implementing an Action Plan .......................................................................................93

Step 10—Monitoring and Review .........................................................................................................................97

Appendices

Appendix A—Workflow Map ..............................................................................................................................103

Appendix B—Cross-Reference to Other Resources ........................................................................................105

Appendix C—EPA Resources to Evaluate the Vulnerability of 

Specific Species, Sites or Sectors .......................................................................................................................109

Appendix D—Conceptual Diagrams ................................................................................................................. 111

Appendix E—Climate Change Impact Resources............................................................................................ 115

Appendix F—Actions That Could Reduce Water Temperature ..................................................................... 117
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | iv
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 1

Preface

Purpose

Identifying risks associated with climate change and managing them to reduce their impacts is essential. 

This Workbook presents a guide to climate change adaptation planning based on EPA’s experience with 

watershed management, the National Estuary Program and the Climate Ready Estuaries program. The 

Workbook will assist organizations that manage environmental resources to prepare a broad, risk-based 

adaptation plan.

The audience for this Workbook is professionals at organizations that manage environmental resources, 

especially organizations with a coastal or watershed focus. They are knowledgeable about their systems 

but not necessarily sophisticated about climate science or risk management. They may be addressing a 

myriad of issues that require immediate attention and have limited time to focus on adaptation planning 

for the future. Furthermore, they may need to adapt to climate change impacts within their organization’s 

existing resources. Despite these challenges, managers who realize that climate change will affect their 

ability to meet their goals will see the need to incorporate climate change risk into their planning.

Although risk management and risk-based vulnerability assessments have been highlighted or 

recommended by experts in the field of climate change adaptation,1 to date only a handful of risk-based 

plans have been published. Interviews with coastal managers conducted by Climate Ready Estuaries staff 

in 2011 revealed that managers are not sure what is meant by a “risk-based vulnerability assessment,” 

and would like tools to help them proceed. 

Uses

The Workbook responds to these impediments as well as to gaps and needs—identified below—that 

were recognized in climate change strategic planning. 

• In the interagency National Action Plan: Priorities for Managing Freshwater Resources in a 

Changing Climate (2011), under Recommendation 3, “Strengthen assessment of vulnerability of 

water resources to climate change,” EPA agreed to lead Action 11: “Continue development of 

tools and approaches that build capacity for water-related institutions to conduct vulnerability 

assessments and implement appropriate responses” (page 24). 

• EPA’s National Water Program 2012 Strategy: Response to Climate Change (2012) calls for the 

Office of Water to “Address climate change adaptation and build stakeholder capacity when 

1 Recommendations of risk-based approaches appear in, for example:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for Policy Makers.

Government Accountability Office. 2009. Observations on Federal Efforts to Adapt to a Changing Climate.

National Research Council. 2010. Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change.

National Research Council. 2010. Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change.

Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. 2010. National Ocean Policy.

Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. 2010. Progress Report of the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task 

Force: Recommended Actions in Support of a National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

Government Accountability Office. 2013. Climate Change: Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could Better Support Local 

Infrastructure Decision Makers.

Executive Order 13653. 2013.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 2

Preface

implementing [National Estuary Program] Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans 

and through the Climate Ready Estuaries Program” (page 49).

• In the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy (2012), Goal 4 reads, 

“Tools, such as vulnerability and risk assessments and scenario planning, can inform and enable 

management planning and decision-making under uncertainty. Identifying, developing, and 

employing these types of tools will help managers facilitate adaptation of individual species, 

increase habitat resilience, and help identify where changes to the built environment may conflict 

with ecosystem needs” (page 68). 

• The National Ocean Council Implementation Plan (April 2013) states, “Agencies will take a number 

of actions to improve the resilience of coastal communities and enhance their ability to adapt to 

the impacts from climate change, extreme weather events, and ocean acidification....They will 

offer tools and training courses on how to design and implement vulnerability assessments and 

develop a national assessment of coastal and ocean vulnerability to both climate change and 

ocean acidification” (page 16).

• Executive Order 13653 (November 1, 2013) states, “The Federal Government must build on 

recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the Nation’s preparedness and resilience. 

In doing so, agencies should promote: (1) engaged and strong partnerships and information 

sharing at all levels of government; (2) risk-informed decisionmaking and the tools to facilitate 

it; (3) adaptive learning, in which experiences serve as opportunities to inform and adjust future 

actions; and (4) preparedness planning.”

This Workbook helps meet the need for guidance on conducting climate change vulnerability 

assessments at a watershed scale, provides decision-support tools, helps people plan climate change 

adaptation strategies, and builds the capacity of local environmental managers. The Workbook helps EPA 

to fulfill the commitments that it has made to assist local and regional organizations to effectively plan for 

climate change impacts.

An organization’s own goals and an understanding of the political and ecological context in which 

it operates are essential pieces of the process. This Workbook helps managers to systematically and 

progressively develop and build that information into an action plan. When users have gone through the 

Workbook, they will have produced a planning-level document that can guide their responses to climate 

change risks. This will help them anticipate change and reach their organizational goals.

Content

The Workbook presents a step-by-step application of a risk management methodology to climate 

change adaptation. By taking a risk-based approach to assessing vulnerability, users have a formal way 

to choose among adaptation actions. Selected actions are not simply beneficial, they rise to the top 

because they will be best for reducing risk.

The Workbook uses the risk management process in an international standard (ISO 31000—Risk 

Management), and tailors it to respond to the practices and norms of the climate change community. 

Specifically, the ISO methodology (which is conceived as a start-to-finish application of a risk 

management process) was modified to accommodate a two-part process consisting of (1) a standalone vulnerability assessment, followed (either immediately or after a period of time) by (2) an action 

plan. When faced with many discrete risks, managers can benefit from a process that will help them 

prioritize those that should receive attention, and decide on how to mitigate them. Each place-based 

organization’s vulnerability assessment and action plan will be unique: the risk management process and 

this Workbook embrace that philosophy. 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 3

Preface

The risk management process in the Workbook is informed by a review of existing resources and relevant 

information. NOAA’s Roadmap for Adapting to Coastal Risk, NOAA’s Adapting to Climate Change: A 

Planning Guide for State Coastal Managers, ICLEI’s Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for 

Local, Regional, and State Governments, NWF’s Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate 

Change Vulnerability Assessment, and U.S. Global Change Research Program resources were especially 

useful. 

EPA’s National Estuary Program also informs the approach presented in the Workbook. The NEP has 

four cornerstones: (1) focus on the watershed, (2) integrate science into the decision-making process, 

(3) foster collaborative problem solving, and (4) involve the public. The Workbook responds to those 

principles by:

• advancing a risk management approach that is appropriate for the scale of a coastal watershed;

• accommodating the large number of risks likely to be encountered;

• calling for organizations to have scientists and other experts advise on risks to consider and their 

consequences; and

• promoting a process that is especially suited to public engagement and building consensus.

An organization like a National Estuary Program, whose management structure has robust mechanisms 

for involving citizens and scientists, may be able to write an adaptation plan using its regular consultation 

processes.

The development of this Workbook benefitted greatly from ongoing peer input solicited from EPA 

colleagues, watershed managers and federal interagency partners. Numerous presentations about the 

Workbook were made to the climate change adaptation community of practice over the past two years. 

A pilot project to field test the vulnerability assessment methodology ran from September 2012 to 

September 2013; early results were presented at a stakeholder workshop on vulnerability assessments 

in February 2013. The vulnerability assessment half of this Workbook was the focus of that workshop, 

which provided valuable insight into questions that stakeholders would have as they used the Workbook. 

In October 2013 a draft of the complete Workbook was made available on the EPA website to provide 

further opportunities for input. Finally, the Workbook draft was submitted to five coastal/watershed 

management experts for formal independent peer review.

Limitations and Caveats

The Workbook is part of a growing and dynamic body of literature on how to evaluate vulnerability and 

respond to climate change. Although risk management itself has been successfully used for decades, 

adaptation to climate change is a rapidly developing field. New material is constantly being published. 

Many excellent governmental and non-governmental tools and publications are available that explain 

how to conduct community outreach, identify and comment on the severity of expected climate impacts, 

or provide instruction on how to assess the vulnerability of a specific species, site or sector to a particular 

climate change risk. This Workbook identifies other helpful resources and directs users to them.

Similarly, scientific understanding of the magnitude of climate change and its impacts is also growing 

as we learn more about how global and local environments are responding and how the climate is 

projected to change. This Workbook points users to information about climate change from the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program as a primary source. It also draws on other peer-reviewed assessments 

and government reports when needed. EPA’s Climate Ready Estuaries website will link to the latest 

information from USGCRP and other sources as it is published. 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 4

Preface

Every place is unique, as is every organization and every situation. The range of technical expertise, 

resources, ecotypes and stakeholders varies immensely among target audiences of the Workbook. A 

decision support tool that accounts for this diversity is essential. The Workbook is prescriptive about 

steps to take, but users have great flexibility to make their needed decisions along the way. The process 

assumes that users have a good understanding of their place, resource or environment and are familiar 

with the stressors that are in play and how their system may respond. This Workbook is a roadmap that 

will help users to (1) apply a risk-based methodology to their organization’s goals, (2) weigh various risks, 

(3) consider associated impacts on goals, and (4) thoughtfully plan for each risk.

Contact Information

For information, questions or comments about this document, contact Michael Craghan, Ph.D., of 

Climate Ready Estuaries, at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, 

Oceans and Watersheds, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4504T, Washington, DC 20460, or 

by email using crehelp@epa.gov.

August 2014
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 5

Introduction and How to Use This Workbook

Climate change will bring additional challenges to places and ecosystems that are already under 

environmental stress. The expected climate changes will worsen existing problems as well as bring 

new problems. The process described in this Workbook leads you to take a broad look at how climate 

change will affect your environmental system and your organization. The creation of a planning-level 

risk-based vulnerability assessment will help you develop an action plan with effective solutions that your 

stakeholders and partners can help implement.

The likelihood and consequences of all risks are to at least some extent unknowable. However, 

understanding the suite of climate change risks presents a special type of challenge, one for which most 

places have few examples or little experience to draw upon:

• The risks will stem from many stressors (changes in air and water temperature, intensification of 

the hydrologic cycle, sea level rise, and other associated problems) and impacts will be numerous 

and diverse. 

• When risks will materialize and with what intensity are not precisely known. Some risks will have 

slow, steady onsets (e.g., those driven by sea level rise or warming air temperatures). Other risks 

will have sudden onsets as thresholds are crossed (e.g., invasive species arrive) or familiar risks will 

interact with new environmental regimes (e.g., flooding when runoff from stronger precipitation 

interacts with higher river levels caused by sea level rise). 

• We do not know how robust or fragile systems will be when climate stresses begin to accumulate. 

As well, we do not completely understand how climate stressors will be mediated by the 

environment or the sensitivity and adaptive capacity of living organisms.

The characteristics of the climate change problem also take away many of the commonly used risk 

management responses:

• A place-based organization—by itself—will have essentially no effective way to prevent climate 

change, and some effects will be inescapable.

• Climate risks cannot be studied using repeatable observations the way industrial processes or 

chemical reactions can. Incredibly diverse factors combine to influence how climate will change 

and interact to produce climate change’s effects: no matter how much time and resources you 

spend on the problem, it will not be possible to precisely know what will happen 15, 30 or 60 

years in the future.

• Since we do not know how intense the change will be in coming decades, and we are not sure 

how our systems will respond, it is not going to be possible to quantify either costs or benefits 

in any highly accurate (or easy) way, especially at the spatial scale for which the Workbook is 

intended. 

• Some risks will be very expensive to mitigate; others will be impossible to mitigate. It could take 

decades to mitigate some risks (e.g., drought impacts on drinking water supply). With some risks, 

adaptive management techniques will be required. 

• Another element that makes managing environmental change different from other risk 

management contexts is that the public must be involved. Responses must change something 

in the environment, and in most cases, the public is going to have to accept those changes as 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 6

Introduction and How to Use This Workbook

well as pay for them. When a private firm manages its own risks it might seek to take every costeffective action it can. In environmental management, public considerations and the actual cost 

will make that kind of strategy impossible.

Of course, all environmental planning is plagued by mysteries. Oil spills, hurricanes, population changes, 

fires or invasive species are equally unpredictable in terms of what, whether or when they will occur, and 

how bad they might be. Yet plans are made and potential responses are developed for the risks. These 

risks and hazards are effectively managed by identifying, analyzing, evaluating and mitigating them.2

Climate change risks can be managed the same way.

Who Should Use This Workbook?

This methodology is appropriate for any type of place-based 

planning—including hazard mitigation. However, the Workbook

was designed with environmental professionals who manage 

watersheds or coastal places and protect the health of aquatic 

ecosystems as its main audience. This Workbook assumes that 

users: 

• represent an organization that has environmental goals or 

objectives;

• start with some sense that climate change will pose a threat 

to what their organization is trying to accomplish;

• are comfortable using science to inform decision-making; and

• have sufficient knowledge of their environmental system (or can partner with those who do) to 

understand how climate changes may affect the way it functions.

The risk management methodology adopted in the Workbook is best used:

• at a spatial scale that is large enough that risks are numerous and diverse and small enough that 

managers know the territory;

• where using qualitative risk analysis is well suited;

• where many stakeholders are involved; and

• where responses have to be prioritized because not all can be implemented.

EPA and others have resources (see Appendix C) that may be more appropriate than this Workbook

when organizations have a narrower scope than a watershed scale planning effort (e.g., focus on a single 

species or habitat type).

Risk Management

A risk management process helps with decision-making when organizations are faced with uncertainty 

about whether they will be able to meet their goals. Risk management guides an organization to help 

it determine what risks are important and need to be addressed. The process encourages a broad 

look at all potential risks to an organization’s goals. The process is systematic and builds on information 

generated in previous steps, allows for judgments and decisions, and allows users to incorporate new 

data and information as they become available. 

Begin sidebar elaboration defining how the word “organization” is used in this workbook. 

“Organization”

ISO 31000 “can be used by any 

public, private or community 

enterprise, association, group or 

individual” (p. 1). The Workbook, 

like the standard it is based on, 

uses the term “organization” to 

refer to any user. End of Sidebar

2

 FEMA’s Mitigation Planning How-To Guide # 1 (FEMA 386-1), Introduction Table 1, describes a very similar process for hazard 

mitigation planning.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 7

Introduction and How to Use This Workbook

Risk management is a flexible process. How it is 

implemented depends on the organization and 

the purpose for which it is used. Sometimes, when 

people initially hear that they will be participating 

in a risk management process, they misperceive 

what that will mean. Risk management can be a 

lengthy, demanding process. It often entails 

laboratory analysis, extensive use of statistical 

analysis, and other difficult, costly or timeconsuming steps. However, when there is no 

direct, imminent threat to health or safety or a 

planning-level assessment is acceptable, then less 

intensive approaches to risk management can be 

appropriate. The identified risk management 

framework can be used for chemical exposure, 

engineering decisions or global climate change, 

but how each step is executed or what types of 

conclusions can be reached may be different. 

Risk management is about your organization: your 

goals and objectives, your context, your priorities, 

your decisions on how to respond. Systematically 

working through your situation with a risk 

management framework will help you:

• find risks that you might have overlooked 

and avoid surprises;

• assess risks differently than you otherwise 

would have;

• find strategies that can address more than one risk and increase efficiency;

• make better decisions; and

• increase the odds that you will be able to reach your goals.

You will also have a reference to why you think something is important and needs attention as well as a 

communication tool that allows others to understand system challenges.

The ISO 31000—Risk Management methodology is the 

foundation of this Workbook. Here, the start-to-finish procedure 

described in the standard is divided into two halves to be 

consistent with the community of practice for climate change 

adaptation (Figure I-1). Part 1 is referred to as a vulnerability 

assessment (which in the Workbook’s methodology can be a 

stand-alone product); Part 2 is an action plan. Part 2 also includes 

implementation of the action plan.

Sidebar elaboration on how the U.S. Government Accountability Office defines risk management. 

Risk management

“Risk management allows entities to operate 

more effectively in environments of uncertainty 

by providing the discipline and structure in which 

to address these issues, since risk management is 

not an end in itself, but an important component 

of an entity’s management process. As such, risk 

management is interrelated with, among other 

things, an entity’s governance, performance 

management, and internal controls. The process 

of risk management provides the rigor and 

structure necessary to identify and select among 

alternative risk responses whose cumulative effect 

is intended to reduce risk, and the methodologies 

and techniques for making selection decisions. 

This process enables entities to enhance their 

capability to identify potential adverse events, 

assess risks, and establish integrated responses. 

Further, this phase in the planning process would 

include support and buy-in from upper levels of 

management and stakeholders. Acceptance for 

concepts of the model from this group provides 

the groundwork for future discussions.”

U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2006. Risk 

Management: Further Refinements Needed to Assess 

Risks and Prioritize Protective Measures at Ports and 

Other Critical Infrastructure. GAO-06-91, pp. 104–05. End of sidebar

Sidebar elaboration that outlines the final products for each of the two parts of the workbook. 

Adaptation to

climate change

Part 1: Workbook Steps 1–5

• Vulnerability assessment.

Part 2: Workbook Steps 6–10

• Action plan.

• Implementation. End of sidebar
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 8

Introduction and How to Use This Workbook

Vulnerability

Assessment

Action Plan

2—Establishing

the Context 3—Risk Identification

4—Risk Analysis

5—Risk Evaluation:

Comparing Risks

6—Establishing

the Context

1—Communication

and Consultation

10—Monitoring

and Review

7—Risk Evaluation:

Deciding on a Course

8a—Finding

Adaptation Actions

8b—Selecting

Adaptation Actions

9—Preparing

an Action Plan

Figure I-1. A roadmap showing Step 1 through Step 5 of the vulnerability assessment and Step 6 

through Step 10 of action planning. Communication and consultation should be part of every step. 

Monitoring and review keeps the whole adaptation plan up to date.

Vulnerability Assessments

A vulnerability assessment is an understanding of how climate change will uniquely affect your 

organization. The organization is the center of attention, and the reasons why it exists (i.e., its purpose, 

mission, goals or objectives) are the base units of the vulnerability assessment. 

Organizational goals are the focus of concern. Goals are why organizations exist and what motivates 

them; goals provide a context for changes. The vulnerability assessment half of a risk-based adaptation 

plan is different from a climate change impacts study that describes how the future will be different if 

the climate is different. An impact that is identified without reference to a goal is just a detail. There is no 

context to say it is good or bad or that something should be done about it or not. Context comes from 

people or organizations. They can say that an impact will help, hurt or have no effect on what they are 

trying to do (Table I-1). If impacts will be unwanted, goals might still be attainable if risk-reducing actions 

can be implemented. 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 9

Introduction and How to Use This Workbook

Table I-1. Differences among types of climate change products Table comparing and contrasting the intent and contents of climate change projections, climate change impacts studies, and risk-based vulnerability assessments.

Climate change 

projection

Climate change impacts 

study

Risk-based vulnerability 

assessment

What is it? A description of what future 

climate (and correlated 

phenomena such as sea 

level) will be like.

A description of how the 

future will be different if the 

climate is different.

A ranked description of how 

climate changes would keep 

an organization from reaching 

its goals.

Who creates it? Climate modelers, assisted 

by scientists and social 

scientists who can provide 

the understanding or input 

necessary for scenarios or 

simulations.

Practitioners and experts 

who are qualified to 

describe how stressors 

would affect various human 

or natural systems.

Organizations, assisted by 

stakeholders, practitioners and 

other experts.

Example finding The average annual 

temperature is expected to 

be 5°F warmer in 2100 than 

it was in 1990.

Warmer water provides 

better conditions for algal 

blooms and bacteria, 

and they are expected to 

become more plentiful.

There is a moderate risk that 

harmful algal blooms and 

higher bacteria levels from 

warmer water temperature will 

keep us from providing a safe 

place for people to swim. 

Climate 

parameters

Climate projections are the 

calculated values for the 

modeled parameters.

Changing parameters 

become stressors.

Changing parameters become 

stressors.

Impacts Not considered (unless 

a general awareness of 

impacts and a resulting 

change of globally 

significant behavior is 

incorporated into modeling 

scenarios).

Impact studies are a 

presentation about how 

things would be different 

because of climate change.

Impacts could be described 

for a river, a forest, an island 

or a city. The study would 

describe what its future 

conditions would be like.

Knowledge of climate 

projections and future climate 

change impacts is a needed 

input.

Organization 

goals

Goals are not considered. 

Climate is the subject of 

modeling that tends to 

be done at a global scale 

or for areas that are much 

larger than any manager’s 

responsibility.

Goals are not considered, 

although what someone 

considers to be important 

(whether stated or implied) 

will affect which impacts 

receive attention.

The introduction of an 

organization’s goals is what 

differentiates a vulnerability 

assessment from an impacts 

study. The work can become 

the basis for action instead of 

a general report.

Risks Not considered. This is 

largely about understanding 

the stressors.

Not considered because 

goals are necessary to have 

risks.

A vulnerability assessment is 

an evaluated set of risks that 

describes how climate change 

stressors would affect goals.

Risk-reducing 

actions

Not considered. Does not have a basis for 

selecting or implementing 

actions.

The vulnerability assessment is 

input for choosing actions.

End of table

In using this Workbook’s risk management process for preparing a vulnerability assessment, you will 

take a broad look at all potential climate change risks, qualitatively assess them for their likelihood of 

occurrence and their consequences if they were to occur, and consult with your key stakeholders to gain 

buy-in and agreement on the assessment. 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 10

Introduction and How to Use This Workbook

The Workbook has five steps that lead to a climate change vulnerability assessment:

• Step 1—Communication and Consultation

Informing key people about the vulnerability assessment and asking for input.

• Step 2—Establishing the Context for the Vulnerability Assessment

Identifying organizational goals that are susceptible to climate change.

• Step 3—Risk Identification

Brainstorming about how climate stressors will interact with your goals.

• Step 4—Risk Analysis

Developing an initial characterization of consequence and likelihood for each risk.

• Step 5—Risk Evaluation: Comparing Risks 

Using a consequence/probability matrix to build consensus about each risk.

A vulnerability assessment represents a step forward, not an end in itself. However, the Workbook treats 

a vulnerability assessment as a potential stand-alone product. A vulnerability assessment is a precursor 

to an action plan, but it will have value on its own for communication, coordination and decision support. 

A vulnerability assessment is a product to be used with your board of directors, senior management, and 

peer organizations, and with other levels of government. It is helpful for working with others to obtain 

funding, resources, buy-in or approval. Additionally, a broad look at all potential problems allows others 

to scan across places, compare neighboring systems, and find partners for addressing common risks. 

A vulnerability assessment is also a tool that will help you answer a series of questions about risks and 

mitigating options that you will need to ask when preparing your action plan.

While it is not necessary to have a stand-alone vulnerability assessment, there can be benefits to pausing 

after the assessment becomes available. Time to let the vulnerability assessment findings sink in may be 

useful. Pausing also provides an opportunity for consensus building before an action plan is developed. 

It is also a time to speak to potential partners about collaborating or dividing up tasks. A response that 

will effectively mitigate some risks to tolerable levels could be very expensive or politically sensitive. 

Securing resources that can be applied to climate change problems can also take time. Further, some 

risks might not start to cause problems for several more decades. For these reasons completing a 

vulnerability assessment could mark a temporary break in the adaptation process. 

This is a risk management process for climate change. Taking a few days, weeks or months before 

launching into the action planning process could be useful. However, if there is no strategy to use an 

interim period or if the benefits of pausing are small, keep going with the action planning steps.

Action Plans

An action plan is a document that explains how you will manage your climate change risks. After 

completing a vulnerability assessment, you will have identified the risks that have the highest potential to 

affect your organization’s ability to meet its goals. 

The vulnerability assessment process helped you decide which risks to focus on. Now you will identify 

actions that might help to decrease those risks and increase the sustainability of your system. Making 

these decisions when you have limited resources and probably cannot mitigate all of your risks will not 

be easy. Pursuing win-win solutions or no-regrets actions will be appealing options that make sense 

regardless of what the future brings. Steps 6–10 of the Workbook lead to a climate change action plan:

• Step 6—Establishing the Context for the Action Plan

Identifying opportunities and constraints that will affect your adaptation decisions.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 11

Introduction and How to Use This Workbook

• Step 7—Risk Evaluation: Deciding on a Course

Deciding at a high level whether you will mitigate, transfer, accept or avoid each risk.

• Step 8a—Finding Adaptation Actions

Finding mitigating actions that look promising for further investigation.

• Step 8b—Selecting Adaptation Actions

Screening potential actions, and selecting a set of risk-reducing actions to implement.

• Step 9—Preparing and Implementing an Action Plan

Creating a plan to track mitigating actions and which risks they address.

• Step 10—Monitoring and Review

Keeping track of your actions and maintaining your vulnerability assessment.

This is a planning-level process to identify options. Much more detailed work will need to be done 

before any of the actions is ready to be implemented. The final steps in this Workbook set up a process 

to track the status of your risks and to identify who will have the lead for various risk mitigation strategies.

Working with Others

In environmental management, it is impossible to be fully effective without engaging stakeholders. 

Involving others will pay off in many ways as you develop your adaptation plan. You will learn what 

topics potential partners are concerned about, who can contribute expertise, and whether you have 

support for moving forward. The process described in this Workbook is well suited for a collaborative 

approach where key stakeholders can participate and work toward consensus. There is no one best way 

for communicating with stakeholders, and different methods will be appropriate in different steps of the 

Workbook. Workbook steps have lists of resources that can help with external communications. Appendix 

B also has cross-references to other guides that may be helpful. 

Partnering with another organization in your area that has similar interests in assessing climate change 

can be a great opportunity. When you go through your communication and consultation process (Step 

1), you should ask if your stakeholders want to join together to assess climate change effects.

If you decide to partner with another organization on a vulnerability assessment, Step 2—Establishing 

the Context for the Vulnerability Assessment provides an opportunity to identify common goals you 

will jointly consider. If the other organization is already a key partner, it is likely that there is significant 

overlapping interest and a common context can be established for this assessment. 

During Step 3—Risk Identification and Step 4—Risk Analysis, working together to identify and 

assess risks can save resources or time, and lead to a common outcome. There can be great benefits 

to collaborating, and you certainly should when it makes sense. Partners might assess the same risk 

differently simply because their organizations have different purposes. Always remember to keep your 

organization’s needs in mind. 

In Step 6—Establishing the Context for the Action Plan and Step 7—Risk Evaluation: Deciding on 

a Course, partnering opportunities are an important part of the process. Identifying who has mutual 

interests and who can take the lead in mitigating particular risks will be a great way to accomplish more 

than any organization can do by itself.

In Step 9—Preparing and Implementing an Action Plan and Step 10—Monitoring and Review, let 

your partners know how you are doing. You will want to hear about their progress too.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 12

Introduction and How to Use This Workbook

Using the Workbook

Most of the information you need already exists. Some resources that will be helpful include the 

following:

• Your organization’s management plan or strategic plan (for example, a National Estuary Program’s 

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan).

• Knowledge of your organization’s goals and objectives, key programs, and activities.

• Knowledge of your organization’s history, operational procedures, and key stakeholders or 

partners.

• Maps of your watershed or study area.

• Any existing assessments or climate readiness work that covers your study area. Regional and 

sectoral studies from the National Climate Assessment can be useful.

EPA’s Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters (Chapter 5, pp. 5-1 

through 5-49, http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/handbook_index.cfm) has recommendations for where 

to find and how to gather existing data. 

It is important to follow the risk management steps in order. Each step builds on the previous one in this 

systematic process (Appendix A). Skipping ahead will lead to an incomplete or imperfect outcome, but 

you can always go back and repeat previous steps as more information becomes available.

Each step in the Workbook contains the following sections:

• What Is [Step x].

• Objective of This Step.

• Process.

• To Get Started.

• A document to develop or a table to fill out.

• Additional Resources.

The tables and documents that you produce as 

you go through the Workbook are a record of your 

process and decisions. The tables from Step 2–

Step 9 are progressive: information generated in 

one step informs the steps that follow. Keeping 

track of your contacts and sources will make 

it much easier if later you need to inform your 

stakeholders or reconsider your conclusions. 

The record you develop during the vulnerability 

assessment will be very useful when it is time to 

develop an action plan because a major part of the 

decision-making process will be a consideration 

of how to reduce the vulnerability of your system. 

Knowing how you reached your determinations 

about the likelihoods and consequences of scores 

of risks will be the key to reducing them.

Sidebar elaboration pointing to the resources in Appendix B that may be helpful in using the workbook. 

Cross-reference to climate 

change planning you may 

have already completed

If your organization, community, region or state 

has already used NOAA’s Roadmap for Adapting 

to Coastal Risk, ICLEI’s Preparing for Climate 

Change—A Guidebook for Local, Regional, 

and State Governments, or NOAA’s Adapting 

to Climate Change: A Planning Guide for State 

Coastal Managers, the information generated in 

that work will be helpful to you in conducting this 

vulnerability assessment. In Appendix B, sections 

of the NOAA and ICLEI processes are crossreferenced to identify helpful information and to 

assist those who have already worked with those 

resources. End of sidebar
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 13

Step 1—Communication and Consultation

What Is “Communication and Consultation”?

As you begin, communication and consultation is an opportunity to inform your key stakeholders and 

partners about why a climate change adaptation plan is necessary, as well as to describe the process 

and the expected products. Consulting with stakeholders helps to build support for adaptation and 

is essential in developing agreement on the outcome of this process. It is also an opportunity to gain 

knowledge and information from them. 

Objective of This Step 

The objective of this step is to list your key stakeholders and learn their particular interests or concerns 

about climate change risks and the adaptation planning process. You will also prepare a schedule for 

stakeholder involvement. 

Michael Craghan, EPA Office of Water
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 14

Step 1

Process

You should reach out to others who are interested 

in what you are doing or who can help with your 

adaptation planning. Communicate the purpose 

of this work to decision-makers within your 

organization and to key stakeholders. Everyone 

should understand what you are trying to 

accomplish and the expected outcomes. 

Be able to describe what happens in each of the 

steps before reaching out. What you tell and ask 

other people will be much more useful if you 

know how the rest of the process will unfold. 

Some may be involved throughout the entire 

process, while others may have a particular 

interest in a single step or area of focus. However, 

when Step 5 is completed, key people should 

not be surprised to learn that you have a climate 

change vulnerability assessment and that you 

will be using that assessment to determine what 

further actions are necessary. 

Reaching out

Every organization has a unique group of 

stakeholders. Local governments, nonprofits, 

federal agencies or watershed groups all have 

different structures and different parties that 

pay attention to what they do. Who is involved 

in climate change adaptation planning is an 

organizational decision. Leading candidates 

would include: 

• anyone who would be part of 

organizational strategic planning;

• anyone who would help decide an annual work plan;

• anyone who could help with the vulnerability assessment; and

• anyone who might be able to help with implementing adaptation actions.

Including the public in your planning can be helpful. The “Additional Resources” section in this step has 

many resources about how the community can help, as well as strategies for engaging with them.

Communication and consultation should occur throughout your planning, not just when it starts 

and ends. Actively review the information developed here in this step and listed in Table 1-1 before 

each subsequent step and update it throughout the process to track and guide communication and 

consultation efforts.

Sidebar elaboration of criteria to help users identify key stakeholders to involve in adaptation planning. 

Stakeholder involvement in the 

National Estuary Program

In Section 320 of the Clean Water Act, Congress 

said that the members of [an NEP’s] initial 

management committee should include (in 

addition to states and government agencies), 

“local governments,” and “affected industries, 

public and private educational institutions, and 

the general public...” Stakeholder engagement is 

baked right into an NEP.

Involving stakeholders will lead to a better 

assessment and wider public support. In 

Community-Based Watershed Management: 

Lessons from the National Estuary Program (pp. 

13–14), EPA says that members of a citizen’s 

advisory committee generally meet one or more of 

these criteria:

• Serve as spokespersons for a major user or 

interest group and bring information back to 

that group.

• Are well-respected leaders in the community.

• Have experience in the development of water 

quality and resource management policy.

• Have experience with volunteer nonprofit 

groups, the general public, outreach and 

education activities, and the media.

• Understand the technical and economic 

feasibility of the pollution control options under 

consideration.

• Understand the consensus-building process.

• Are energetic and motivated individuals. End of sidebar
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 15

Step 1

Key messages to communicate at the outset

It will not be possible to explain to others what the conclusions of the vulnerability assessment are 

going to be. However, it will be possible to explain what you will be doing, how conclusions will be 

reached, and what could be the next steps. Along with the organizational goals and objectives you are 

considering for this assessment, key messages should include the following: 

• This vulnerability assessment is being launched because there is reason to believe that climate 

change impacts will affect what your organization is trying to accomplish.

• The purpose of the vulnerability assessment is to understand the risks that may occur, the 

likelihood of occurrence for each risk, and the consequence if a risk should occur.

• Risk management is part of decision-making. If climate changes are going to affect your 

organization’s ability to reach its goals, then you need to know what the impacts might be in 

order to continue being effective.

• Different perspectives on risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation are important, and 

participation is welcome.

• The outcome of the vulnerability assessment is an understanding of likely climate change risks; 

any adaptation actions will be determined after that.

Key questions for your consultations with stakeholders

By nature, your stakeholders are invested and concerned with what you are doing. They can be a great 

help as you develop and ultimately implement your adaptation plan. Let them know how you plan to use 

their input. Your communication and consultation should strive to find answers to key questions about 

how stakeholders can improve your vulnerability assessment or action plan:

• Do they have resources, reports or data that they can contribute?

• Do they know of any climate change work on stressors or impacts that exists or is ongoing? 

• Do they want to actively participate in the process or simply be informed of progress or updates? 

• Can they help with risk identification or risk analysis?

• When it is time to decide on adaptation actions, would they be able to help implement actions to 

reduce risks? 

• Do they have any “no-go”s that you should know about? Are there any topics that they are not 

willing to discuss or consider?

To Get Started

The first group of people to turn to is your organization’s key personnel: your board of directors, 

management, staff, and the people who are regularly involved with what you do.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 16

Step 1

Table 1-1. Stakeholder involvement Table for users to record stakeholder information.

Stakeholder Interests/concerns Level of involvement During which step(s) 

should you reach out 

to them?

1. o Not participating

o Stay informed

o Active participant

2. o Not participating

o Stay informed

o Active participant

3. o Not participating

o Stay informed

o Active participant

n. o Not participating

o Stay informed

o Active participant

End of table

Additional Resources

Also see Appendix B.

EPA resources for involving the community

EPA. 2010. Getting In Step: A Guide for Conducting Watershed Outreach Campaigns. 3rd ed. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/outreach/documents/getnstep.pdf

EPA. 2013. Getting in Step: Engaging and Involving Stakeholders in Your Watershed. 2nd ed. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npstbx/files/stakeholderguide.pdf

EPA. 2008. Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters. 

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/handbook_index.cfm

EPA. 2005. Community-Based Watershed Management: Lessons from the National Estuary Program 

(NEP). Chapter 3, pp. 11–15. 

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/upload/2007_04_09_estuaries_nepprimeruments_NEPPrimer.pdf

EPA. 2002. Community Culture and the Environment: A Guide to Understanding a Sense of Place. 

http://www.epa.gov/care/library/community_culture.pdf

Climate Ready Water Utilities. Climate Ready Water Utilities Workshop Planner.

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/watersecurity/climate/

Resources for engaging stakeholders

NOAA Coastal Services Center. 2007. Introduction to Stakeholder Participation.

http://csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/publications/stakeholder
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 17

Step 1

National Wildlife Federation. 2011. Scanning the Conservation Horizon—A Guide to Climate Change 

Vulnerability Assessment. Chapter 2, p. 32.

http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Climate-Smart-Conservation/NWFScanningtheCons

ervationHorizonFINAL92311.ashx

USDA U.S. Forest Service. 2011. Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for 

Developing Adaptation Options. pp. 22-28.

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/39884

Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology and Wells Reserve NERR. 

2008. Collaborative Learning Guide for Ecosystem Management. 

http://www.wellsreserve.org/sup/downloads/collaborative_learning_guide.pdf
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 18
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 19

Step 2—Establishing the Context for the Vulnerability Assessment

What Is “Establishing the Context for the Vulnerability 

Assessment”?

In this step you will explicitly identify your organization’s goals. These goals will establish the scope and 

boundaries for the vulnerability assessment process. This information will help keep you focused: climate 

changes that do not affect your organization’s goals would not be part of your assessment.

Objective of This Step 

The objective of this step is to find and list your organizational goals. 

Eric Vance, EPA
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 20

Step 2 

Process

Every organization exists for a reason. Your charter or strategic plan lists these purposes. In this step you 

are not being asked to generate these purposes; all you need to do is find your already existing goals 

and formally incorporate them into the vulnerability assessment process. List these goals in Table 2-1.

Your organization is the center of attention

Your vulnerability assessment is specifically about your organization. It is not about your region or your 

place. Your organization, like all the others that work there, was created to fulfill some responsibility or to 

accomplish something that needed attention. You have a mission that describes what you strive for and 

why you are unique. Your organization has a role in your community and that role is why your patrons, 

partners and supporters look to you.

A characteristic of environmental management is to look holistically at a place. However, right now you 

need to focus on your niche within it. Many climate change impacts in your location will not affect why 

you exist or what you work on. You don’t need to take on every challenge that climate change may bring 

to your place. 

The purpose of a climate change adaptation plan is to make sure you can continue to achieve the 

organizational goals to accomplish your mission. Essentially you are reviewing your organization’s 

already-existing goals to see how climate change may threaten their achievement. A vulnerability 

assessment that is attentive to your organization will help you write an action plan that will keep you 

on track. You are not setting out to write a plan for your whole region (unless that is part of your 

responsibility). 

How others fit in

At the watershed scale for which the Workbook is designed, it would be common to find government 

agencies, communities, nonprofits and others who care 

about the same things and share your organizational goals. 

If two organizations are common partners, their goals are 

probably similar enough that they could work together on 

parts of a vulnerability assessment. They might need to 

evaluate the consequences of the risks to their respective 

organizations differently because they have different 

contexts and different missions, but risk identification and 

other elements of the risk analysis could be done jointly. 

These organizations will probably want to coordinate later 

about action plans related to those goals as well.

Goals are the fundamental elements

Goals are the natural unit for seeing what problems climate 

change may present and therefore they have important 

roles in the vulnerability assessment.

Goals describe what your organization intends to achieve, 

and are therefore perfect for defining the scope of your 

vulnerability assessment. Your vulnerability assessment 

should include everything that affects your goals, while 

omitting everything that has no effect on them. A useful 

Sidebar elaboration defining strategic goals. 

Goals

“Strategic goals should reflect the 

broad, long-term, outcomes the agency 

aspires to achieve by implementing its 

mission. Strategic goals communicate 

the agency efforts to address national 

problems, needs, challenges, and 

opportunities on behalf of the American 

people. Both the way strategic goals 

are framed and the substance they 

communicate are important to consider. 

Strategic goals should reflect the 

statutory mission of the agency, and 

most agency activity will align to the 

strategic goals. Strategic goals need not 

be as specific as strategic objectives, 

however, and need not reflect every 

activity that the agency must undertake 

to accomplish its mission.”

OMB. 2013. Circular No. A–11 (2013), Section 

230—Agency Strategic Planning. End of sidebar
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 21

Step 2

test that keeps your task from getting ever larger is to ask whether you would allocate resources for 

efforts that have no effect on your goals. Your assessment should focus on the things your organization 

cares about. You have already articulated your priorities when setting your goals.

In addition, if there is no goal to test against climate stressors, then there will be no risks. The plain detail 

that a stressor would cause something to occur in a place does not have meaning within itself. Once it 

could affect a goal, an impact takes on a consequence. For example: you might identify that it could rain 

tomorrow—but that would be just an incident; for many people that information would have no value. 

However if you say it could rain tomorrow and we might not be able to have the picnic we planned, then 

you introduce a consequence and you have a risk. A goal is the necessary piece for naming risks. There 

will be climate change impacts all over your region but risks can only emerge if you cross climate change 

stressors with your goals.

Your organization may have goals that would be affected by climate change (e.g., controlling water 

pollution or maintaining habitat) but may have others (e.g., recycling waste) that would not be affected 

much at all. You will have to decide which of your organization’s goals will be considered in this 

vulnerability assessment. For a planning-level study like this, you should move forward with all of those 

that could be affected by climate change.

Clean Water Act goals

If your organization’s goals fit under the Clean Water Act umbrella, then the risk identification checklist 

for those themes in Step 3 may be useful when you reach that step. 

Purposes in Clean Water Act §320, and the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000:

• Control point and nonpoint sources of pollution and clean up pollution.

• Maintain and improve estuarine habitat.

• Protect and propagate fish, shellfish and wildlife, including control of nonnative species. 

• Protect public water supplies and recreational activities, in and on the water.

To Get Started

Turn to your organization’s strategic plan, management plan or charter, which should identify your 

mission, goals, objectives, or the issues your organization cares most about. 

Table 2-1. Organizational goals Table for users to record their organizational goals.

Goal Does it correspond with 

one of the Clean Water Act 

purposes? (Y/N) 

1.

2.

3.

n.

End of table
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 22

Step 2 

Additional Resources

Also see Appendix B.

EPA resources about goal setting and strategic planning

EPA. 2005. Community-Based Watershed Management: Lessons from the National Estuary Program.

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/upload/2007_04_09_estuaries_nepprimeruments_NEPPrimer.pdf

EPA. 1992. National Estuary Program Guidance: Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans: 

Content and Approval Requirements.

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=20004XHU.txt

EPA. Climate Ready Water Utilities (CRWU).

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/watersecurity/climate/
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 23

Step 3—Risk Identification

What Is “Risk Identification”?

This is the process of generating a broad list of reasonably foreseeable ways that climate change 

stressors could keep your organization from achieving its goals. It is important to consider all potential 

risks during the risk identification step. If risks are not identified in this step, they will not be analyzed and 

evaluated in the steps that follow. 

Objective of This Step 

The objective of this step is to create a broad list of climate change risks that might affect your 

organization’s ability to achieve its goals. 

John Fleck, FEMA
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 24

Step 3

Process

The work in this step involves using your understanding of your place to identify risks by thinking about 

how climate change stressors would interact with your organization’s goals. Compile a list of all of your 

risks in Table 3-3 using information in the checklists of Tables 3-1a through 3-1d and anything you add to 

Table 3-2.

What is a “risk”?

Risks threaten things that are of value. In the context of climate change, a risk is the possibility that a 

given climate change stressor will affect your organization’s ability to meet its goals. A risk is a problem 

to be managed by finding ways to lower its principal characteristics: likelihood and consequence. In this 

step, you will cross your goals with climate change stressors to identify risks. 

Climate change stressors

The Workbook uses seven types of climate change stressors to organize thinking:

• Warmer summers (overall climate)

This stressor is generally about the warm season being even warmer. This stressor (like warmer 

winters, below) is about the general climate. Air, surface, soil and groundwater temperatures will 

be warmer. The general climate effects of having warmer oceans or lakes are included here.

• Warmer winters (overall climate)

This stressor is about a cold season not being as cold as it formerly was.

• Warmer water

This stressor (regardless of season) comes from a higher temperature of water bodies (including 

the ocean) and affects the chemical, physical or biological characteristics of the water body itself.

• Increasing drought

Drought is a deficiency in precipitation over an extended period. The magnitude of the 

deficiency, the duration or the number of droughts could be greater.

• Increasing storminess

This category encompasses all aspects of intensifying precipitation in any form: more seasonal 

precipitation, more total precipitation during events, higher rates of precipitation during events. 

Stronger or more frequent instances of extratropical and tropical cyclones, blizzards or other 

weather conditions are included here. If they are acting as stressors, then floods, waves, coastal 

storm surge and wind are part of this storminess category.

• Sea level rise

This stressor is about the ocean being higher than it formerly was. It includes effects of higher 

water levels right at the shore, as well as how elevated coastal water levels affect inland systems.

• Ocean acidification 

For the Workbook, this category is primarily conceptualized as related to ocean acidification via 

atmospheric inputs of carbon dioxide.

If you find that your place is impacted by an additional climate stressor that is not listed above, then 

add it to your set. Conversely, for your risk identification, if a stressor is not relevant to what your 

organization does, or if there are good reasons to believe the impact it is associated with would not 

matter, then omit it. 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 25

Step 3

Risk paths

Recall that a risk is the possibility that a given climate change stressor will affect your organization’s 

ability to meet its goals. Stressors and goals are embedded in the risk. You could be prevented from 

reaching a goal because the environment changes in some way or because the projects you undertake 

to reach your goal would fail in some way. 

If there is any potential sequence (climate change stressor, and what follows) for an unwanted 

consequence (not reaching your goal), then you have a risk. The risk develops along the path between 

the cause and the effect. For example:

• Stressor X could , and the result is that we might not attain Goal Y. 

• Warmer water (stressor) could lead to bacteria being more abundant in the river (path), and we 

might not be able to provide healthy drinking water (unrealized goal). 

• More intense precipitation (stressor) could lead to flooding that knocks a sewage pump station 

offline (path) and we might not be able to treat all the sewage that is discharged to the bay 

(unrealized goal).

• Sea level rise (stressor) will lead to more beach erosion (path) and we might not be able to 

maintain the endangered bird species nesting sites (goal).

Figure 3-1. The top diagram depicts an ideal business as usual scenario. At your place, your 

organization undertakes various projects that help you to achieve your goals. In the bottom diagram a 

climate change stressor is introduced to the business as usual situation (or to a no-action scenario). The 

stressor could change the way the environment functions or change the effectiveness of the projects 

that you would undertake, and potentially lead to unrealized goals. After the stressor is introduced, if 

you can describe some chain of events that could happen that might keep you from realizing a goal, 

then you have a risk.

Local environment

+

Organizational projects

Business as usual Climate change

stressor

Achieve

goal

Achieve

goal
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 26

Step 3

Paths can be simple or complex. Paths might involve contingencies or future human activity. 

A diagram of a system can be very helpful for visualizing how climate change stressors could alter its 

operations. It is not necessary to have climate change stressors in the diagram; the illustrations are just a 

tool to help you think about where stressors could introduce unwanted effects. Diagrams can be simple 

sketches of sequential events (Figure 3-2). If you can easily locate a conceptual diagram (Appendix D) 

for a system comparable to yours, then a tool like that can be useful as well. Diagrams do not have to be 

comprehensive or even exact representations of reality. They are simply tools to help you brainstorm and 

identify risks.

Most strategic initiatives are built on existing processes, and

much of the organization is involved in the day-to-day work

of delivering service to our customers. The Postal value

chain is a series of closely linked processes, supported by a

common infrastructure.

 The overall quality and cost of the system depends not

only on the actions of the Postal Service, but also on the

actions of mailers and mail service providers.

Value Chain

U.S. Postal Service

Figure 3-2. A visual depiction of the current system helps with identifying risks. Climate change 

stressors like increasing storminess or hotter summers can be imagined to affect efficient mail delivery 

in many ways. A diagram like this, from the USPS FY 2012 Annual Report to Congress, helps prompt 

questions such as “How would more wind and rain affect maintenance at post offices?” “Would hotter 

conditions require more air conditioning?” “Does increasing temperature affect vehicle or aircraft 

operations”? “Would more intense precipitation or more heat alert days affect mail delivery?” You 

might have come up with these risks even without an illustration—but if you can have a diagram that 

helps you think, then use it.

What you need to do

Every path that you can conceive is a risk to a goal and should be recorded in this risk identification step. 

At this point, you need to rely on your expertise and knowledge about your system. In this step you want 

to come up with as many of those possible pathways as you can. 

Cross each climate change stressor with each of the goals you listed in Step 2. The intent is to 

generate a list of the ways that each stressor could keep you from reaching the goal. This is much like 

a brainstorming session. See Figure 3-3 for an example of how the process works for one goal and one 

stressor.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 27

Step 3

Figure 3-3. An example of how to generate a list of what could happen in the space between 

introduction of a stressor and failure to realize a goal.

Record each risk (stressor, path and goal) in Table 3-3. If a potential risk is not identified in this step, it 

will not move forward in the vulnerability assessment process, so write down everything. Step 4—Risk 

Analysis and Step 5—Risk Evaluation: Comparing Risks are where you analyze and evaluate the list of 

risks you generate in this step.

Don’t dismiss risks!

Even risks that you might think are insignificant should be captured in this step. Don’t prematurely 

dismiss anything. You may learn that a stakeholder thinks it is important, or in some instances further 

analysis might show that a risk is not trivial at all. If you dismiss it now, it does not get considered later. 

If it is in fact a trivial risk, the systematic process of risk management allows it to be assigned to such 

a category in Step 4. Treat this step as a brainstorming session and document every risk you and your 

team can identify.

Risks are not inevitable

A risk is not certain to happen, a risk could happen. You will analyze its likelihood in Step 4. Further, if 

you decide that you want to change its likelihood, understanding the risk path could help you to find 

ways to take action. You probably cannot—by yourself—change a stressor coming from global climate 

change, and you probably don’t want to change your goal, so if you do want to change the likelihood or 

consequence of the risk you have to disrupt the path that transfers the risk from stressor to goal. 

More than one problem from the same cause

The same environmental stressor may intersect with several of your goals. You may find that you 

seemingly identify the same risk many times. As an example, sea level rise may push saltwater farther up 

rivers. This could have implications for drinking water sources, freshwater wetlands or shellfish habitat. 

This is why you are asked to note which organizational goal is associated with a risk. Goals are implicitly 

embedded in risks. In this sea level rise example, you really haven’t identified the same risk of saltwater 

Warmer water

 Toxicity of pollutants

 may increase

 Water can hold less

 dissolved oxygen

 Greater algae growth

 may occur

 Parasites and bacteria

 have greater abundance,

 survival or transmission

Climate change

stressor

Paths Unrealized goal

Maintain

water

quality
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 28

Step 3

reaching farther upstream three times: you have identified three separate risks that stem from the same 

stressor-driven process. You might design an adaptation action for the drinking water risk that leaves the 

other two risks intact: they really are three different risks. 

Help identifying risks

This step has four tables (Tables 3-1a through 3-1d) that cross-reference the seven types of climate 

change stressors with the purposes of clean water legislation to provide a starter list of more than 100 

potential risks. If your organization has other types of goals, then add those goals to a table like Table 

3-2 and identify the relevant climate change risks. More places to turn for risk references are listed in the 

“Additional Resources” section.

Opportunities (possibility of benefits)

You might identify potential circumstances arising from any of the seven climate change stressors that 

could be beneficial instead of harmful. These may reduce the severity of some other risk or just be 

positive outcomes on their own. If it is the latter, an opportunity may free resources to address other 

risks or even change the way your organization goes about business. If you identify any opportunities 

related to your organization’s goals, make note of them. They will be picked back up in your action plan 

to ensure that you take advantage of them. 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 29

Step 3

Table 3-1

a. P

o

ten

tial climate change risks for pollu

tion con

trol Checklist of potential climate change risks for pollution control for user consideration. These risks are reasonable possibilities derived from crossing the seven climate change stressors with the two listed Clean Water Act pollution goals.

Clean Water 

Act goals

Warmer 

summers

Warmer 

winters

Warmer 

water

Increasing 

drought

Increasing 

storminess

Sea level rise Ocean 

acidification 

Controlling point sources of pollution and cleaning up pollution

o Loss of melting winter snows may reduce spring or summer flow volume, and raise pollutant concentration in receiving waters 

o Temperature criteria for discharges may be exceeded (thermal pollution) o Warmer temperatures may increase toxicity of pollutants

o Critical-lowflow criteria for discharging may not be meto Pollutant concentrations may increase if sources stay the same and flow diminishes

o Combined sewer overflows may increaseo Treatment plants may go offline during intense floods

o Treatment plants may not be able to discharge via gravity at higher water levelso Treatment infrastructure may be susceptible to floodingo Sewage may mix with seawater in combined sewer systemso Contaminated sites may flood or have shoreline erosiono Sewer pipes may have more inflow (floods) or infiltration (higher water table)

Controlling nonpoint sources of pollution

o Wildfires may lead to soil erosion

o Longer growing season can lead to more lawn maintenance with fertilizers and pesticides

o Higher solubility may lead to higher concentration of pollutantso Water may hold less dissolved oxygeno Higher surface temperatures may lead to stratificationo Greater algae growth may occuro Parasites, bacteria may have greater survival or transmission

o Pollution sources may build up on land, followed by highintensity flushes

o Streams may see greater erosion and scouro Urban areas may be subject to more floodso Flood control facilities (e.g., detention basins, manure management) may be inadequateo High rainfall may cause septic systems to fail

o Tidal flooding may extend to new areas, leading to additional sources of pollution

o Decomposing organic matter releases carbon dioxide, which may exacerbate the ocean acidification problem in coastal waters

End of table
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 30

Step 3

Table 3-1b. P

o

ten

tial climate change risks for habi

tat Checklist of potential climate change risks for habitat for user consideration. These risks are reasonable possibilities derived from crossing the seven climate change stressors with the two listed Clean Water Act habitat goals.

Clean Water 

Act goals

Warmer 

summers

Warmer 

winters

Warmer 

water

Increasing 

drought

Increasing 

storminess

Sea level rise Ocean 

acidification 

Restoring and protecting physical and hydrologic features

o Higher temperatures may lead to greater evaporation and lower groundwater tableso Switching between surface and groundwater sources for public water supplies may affect the integrity of water bodieso Greater electricity demand may affect operation decisions at hydropower dams

o Less snow, more rain may change the runoff/infiltration balance; base flow in streams may changeo A spring runoff pulse may disappear along with the snowo Rivers may no longer freeze; a spring thaw would be obsoleteo Marshes and beaches may erode from loss of protecting ice

o Warmer water may lead to greater likelihood of stratification 

o Groundwater tables may dropo Base flow in streams may decreaseo Stream water may become warmero Increased human use of groundwater during drought may reduce stream baseflowo New water supply reservoirs may affect the integrity of freshwater streams

o The number of storms reaching an intensity that causes problems may increaseo Stronger storms may cause more intense flooding and runoffo Coastal overwash or island breaching may occuro Turbidity of surface waters may increaseo Increased intensity of precipitation may yield less infiltration

o Shoreline erosion may lead to loss of beaches, wetlands and salt marsheso Saline water may move farther upstream and freshwater habitat may become brackisho Tidal influence may move farther upstreamo Bulkheads, sea walls and revetments may become more widespread

Constructing reefs to promote fish and shellfish

o Desired fish may no longer be presento Warmer water may promote invasive species or disease

o Stream erosion may lead to high turbidity and greater sedimentationo Lower pH from NPS pollution may affect target species

o Light may not penetrate through deeper watero Higher salinity may kill targeted species

o Long-termshellfish sustainability may be an open questiono Fish may be adversely affected during development stages

End of table
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 31

Step 3

Table 3-1

c. P

o

ten

tial climate change risks for fish, wil

dlife an

d plan

ts Checklist of potential climate change risks for fish, wildlife and plants for user consideration. These risks are reasonable possibilities derived from crossing the seven climate change stressors with the three highly related listed Clean Water Act fish, wildlife and plants goals.

Clean Water 

Act goals

Warmer 

summers

Warmer 

winters

Warmer 

water

Increasing 

drought

Increasing 

storminess

Sea level rise Ocean 

acidification 

Protecting and propagating fish, shellfish and wildlifeControlling nonnative and invasive speciesMaintaining biological integrity and reintroducing native species

o Species that won’t tolerate warmer summers may die/migrate; biota at the southern limit of their range may disappear from ecosystemso Species may be weakened by heat and become outcompetedo Essential food sources may die off or disappear, affecting the food webo Species may need to consume more water as temperature rises

o Species that used to migrate away may stay all wintero Species that once migrated through may stop and stayo Pests may survive winters that used to kill themo Invasive species may move into places that used to be too coldo Some plants may need a “setting” cold temperatureo A longer growing season may lead to an extra reproductive cycleo Food supplies and bird migrations may be mis-timed

o Newly invasive species may appearo Habitat may become unsuitably warm, for a species or its foodo Heat may stress immobile biotao Dissolved oxygen capacity of water may dropo Some fish reproduction may require cold temperatures; other reproductive cycles are tied to water temperatureo Coral bleaching episodes may increaseo Parasites and diseases are enhanced by warmer water 

o Species may not tolerate a new drought regimeo Native habitat may be affected if freshwater flow in streams is diminished or eliminatedo Changing freshwater inputs may affect salinity distribution in estuaries (especially of interest with regard to shellfish habitat)

o Greater soil erosion may increase turbidity and decrease water clarityo Greater soil erosion may increase sediment deposition in estuaries, with consequences for benthic species

o Sea level may push saltier water farther upstream (especially of interest with regard to shellfish habitat)o Light may not penetrate through the full depth of deeper watero Greater coastal wetland losses may occur

o Corrosive waters may impact shellfish developmento Shellfish predators may not survive the disappearance of shellfisho Fish may be adversely affected during development stages by changes to water chemistryo The effect of ocean acidification on calcifying plankton may lead to cascading effects in the food chain

End of table
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 32

Step 3

Table 3-1

d. P

o

ten

tial climate change risks for recreation an

d public water supplies Checklist of potential climate change risks for recreation and public water supplies for user consideration. These risks are reasonable possibilities derived from crossing the seven climate change stressors with the two listed Clean Water Act recreation and public water supplies goals.

Clean Water 

Act resource 

goals

Warmer 

summers

Warmer 

winters

Warmer 

water

Increasing 

drought

Increasing 

storminess

Sea level rise Ocean 

acidification 

Restoring and maintaining recreational activities, in and on the water

o More people using water for recreation may raise the potential for pathogen exposure

o Harmful algal blooms may be more likelyo Jellyfish may be more commono Fishing seasons and fish may become misalignedo Desired recreational fish may no longer be presento Invasive plants may clog creeks and waterways

o Freshwater flows in streams may not support recreational useso Increased estuary salinity may drive away targeted recreational fish

o More frequent or more intense storms may decrease recreational opportunitieso Greater NPS pollution may impair recreation

o Beaches or public access sites may be lost to coastal erosion or inundationo Clearance under bridges may decrease

o Eco-tourism resources or attractions (e.g., birding, diving, fishing) may be degradedo Recreational shellfish harvesting may be lost

Protecting public water supplies

o Warmer temperatures may drive greater water demando Evaporation losses from reservoirs and groundwater may increase

o Summer water supplies that depend on winter snow pack may disappearo Cold places may see more freeze/thaw cycles that can affect infrastructure

o Changes in treatment processes may be requiredo Increased growth of algae and microbes may affect drinking water quality

o Lower freshwater flows may not keep saltwater downstream of intakeso Groundwater tables may dropo Coastal aquifers may be salinized from insufficient freshwater inputo Coastal aquifers may be salinized from higher demand on groundwatero Maintaining passing flows at diversions may be difficult

o Water infrastructure may be vulnerable to floodingo Flood waters may raise downstream turbidity and affect water quality

o Sea level may push salt fronts upstream past water diversionso Water infrastructure may be vulnerable to inundation or erosiono Saltwater intrusion into groundwater may be more likely

End of table
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 33

Step 3

Table 3-2. 

Additional goals A blank table where users can record risks for goals that differ from the Clean Water Act goals in the checklists provided in Tables 3-1a through 3-1d.

Organizational 

goals

Warmer 

summers

Warmer 

winters

Warmer 

water

Increasing 

drought

Increasing 

storminess

Sea level rise Ocean 

acidification 

GoalGoalGoal

End of table
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 34

Step 3

To Get Started

Take a look at the climate change risks listed in Tables 3-1a through 3-1d. Check off each risk that applies 

to your organization’s goals. It is conceivable that most of these risks will be checked. 

Table 3-3. Risks Table for users to list each climate risk they checked in Tables 3-1a through 3-1d and/or recorded in Table 3-2, along with the related organizational goal and associated climate stressor.

Organizational goal Climate stressor Risk Is this an opportunity 

instead of a risk?

1.

2.

3.

n.

End of table

Additional Resources

Also see Appendix B.

EPA resources about climate change risks for water resources

EPA Region 9 and California Department of Water Resources. 2011. Climate Change Handbook for 

Regional Water Planning.

http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/CCHandbook.cfm

Climate Ready Water Utilities. 2012. Adaptation Strategies Guide for Water Utilities.

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/watersecurity/climate/upload/epa817k11003.pdf

Coastal management goals

NOAA. 2010. Adapting to Climate Change: A Planning Guide for State Coastal Managers. Chapter 2.

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/climate/docs/adaptationguide.pdf

Resources for identifying climate sensitivities for estuaries

NOAA. 2013. Climate Sensitivity of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.

http://nerrs.noaa.gov/Doc/PDF/Research/130725_climate%20sensitivity%20of%20nerrs_Final-Rpt-inLayout_FINAL.pdf
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 35

Step 4—Risk Analysis

Nancy Laurson, EPA Office of Water

What Is “Risk Analysis”?

Risk analysis is the process of understanding a risk, which includes being aware of the driving force of 

the risk, assessing the likelihood (probability) of it occurring, and assessing the consequence if it were 

to occur. Risk analysis is essential to making decisions about which risks will become organizational 

priorities. 

Objective of This Step

The objective of this step is to make an initial, high-level determination of the consequence, likelihood, 

spatial scale of the impact, and the time horizon until a problem begins for the climate change risks you 

identified in Step 3, so they can be sorted into high-medium-low qualitative categories of impact. 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 36

Step 4

Process

This is the most intensive step of the vulnerability assessment. You will use Table 4-1 to characterize each 

risk in five areas: (1) consequence, (2) likelihood, (3) spatial extent of the impact, (4) time horizon until the 

problem begins, and (5) habitat type. This will become important information when your organization 

determines its adaptation priorities. 

Each risk needs to be assigned to the minimum number of people or teams (ideally just one) who can 

provide a reliable initial analysis. You need an initial analysis of each risk along with some documentation 

of the sources (which could be expert judgement). Try not to get stuck on determining the likelihood 

or consequence of any one risk. Right now this will be an initial or a working determination. As more 

information becomes available over time, or as others are able to assist, you can return to this step and 

adjust the determination accordingly. 

Whereas the Workbook methodology brings others into the process in Step 5, it could be desirable to 

include others now if stakeholders indicated that they would help you with this part of your vulnerability 

assessment. The involvement of more than one person can lead to differences in whether risks are rated 

high, medium or low. The intent of this step is to provide one initial rating so that it can be refined via 

wider consultation and participation in Step 5—Risk Evaluation: Comparing Risks. If you do receive 

divergent input in this step, you need to come to a conclusion about which rating you will provisionally 

adopt. Differences could be worked out here or postponed to Step 5.

Figure 4-1. In this step, each risk from the list compiled in Step 3 is separately assigned to someone 

(or to a team) who is qualified to come up with qualitative determinations of likelihood, consequence, 

spatial extent, time horizon or habitat type. Others will be invited to review these determinations in 

Step 5.

Each risk is assigned to as

few people as necessary

(ideally one) to make an

initial determination about its:

 Likelihood.

 Consequence.

 Spatial extent.

 Time horizon.

 Habitat type.

Staff assembles all of the

determinations for all of the

risks and the information

moves forward to Step 5.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

n.

List of risks 

from Step 3 

2.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 37

Step 4

How precise do you need to be?

This process requires a determination of the relative importance of each risk. You want to sort risks into a 

fitting high-medium-low category: absolute precision is not needed. 

Your aim in this step is to have risk determinations that are not wrong. Wrong would be saying “high” 

and later changing a rating to “low” or vice versa. If the rating is believed to be correct, if you could 

make a decent argument as to why you rated it that way and you do not expect to be changing it, if you 

would be open to revision if compelling new information were provided, then that is sufficient precision 

for this step.

It is recommended that you use available information to rate a risk, as you will likely have many risks that 

you have to work through and launching a bevy of new research studies will be impractical. Indicate how 

the determination was made and what information or who was consulted, and move on to the next risk. 

As new information surfaces and others are later able to provide additional information, you can revisit 

the determination and adjust it if necessary.

Who should participate?

How you choose to complete your initial risk analysis will be highly influenced by staff capabilities and 

interests, as well as by the size, subject fields and availability of the expert pool you turn to. Three main 

types of people should be invited to participate in this step:

Your in-house staff: No one knows your program as well as the staff. If they have the ability to make a 

first determination about the risks, then you should let the staff do as much as they can. Working on this 

will also raise their knowledge about climate impacts.

Experts: You probably already turn to specialists or professionals whenever you need to go beyond 

your in-house knowledge or skills. Experts in climate, environmental sciences or natural resources from 

government agencies, universities, NGOs or consulting companies who are familiar with your study 

area could assist your staff with this climate change risk analysis. Experts could also be asked to do 

the analysis themselves. Local experts (like the director of a public works department or professional 

landscapers) can also contribute. They might in fact be the best people to estimate the consequence of 

a risk.

Partners: When you did your initial stakeholder consultation, people may have indicated that they had 

expertise or knowledge in particular domains. It will be useful to bring those experts back into the 

process now, especially if they said they could help with this step. For example, it may be useful to have 

the president of the fishing club weigh in on the consequences of warmer water.

You can approach different people about likelihood and consequence ratings for the same risk. For 

example, you might ask climate experts about the likelihood of a risk and turn to in-house staff for a 

determination of its consequences or its spatial extent. 

If you turn to experts or selected stakeholders

Carefully consider which risks you would like an expert or selected stakeholders to weigh in on and 

whether you would like them to comment on the likelihood or consequence (or both) of that risk. Keep 

in mind that the goal here is to generate an initial analysis. Consult with those who can fill in gaps with 

particular, needed expertise. In Step 5 you will share what you have done more broadly to help reach 

agreement. In this step, you only should do what is necessary to get off to a good start.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 38

Step 4

If you reach out to others in this step, it will be helpful to communicate the following information: 

• An overview of the vulnerability assessment process, including identification of your organization’s 

goals.

• Which risks you would like their input on and whether you would like their determination on the 

likelihood or consequence (or both) of that risk.

• That a qualitative scale is being used to determine the likelihood and consequence for each risk—

see “What you (or those you consult) need to determine” below.

• The level of effort that is or is not needed right now.

• That a justification, rationale or source for their input would be helpful.

What you (or those you consult) need to determine

Risks will be ranked on a qualitative scale for consequence, likelihood, spatial scale of the impact, 

and time horizon. It is helpful to note the justification or source used to determine the likelihood and 

consequence of each risk, as it will be a useful reference later on in the process (if you need to revisit this, 

or to find out more when you are planning adaptation actions). 

The Workbook uses scales with three divisions (high-medium-low). In order for this exercise to be most 

useful, you must have a spread of likelihoods and consequences for the risks identified. If everything is 

ranked as high-likelihood and high-consequence, the vulnerability assessment process is going to be less 

effective as a decision-making tool. In the situation where a disproportionate number of risks are falling 

into the “high” category, you should probably expand your definition of “medium” to capture more risks. 

Sidebar elaboration on why qualitative scales are emphasized for use in this workbook. 

Using a qualitative scale

A qualitative scale at this stage is useful for several reasons:

• Future changes in the climate system cannot be projected with the exactness that is needed to precisely 

quantify the probability of a risk at any given future time. 

• You might need to contend with well over a hundred distinct risks. It would be prohibitively expensive 

to scientifically quantify the likelihood of each one, as well as to estimate the cost of damages each risk 

poses. The cost of doing the risk assessment should not exceed the cost of mitigating risks themselves.

• The general public has a poor ability to process statistical probability. Research on decision theory 

shows that giving people mathematically identical choices elicits different responses depending on how 

a problem is framed. 

• It will be much easier to reach agreement on a qualitative rank (high-medium-low) than on whether 

mathematical calculations of likelihood or consequence were done correctly.

Some people might elect to use numbers to express a qualitative value (e.g., rank 1–5). Keep in mind 

that these numbers are probably symbolizing subjective values because there is no easy mathematical 

way to accurately derive one true quantitative value for each risk. If you are using numerals to represent 

opinions, they are still categories. Unless going from category “1” to “2” truly represents the same 

quantitative change as going from category “3” to “4,” and respectively likewise for all the other numerical 

relationships, you cannot properly add, multiply or divide with the numerals, or find their mean (although 

median and mode are valid). 

Be sure to look ahead to Step 5 and Steps 6–8b to understand how these categories will be used if you 

are tempted to increase the number of categories or to do math with them. Is it really going to be helpful 

to use 5-point scales or 10-point scales to generate 25 or 100 different classes of risk? Are you actually 

going to use that level of differentiation to make decisions? The key thing here is not to overcomplicate the 

process. Define what you mean by your scale and communicate these definitions to your stakeholders. End of sidebar
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 39

Step 4

It may be helpful to define what each category (high-medium-low) means for your organization.

Note that in the descriptions below for each parameter, the qualitative category “(a)” is always best and 

“(c)” is the worst. 

Consequence

Consequence is the effect the risk would have on your organization’s goal were it to occur. 

(a) Low (life will go on; not as important as many other things; could adjust)

(b) Medium

(c) High (major disruption; goal is out of reach or not even attainable)

Likelihood

Likelihood is the chance of the risk actually occurring (i.e., probability). For the risk, you determine how 

likely it is to affect the goal. 

(a) Low

(b) Medium

(c) High

For planning purposes you can avoid attaching quantitative probability labels to categories. Unless you 

have access to a large team of top scientists and a lot of supercomputers for simulating the climate at the 

scale of your study area and running the appropriate hydrological, hydraulic, demographic, land use, and 

ecological models, your mathematical estimate of probability is not going to be any more accurate than 

the qualitative category anyway. 

Since this is a qualitative analysis—to aid future decision-making by spreading the risks over three 

categories, you could define your likelihoods so that 20%–40% of your risks fall in each of the highmedium-low groupings (unless you have a large number of risks that are not likely to occur). All the risks 

in the high category would be more likely to occur than those in the medium category, and likewise for 

medium and low.

Spatial extent

Spatial extent refers to the proportion of your geographic area that the risk will affect (recall that the 

Introduction states that this Workbook methodology works best at a spatial scale that is large enough 

that risks are numerous and diverse and small enough that managers know the territory). Knowing 

whether problems are isolated or widespread will help you in the action planning process as you decide 

how best to use limited resources. 

(a) Site (e.g., a few waterfront lots, a bridge, a sewage treatment plant)

(b) Place or region (e.g., community, harbor, state park, wildlife refuge, sub-watershed)

(c) Extensive (most of the watershed or most of the estuary)

If a different spatial scale is more appropriate for your situation, then feel free to modify these 

categories. 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 40

Step 4

Time horizon

Time horizon until the problem begins will help with developing your action plan. Decisions about low 

or medium problems that will not emerge for decades could be postponed. Conversely, high-impact 

problems that are already occurring need some attention right away. 

(a) More than 30 years

(b) 10–30 years

(c) Already occurring or 0–10 years

Treat the time horizon for the risk as being independent of the likelihood of it occurring. If you think that 

absolute dates are more appropriate than relative time periods, choose whatever works best for your 

situation.

Habitat type

Habitat type is a category that is not necessarily a risk dimension. Identifying it now as you go through 

your risk analysis and develop your table will become useful later when you work on an action plan in 

Steps 6–10. When deciding on adaptation actions, you may want to group all of the risks associated 

with a certain type of habitat. You might, for example, want to see all of the risks associated with tidal 

wetlands or with residential areas. Looking across all the associated risks can help you choose adaptation 

actions that address more than one risk.

Resources that can help

Resources about each of the seven types of climate change stressors are listed in Appendix E. These 

sources could help you to determine how much change is expected for each type. If you are aware of 

local or regional climate change impact studies from academic institutions, governments or nonprofits, 

they can also help inform this step.

How to proceed when climate projections give a range of answers

Environmental managers have always had to deal with uncertainty when making decisions. It is important 

to be transparent about the magnitude of the uncertainty, the range of possible outcomes, and the 

resulting justification for making a specific decision. Nevertheless, sufficient information currently exists 

to make good determinations about whether a risk is likely to lead to small or large problems.

For the purposes of this analysis, knowing the direction 

of the change is often enough. For example, you do not 

need to determine whether sea level will be 1.25 feet, 1.5 

feet or 1.75 feet higher 45 years from now. Instead, think 

about what your system will be like when sea level is 1.25 

feet, 1.5 feet or 1.75 feet higher in the coming decades. 

Similarly, you probably do not need to determine whether 

it is going to be 4°F or 6°F warmer. Think about what the 

impacts will be at the low and high ends of your annual 

temperature range when temperatures are consistently 

warmer than they are now, or phenomena happen earlier 

in the spring or later in the fall. 

Sidebar elaboration on why the workbook methodology might not be suited for all problems. 

Urgent problems

Ultimately, if the scale or urgency of a 

problem is so big that planning estimates 

are not adequate, then you have to turn 

to other risk management techniques 

for those risks. The methodology of this 

Workbook is not the right approach for 

problems that need precise, quantified 

answers.

See Appendix C. End of sidebar
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 41

Step 4

As you are assessing your risks, it may be helpful to indicate the level of certainty associated with each 

risk. When you evaluate the risks in Step 5—Risk Evaluation: Comparing Risks and later decide which 

ones to move forward with in your action plan, you may find that there are some risks for which there is 

great uncertainty and you need more information before investing resources to mitigate them. 

When using the Workbook methodology to conduct a vulnerability assessment, use the best available 

information and use an iterative process that allows you to reassess the identified risks as new 

information arises. 

How to proceed when climate projections give opposing answers

As you move through your risk analysis, you may discover a situation in which climate projections indicate 

different directions of change. For example, while examining the likelihood of more frequent drought 

for your watershed, you might discover that some climate models show there will be more precipitation 

events and less drought, while other models say that drought conditions will become more frequent.

There are lots of climate models, and several standard scenarios that each could run. Because each 

model is slightly different and the scenarios differ in their assumptions, every combination will have 

a different result than every other simulation. Sometimes model results cluster in a narrow range; 

sometimes that range is wider; sometimes the range includes both positive and negative projections of 

change.

How to proceed is related to how confident you would be about deciding on one direction of change 

and its approximate magnitude. Your answers to the following questions about model outputs can 

influence your decision:

• Do you have an outlier model?

• Do you have a continuous range of model results that happens to encompass zero?

• Do you have two clusters of model results?

• Do you have model results that are scattered all over the place?

If your sense is that there is enough of a modeling consensus for you to move forward, then proceed. 

But if your sense is that the best available climate change information is saying that anything could 

happen, then in the process of gathering more information you have now identified a condition that 

might lead to new risks.

New risks come because your conclusion that climate could change in opposite ways has introduced a 

new stressor. To continue the drought example, the “increasing drought” stressor would remain and you 

would now have an opposite “less-frequent drought” stressor too. You might not think that less-frequent 

drought is a stressor, but it is a change from current conditions and that could lead to some unwanted 

changes in the environment. The potential for new risks might best be handled by returning to Step 3—

Risk Identification and generating a new set of risks that would stem from the opposite stressor. Then 

come back to this step with any newly identified risks. You will have to decide how to allocate likelihood 

for the risks associated with the stressor pair. If you concluded that anything could happen then you 

probably should not assign “high” likelihood to risks related to either half of the duo.

Thresholds or tipping points

Tips occur when small actions, events or changes have large effects on future states. Environmental 

systems that respond to climate changes by crossing thresholds will complicate your risk analysis. When 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 42

Step 4

an ecological threshold is reached, things that were changing gradually (if at all) suddenly change 

abruptly. A low impact suddenly becomes high, or a local problem is suddenly everywhere, or a present/

absent switch occurs. Even if you do not know when a tipping point will be reached, you might be able 

to anticipate that it will be reached. When sea level rise will push salty water upstream to a sensitive 

freshwater marsh, or when the winter will become a frost-free season, cannot be known precisely. 

However, anticipating these thresholds will better prepare you in the event that they do occur. 

A risk could have a set of determinations about consequence/likelihood/area/timing that apply before 

the threshold is reached and another for after. One strategy would be to split the risk into two risks: a 

before-after pair. An alternative is to keep the risk intact and proceed with your risk analysis by answering 

some questions:

• Do you need to take action anyway? If this is a risk that will warrant attention even before a 

threshold is reached, how you choose to respond may also affect the onset of the transition. 

Mitigating a low risk now may head off the change to a high risk later.

• Is the threshold reversible? If it is crossed, can you take actions that would undo the change, or 

is it a one-way transition? Losing an endangered species is irreversible. Sometimes reversing the 

change is theoretically possible but unrealistic. Try to stay in the plausible part of the spectrum.

• How long will an effective response take? If you must respond to the risk if you do cross the 

threshold, is the time to adequately respond short or long?

If the consequences after crossing the threshold are high, and (because of permits, costs or other 

foreseeable problems) it would take a long time to effectively respond—whether before or after a 

tipping point is reached—then this is a high risk, even if the time of onset is unknown.

Use existing information

This application of the risk management process is intended to be completed with existing information 

and resources. New fine-scale climate modeling is not required for the type of qualitative analysis this 

vulnerability assessment supports, but use it if it already exists and is easy to obtain. 

At the time of this publication, climate model outputs for monthly temperature and precipitation are 

easily available for U.S. counties or finer resolutions.3 These should be more than sufficient for a planninglevel vulnerability assessment where you are looking to sort risks into high-medium-low categories.

To Get Started

Use the list of risks generated in Table 3-3 and note which ones you will be able to analyze internally and 

those for which you will want outside expertise. 

Assign someone to be responsible for the initial assessment of the four elements of each risk 

(consequence, likelihood, spatial extent of impact, time horizon). Then ensure that the responsible 

people provide you with enough information to fill out Table 4-1.

3 EPA’s National Stormwater Calculator is a desktop application that estimates the annual amount of rainwater and frequency 

of runoff from a specific site anywhere in the United States and includes options for historical weather and climate change 

scenarios. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/wq/models/swc/

The NEX-DCP30 Viewer allows the user to visualize projected climate change for any county in the continental United States. 

http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/clu_rd/nex-dcp30.asp

The USGS Derived Downscaled Climate Projection Portal allows visualization and downloading of future climate projections 

from a group of “statistically downscaled” global climate models. http://cida.usgs.gov/climate/derivative/
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 43

Step 4

Table 4-1. 

Risk analysis Table that adds six columns to Table 3-2 for users to record the consequence, likelihood, spatial extent, time horizon, and habit for each risk. Users can indicate their confidence in the risk analysis.

Organizational 

goal

Climate 

stressor

Risk Is this an 

opportunity 

instead of a 

risk?

Consequence 

(a–c)

Likelihood 

(a–c)

Spatial 

extent of 

impact 

(a–c)

Time 

horizon 

(a–c)

Habitat 

type

How confident 

are you in your 

risk analysis? 

Do you have 

sources that 

support your 

determinations?

1.2.3.4.5.n.

End of table

Consequence:

(a) Low (life will go on; not as important as many other things; 

could adjust)

(b) Medium (c) High (major disruption; goal is out of reach or not even 

attainable)

Likelihood:

(a) Low(b) Medium(c) High

Spatial extent of impact:

(a) Site (e.g., a few waterfront lots, a bridge, a sewage treatment 

plant)

(b) Place or region (e.g., community, harbor, state park, wildlife 

refuge, sub-watershed)

(c) Extensive (most of the watershed or most of the estuary)

Time horizon:

(a) More than 30 years(b) 10–30 years(c) Already occurring or 0–10 years
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 44

Step 4

Additional Resources

Also see Appendix B.

EPA resources about assessing climate change risks

EPA. 2011. Healthy Watershed Initiative: National Framework and Action Plan.

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/watershed/upload/hwi_action_plan.pdf

EPA Region 9 and California Department of Water Resources. 2011. Climate Change Handbook for 

Regional Water Planning.

http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/CCHandbook.cfm

EPA. 2007. National Land Cover Data Classification Schemes (Level II). 

http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/classification.html

Climate Ready Water Utilities. Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool (CREAT).

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/watersecurity/climate/creat.cfm

Climate Ready Water Utilities. Climate Ready Water Utilities Toolbox.

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity/climate/toolbox.html

How sensitivity, exposure and adaptive capacity influence vulnerability

National Wildlife Federation. 2011. Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change 

Vulnerability Assessment. Chapter 3. 

http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Climate-Smart-Conservation/NWFScanningtheCons

ervationHorizonFINAL92311.ashx

Considerations for assessing vulnerability

ICLEI. 2007. Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Governments. 

Chapter 8, pp. 69–71. 

http://www.icleiusa.org/action-center/planning/adaptation-guidebook

Climate projections

See Appendix E for sources of climate projections. 

USDA. 2012. Climate Projections FAQ. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr277.pdf
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 45

Step 5—Risk Evaluation: Comparing Risks

U.S. Geological Survey

What Is “Risk Evaluation: Comparing Risks”?

This portion of risk evaluation is an opportunity for you to reach agreement about the assessment of risks 

that your organization is facing. After the vulnerability assessment is complete you will pick up the rest of 

risk evaluation in Step 7—Risk Evaluation: Deciding on a Course of the action planning process.

Objective of This Step

The objective of this step is to develop a consequence/probability matrix and review it with stakeholder 

input. After you have agreement about your risk assessment, you will have the opportunity to further 

evaluate your vulnerabilities by looking at goals and habitat types.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 46

Step 5 

Process

After the people you consulted in Step 4 provide you with an initial analysis of your risks, you have 

an opportunity to turn to a wider set of people. Your partners and stakeholders can react to the 

determinations about consequence and likelihood, and help you to make sure they are accurate.

Create a consequence/probability matrix

A C/P matrix is a useful communication tool and will help 

guide decision-making about which risks your organization 

will address in your action plan. In Step 4—Risk Analysis

you determined an initial consequence and likelihood for 

each risk. In this step you will map each risk to a cell or box 

on a matrix using those characteristics. You will create a 

matrix like the example in Figure 5-1. 

Ask your stakeholders and advisors to help

Once you have your C/P matrix, reach out to the key 

stakeholders and partners for their input or concurrence in 

order to verify that you were on the right track in previous 

steps. You can reach out to individuals separately or 

convene a workshop. You can ask some people to just 

look at some of the risks. There are many ways to get feedback on your initial risk analysis. The more 

knowledgeable people who can review your C/P matrix, the better (up to the point of diminishing 

returns). You may find it useful to mark up your C/P matrix (which could be done separately for each goal, 

stressor or habitat type, or which may span several sheets of paper if printed) to include information from 

stakeholder consultation. You could also track input with additional notes to Table 4-1. 

There are advantages to asking others to participate. However, do this prudently: the primary purpose 

here is to get the best risk evaluation you can get. You do not want this to turn into a vote about what 

is important, nor do you want people angling for their issues to get ranked higher. The vulnerability 

assessment is about risks to your organization’s goals. Try to keep that the focus.

Ask for thoughts on your risk analysis:

• Do they generally agree with how the risks are placed in the C/P matrix? 

• Are there additional risks (pertaining to your organization’s goals) that should be added to the 

matrix?

Ask for feedback about the risks themselves:

• Are any of them priority risks for your stakeholders? Alternatively, are there any that they do not 

want to be addressed?

• Are there stakeholders or partners who are working to address any of the risks through their own 

programs?

Sidebar elaboration on the purpose of a vulnerability assessment. 

Vulnerability assessment

After this step, the matrix will be 

an agreed-on categorization of all 

foreseeable climate-change-related risks 

based on their likelihood of occurrence 

and consequence to your organization’s 

goals. The matrix does not prescribe 

or mandate any further activities. 

How or whether your organization 

intends to address these risks will be 

considered during the action planning 

steps that follow the completion of your 

vulnerability assessment. End of sidebar
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 47

Step 5

Likeliho

o

d (pro

bability) of occurrence 

High

1. Warmer water may stress

immobile biota 

2. Warmer water may lead to

changes in drinking water

treatment processes 

n. _________________

1. Warmer water may hold

less dissolved oxygen

2. Sea level rise may cause

bulkheads, sea walls and

revetments to become more

widely adopted 

n. _________________

M

e

dium

1. Increased wildfires from

warmer summers may lead to

soil erosion 

2. Warmer winters may lead

species that once migrated

through to stop and stay

n. _________________

1. Parasites and bacteria may

have greater abundance,

survival or transmission due

to warmer water 

2. Warmer summers may

drive greater water demand 

n. _________________

Lo

w

1. Warmer water may lead

open seasons and fish to be

misaligned 

2. Warmer winters may lead

to more freeze/thaw cycles

that impact water

infrastructure 

n. _________________

1. Warmer water may lead

jellyfish to be more common 

2. Ocean acidification may

cause the recreational

shellfish harvest to be lost

n. _________________

Low

Color key:

Medium High

Consequence of impact 

1. Shoreline erosion from sea

level rise may lead to loss of

beaches, wetlands and salt 

marshes 

2. Combined sewer overflows

may increase from more

intense precipitation

n. _________________

1. More frequent drought

may diminish freshwater

flow in streams 

2. More intense precipitation

may cause more flooding

n. _________________

1. Contaminated sites may

flood from sea level rise 

2. Warmer water may

promote invasive species 

n. _________________

Green Yellow Red

Figure 5-1. An example consequence/probability matrix. 

A C/P matrix is a tool for visualizing how risks were categorized when they were analyzed for their 

consequences and likelihoods. Risks plotted in red boxes (upper right), yellow boxes (diagonal from 

top left to bottom right) or green boxes (lower left) of the matrix are informally referred to as “red 

risks,” “yellow risks” or “green risks” in the remaining steps of the Workbook. The 18 risks shown here 

and their high-medium-low rankings are used solely for illustrative purposes. 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 48

Step 5 

Reaching agreement

Each risk can have only one ranking for its likelihood and one ranking for its consequence. If you turn to 

more than one person (this could be desirable), you should be prepared to receive a range of responses 

regarding the likelihood and consequence of a risk. 

In Step 4—Risk Analysis you asked qualified people to produce answers that were “not wrong.” That is 

the standard here too. You want an answer that you are even more confident is not wrong. You have to 

consider the range of input you receive from your many stakeholders and decide how to proceed. 

Perhaps you will have to make a tough call. Revisit what you developed in Step 4 if irreconcilable 

differences of opinion arise. Ultimately, it is your responsibility to synthesize the feedback into one 

determination, as this is ultimately your organization’s vulnerability assessment. Keep your organization’s 

needs in mind. 

Sidebar elaboration that helps users address and fix disagreement on risk analysis. 

No consensus

Why is there disagreement?

Do you have dissension about both the consequence and the likelihood of a risk or just one parameter? 

Does the issue involve the uncertainty surrounding projected climate changes?

Is there unequal knowledge about the risk among the disagreeing parties?

Does everyone understand why others think differently?

Possible fixes

Change the wording to something that everyone can agree about. Maybe it is too broad, or maybe one 

adjective is the consensus breaker.

Split the risk into separate risks that everyone can agree about. A particular risk may have a high likelihood 

in one place but low likelihood in another part of your study area: divide it into two risks, one for each area. 

A risk may have different consequences for different species (e.g., ducks vs. herons). Again, turning it into 

two risks may resolve differences of opinion.

See if disagreement matters. You are deciding whether a risk belongs in one of three qualitative categories 

(high-medium-low). Even if feelings are strong about high vs. medium or medium vs. low, the ultimate 

decision on how to categorize the risk may not matter as much. (If the debate is about the high vs. low 

categories, you should probably revisit this risk more thoroughly.) Would the risk land in the same redyellow-green category on your matrix regardless of how the disagreement is resolved? 

You don’t want to knowingly overrate risks—but if you are going to err, then err on the side of ranking the 

risk higher. If it is ranked higher it will get more consideration in the action planning to come.

• As you investigate it further in the action planning steps, the correct determination should become 

apparent and you can revise the risk analysis downward if you find that it was overrated. If you underrate 

the risk, you may never learn that it should have been rated higher.

• If the risk is in active consideration in the action planning steps, you also may find that an action that 

mitigates another higher risk could mitigate this one too. End of sidebar
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 49

Step 5

Update the matrix

As you confer with your colleagues, stakeholders and consultants, use their input to revise your matrix. 

Revise the tables you created in Step 4—Risk Analysis as well (be especially sure to keep track of the 

reasons for any updates you make).

When you have a revised and completed C/P matrix, you have two important results: (1) a broad, riskbased assessment of climate change vulnerability in your system and (2) agreement among management 

and key stakeholders about how the climate change risks will affect your organization. Congratulations! 

There is a lot of work to do still, but you are off to a great start.

Use your vulnerability assessment and the C/P matrix as a communication tool. It may be helpful to do 

the following: 

• Publish it online so that it is available within your community.

• Share it within your peer network (e.g., with other National Estuary Programs, National Estuarine 

Research Reserves, municipalities or watershed associations).

• Start gathering information to fill in data or knowledge gaps.

Get a deeper understanding

You can gain additional insight about your organization’s climate change vulnerabilities by organizing 

your risks into compilations. 

Goal: Create a list of all the risks that are related to each of your organization’s goals. You could find 

that some of your goals will be difficult to attain if the climate changes as expected. If, for example, your 

organization focuses on nonpoint sources of pollution and you find that a number of high risks are going 

to bear on that goal, you will want to pay attention to that as you adapt your organization to climate 

change.

Habitat type: In Step 4—Risk Analysis, you had the option to assign a habitat type to your risks. If you 

did so, you are ready to create a list of the risks in each environmental system. Looking at how much 

risk is concentrated in, for example, wetlands, urban areas or estuarine waters could help you to design 

action plans that will lead to sustainable systems.

Keep in mind that these compilations are simply new sortings of information from your risk assessment 

and risk evaluation. They offer a new angle on your vulnerability assessment that will also be valuable as 

you move on to develop an action plan to mitigate risks. 

To Get Started

Transfer the risks in Table 4-1 (which indicated the ranking for the consequence and likelihood of each 

risk) to a matrix like the example shown in Figure 5-1.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 50

Step 5 

Additional Resources

Also see Appendix B.

EPA resource about working with stakeholders and coming to agreement

EPA. 2013. Getting in Step: Engaging Stakeholders in Your Watershed. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npstbx/files/stakeholderguide.pdf

Stakeholder participation

NOAA Coastal Services Center. 2007. Introduction to Stakeholder Participation.

http://csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/sites/default/files/files/1366311008/stakeholder_participation.pdf

NOAA Coastal Services Center. 2010. Introduction to Planning and Facilitating Effective Meetings.

http://csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/sites/default/files/files/1366310745/planning_and_facilitating_effective_

meetings.pdf 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 51

Step 6—Establishing the Context for the Action Plan

Diane Haslem via Partnership for the Delaware Estuary

What Is “Establishing the Context for the Action Plan”?

In this step, you will re-examine the context of your organization to help create and implement an action 

plan that responds to the risks identified in your vulnerability assessment.

Objective of This Step 

The objective of this step is to explore opportunities and constraints that influence your organization’s 

choices, and develop a list of potential partners that could help you in addressing the risks you identified 

in your vulnerability assessment.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 52

Step 6

Process

In Step 2—Establishing the Context for the 

Vulnerability Assessment, you pulled together 

your organization’s goals to help you work through 

the vulnerability assessment. In your vulnerability 

assessment you identified and assessed all the 

foreseeable climate change impacts that could 

affect your ability to meet your goals. This step 

(Step 6) is about your context and the partners 

you could be working with to implement 

adaptation actions. 

Organizational context

The political, regulatory and cultural environment 

in which your organization exists influences 

your ability to take on different projects and 

accomplish goals. You want to uncover any 

circumstances that might guide you to choose 

certain adaptation approaches or prevent you 

from selecting others. If you choose to mitigate 

a risk you will need to have the organizational 

capabilities, resources and commitment to do 

what needs to be done. If you decide to accept 

or avoid a risk, you need to know how that will 

affect not just your goals but your organization 

too. 

Table 6-1 has a checklist to ensure that you 

review and note the relevant parts of your 

context. If the review of your situation identifies 

special implications for any of your risks, you 

should also note that.

Table 6-1. Review of your organizational context Table for users to record barriers and opportunities related to the social, technical, administrative, political, legal, economic and environmental elements of their organization’s context.

Contextual area Barriers Opportunities

Social

Technical 

Administrative

Political

Legal

Economic

Environmental

End of table

Sidebar elaboration on adaptive capacity. 

Adaptive capacity

A risk-based vulnerability assessment examines 

how climate change stressors will affect the 

ability of an organization to reach its goals. When 

risks exist, an organization that does not want to 

accept the possibility of a risk’s consequences will 

have to adapt. An organizational quality known 

as “adaptive capacity” is used to characterize its 

ability to make those adjustments. 

The adaptive capacity concept can also be used 

with ecosystems or elements of ecosystems in 

reference to how much they can cope with climate 

change. You probably accounted for the adaptive 

capacity of ecosystems in your vulnerability 

assessment when you determined the likelihood or 

consequence of environmental risks.

In reference to organizations, USGCRP’s SAP 4.4 

report describes four categories of barriers to 

adaptation (Chapter 9.5) that can constrain your 

ability to adapt:

• legislation and regulation;

• management policies and procedures;

• human and financial capital; and

• information and science.

The report goes on to suggest some opportunities 

to overcome those barriers. Keep in mind that to 

respond to your risks, your first adaptation actions 

might need to be structural or institutional.

U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2008. Preliminary 

Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive 

Ecosystems and Resources. Final Report, Synthesis and 

Assessment Product 4.4. End of sidebar
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 53

Step 6

Partnerships

You undoubtedly have partners who have a similar vision for your watershed. Hopefully, you have been 

working with them throughout your vulnerability assessment. Partners will be essential in the action 

planning half of climate change adaptation too. They can help you deal with risks that you may not be 

able to handle yourself. Solving problems together, dividing up tasks, identifying lead agencies, and 

finding who can contribute human or financial resources will help everyone to achieve your common 

goals.

Although all of the risks you identified in your vulnerability assessment could prevent you from achieving 

your goals, your organization may not be able to mitigate every risk. The availability of partners who 

can help with a risk may make a big difference in the approach you select. Be aware that some of your 

contextual limitations may apply to your partners as well.

Use Table 6-2 to note any common organizational goals, objectives or work areas where potential 

partners could help you. This list does not represent a commitment by either party. The list you develop 

here is an aid for the next step, where you may run into the limits of what your organization can do alone.

Table 6-2. Potential partners Table for users to record their potential partners and identify common goals between them.

Partner/Organization Common Goal/Objective/Work Area

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

n.

End of table

To Get Started

In Step 1—Communication and Consultation of the vulnerability assessment, you may have asked 

stakeholders if they were able to help implement actions to reduce risks. Review your communication 

plan to see who said yes.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 54

Step 6

Additional Resources

Also see Appendix B.

EPA resources on building partnerships

EPA. 2008. Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters. Chapter 3.

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/2008_04_18_NPS_watershed_handbook_ch03.pdf

EPA. 2008. EPA’s Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model.

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/publications/grants/cps-manual-12-27-06.pdf

Additional guidelines on creating partnerships

USDA. 2011. Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing 

Adaptation Options. pp. 22–28.

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/39884

NOAA. 2010. Adapting to Climate Change: A Planning Guide for State Coastal Managers. Chapter 3, 

pp. 19–23.

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/climate/docs/adaptationguide.pdf

Additional considerations for your context, and the STAPLEE criteria 

NOAA. 2010. Adapting to Climate Change: A Planning Guide for State Coastal Managers. Chapter 3, 

pp. 52–54.

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/climate/docs/adaptationguide.pdf

FEMA. 2003. Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementation 

Strategies. Chapter 2.

http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/4267
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 55

Step 7—Risk Evaluation: Deciding on a Course

Dave Gatley/FEMA News

What Is “Risk Evaluation: Deciding on a Course”?

This part of risk evaluation revisits your vulnerability assessment to take a closer look at your risks to 

determine which ones your organization will move forward with in the action planning process. Deciding 

on what actions you want to pursue and whether an action will work are going to be postponed until 

Step 8a and Step 8b. Here, in Step 7, you will be deciding at a high level how you want to approach 

your many risks. 

Objective of This Step

The objective of this step is to decide whether your organization will mitigate, transfer, accept or avoid 

each risk. 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 56

Step 7

Process

Although the focus of this step is high-level, the decisions you make here will determine what kinds of 

adaptation actions your organization implements and which risks you focus on in your action plan, so 

think carefully about how your organization will approach each risk. 

To accomplish the objective of this step requires a little bit of finessing the chicken and egg dilemma. In 

a systematic methodology, like the one this Workbook uses, when you have scores of risks and limited 

resources, the dilemma is: 

• You can choose to mitigate each risk or use some other risk handling approach for each one. 

Should you decide your approach before you even know whether there would be any suitable 

mitigating actions you could take?

• Investigating the options for mitigating a risk will take time and resources. You already know how 

many risks are in your vulnerability assessment and that you might never be able to mitigate 

each one; further there will be some that you know you never will act to mitigate. Should you still 

expend the effort to investigate options for mitigating every risk so that you can make a logical 

informed choice about whether to mitigate them?

Basically—should you decide what to do and then investigate it further, or when you can’t do everything 

should you still investigate it all before deciding what to do? Trying to have one logical, systematic 

process is what introduces the procedural difficulty. By definition, there is no easy way to resolve a 

dilemma, but you will try to make it a smaller problem from two directions:

• First you will get some familiarity with the mitigating actions that are circulating in the planning 

world. Knowing that options might exist for your situation will help you to decide whether 

mitigating any risk looks likely to succeed. 

• Second, because mitigation requires you to expend resources, you will try to screen out risks that 

seem suitable for another approach.

You want to filter the set of risks to decide where you will focus your resources. The idea is to head out 

of this step with a reduced set of risks that you would prefer to mitigate and for which you might be able 

to supply an appropriate mitigating action. Recording your high-level approach for each risk in Table 7-1 

will set you up for Step 8a—Finding Adaptation Actions and Step 8b—Selecting Adaptation Actions, 

where you will make finer deliberations about how and whether to proceed. 

How are risks related?

Your vulnerability assessment has lots of information to help you close in on the course you want 

to follow for your risks. In Step 5, you concluded the vulnerability assessment by getting a deeper 

understanding of how your risks are related to each other. Risks may affect a certain habitat type. A set 

of risks may threaten particular organizational goals. 

Mitigating actions you take for some risks might also have the co-benefit of mitigating related risks. 

Gaining awareness of how risks are related might help you identify a combination of mutually reinforcing 

risk-reducing actions, which will help you to decide which risk management approach you want to take.

Is mitigation realistic?

Mitigating a risk means acting in a way to modify its likelihood or consequence. Right now you simply 

want to increase your understanding of the types of actions that would be necessary to lower your risks. 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 57

Step 7

You want to get yourself to the point where you can say that it is realistic to think that a risk could be 

lowered if you elected to work on it: then you can make a more informed decision about whether you 

want to mitigate each risk or take a different approach.

The Climate Ready Estuaries Synthesis of Adaptation Options for Coastal Areas, as well as other 

documents (see the “Additional Resources” section of this step and Step 8a), will provide a sense for 

what might work for your location and combination of risks. You might also recognize that some actions 

address more than one risk. 

While you will not be selecting actions in this step, having some familiarity 

with ones your organization could take will be helpful. A fair amount of 

work remains in Step 8a and Step 8b before you will select a specific 

mitigation technique to use. Do not be too critical right now. In the same 

way the Workbook advises not to dismiss risks while you are preparing 

your vulnerability assessment, you should not dismiss actions here right 

now. You will be tempted to bring in your organization’s context or other 

knowledge to eliminate possible actions. However, judgments about how 

realistic something is will be coming back into this very soon. 

For this part of Step 7, just understand what kind of mitigating actions are 

in circulation and use your professional knowledge to simply think about 

whether any would work to lower your risks if you (or someone else) could 

implement them.

Approaches for each risk

Although these decisions will be made at a high level, you are deciding an approach for risks that 

you determined have the potential to affect your organization’s ability to meet its goals. You need to 

be prudent as well as aware that how you choose to approach your risks will determine where your 

adaptation actions are focused going forward.

Your context and constraints will have a big influence on the approach you select. It will be helpful to 

consult partners and stakeholders as you determine the approach for each risk. Some risks may be very 

important to a stakeholder group, or work may already be underway to address other risks. It will also be 

helpful to consider the spatial scale of the impact. You may opt for a different approach depending on 

whether it affects a small or large area. 

Risk management uses four general approaches for responding to any given risk:

• Mitigate.

• Transfer.

• Accept.

• Avoid.

Mitigating a risk is the one approach in which your organization would be making changes to the risk 

path (Step 3). The other approaches handle risk more administratively.

Mitigate

Mitigating a risk involves taking actions to reduce the likelihood and/or consequence of the threat to 

your goals. 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 58

Step 7

Transfer

“Transfer” is a technical risk management term for having another organization take responsibility for 

reducing the risk. Your risk is mitigated by another party. Buying an insurance policy is an example of 

transferring risk by having another party reduce the consequences if the risk occurs. An environmental 

management organization will probably not be buying insurance policies, but transfers can occur when 

other organizations will act in ways to reduce your risks. Maybe your risk could be mitigated when a 

highway is rebuilt or as part of other infrastructure work. Maybe you can agree to lead a reforestation 

effort if a partner agrees to restore some other habitat. Maybe some agency has announced it will 

be taking hazard mitigation actions that would have the co-benefit of reducing some of your risk. If 

others’ actions are lowering the likelihood or consequence of your risks then you have transferred the 

risk reduction responsibility to them. You aren’t mitigating the risk, but it is being reduced. Note that 

you cannot unilaterally transfer a risk. Other organizations need to affirm that they will actually mitigate 

the risk; otherwise the risk will still be there. You can opt to transfer some of a risk by partnering with 

another organization or by making a financial contribution to someone else’s mitigation project. If you 

are working with partner organizations on your adaptation plan, this is an opportunity to decide which 

organization is going to be the lead for which risks.

Accept

You may have to consider accepting a risk if you are unable to mitigate or transfer it through a viable 

strategy. Accepting a risk means that your organization will continue with business as usual and run the 

risk, dealing with the impact if/when it does occur. You might choose to accept a risk for some time, 

and then later begin to work on mitigating it. Reasons to accept a risk could include a long time horizon 

before impacts are expected, inability to locate a suitable mitigation strategy, or a lack of worry about 

the consequence of the risk. If more resources or information become available, you can re-evaluate and 

decide if there is an opportunity to use another approach besides “accept” for a risk. 

If you don’t make a choice to use any other approach, then by default you have elected to accept a risk. 

You are running the risk.

Avoid

The mitigate/transfer/accept approaches assume that you do not want to change your organization’s 

goals. If those three approaches are not feasible for you, then you may want to avoid a risk by narrowing 

goals that are related to this risk. Avoiding is about being out of the risk altogether so it will not affect 

you. Typically, avoiding a risk involves eliminating its root cause. However, since your organization by 

itself will not stop climate change from occurring, and since you cannot relocate your place, avoiding 

a risk in this context would require a shift in your organization’s operations or goals so that you are no 

longer exposed to that risk. For example, if one of your goals is to maintain some resource, but you 

conclude that climate change is making that a lost cause, you could relinquish that goal. Avoiding a 

risk does not mean the impact to the resource or to your place goes away—this is an administrative 

handling of risk in which you move away from this objective and you will no longer put resources toward 

it. Avoiding a risk may be a radical move for an organization: you will be pulling back from work that you 

thought was important. Reserve this approach for risks that will not be mitigated (by you or others) and 

where accepting the risk is a bad proposition.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 59

Step 7

Avoid vs. accept

The Workbook often states that if more information becomes available you should go back to earlier 

steps. In the iterative process of risk management, choosing “avoid” for a risk appears to be something 

new that has lots of other implications for your adaptation plan. If you are renouncing a goal, then all the 

risks you identified in Step 3, which derive from that goal, would seem to vanish too. Thus those risks 

would fall out of your matrix and vulnerability assessment. If they are not in your vulnerability assessment, 

they would not make it into this step of action planning either. Logically, deciding to avoid a risk makes it 

and everything related to it disappear.

Instead of acting right away on this logic, you should let your choice of “avoid” sit for now. The 

implications to your risks and goals arising from an iteration do not go away but are not an immediate 

problem. Instead, you want to leave open the possibility that even more information could be coming. 

The risk may turn out to be more benign than you thought; a new risk mitigation technology might 

emerge; a new partner may agree to help you with the risk; windfall funding might come in; etc. If you 

expunge the risk and the goal from your vulnerability assessment and action plan, you have nothing to 

go back to if you do get more information. Keep the risk and the goal, and keep track of the fact that 

you chose to avoid the risk. Things might change that would eventually let you select a mitigate/transfer/

accept approach. 

Tracking a risk you choose to avoid keeps a goal on the books. You stop working on the goal itself but 

do not drop it completely. Pragmatically, it really does not matter what your goal is or is not if you are 

not going to put any resources into trying to reach it. The difference between the “accept” and “avoid” 

approaches to a climate change risk thus become the difference between “business as usual” toward a 

goal and “no action” toward a goal. Table that helps users understand the four risk management approaches (mitigate, transfer, avoid, and accept).

Risk management 

approach

Description How your organization would use 

this approach

Mitigate Take action to lower the consequence 

or likelihood of the risk (or both).

Address the risk, or lead the effort to 

address the risk.

Transfer Another party has responsibility for 

mitigating the risk.

Allow or ask others to take the lead; 

assist as you can.

Accept Run the risk. Accept that the 

consequences may occur.

Business as usual in spite of the risk. 

Monitor, and reassess options in the 

future.

Avoid Take organizational or administrative 

action so that you will not be exposed 

to the risk.

Stop putting resources toward the 

goal that would be affected. Or 

delete/revise your goal and thus be 

out of the risk altogether.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 60

Step 7

Figure 7-1. Examples of how different risk management approaches would be applied.

For this scenario...

Goal: control point sources of pollution.

Climate change stressor: more intense precipitation.

Risk: combined sewer overflows may increase.

...choosing different approaches for handling the risk could set your organization on differing courses:

Mitigate: Your study area is already experiencing increased precipitation, so you will look for specific 

actions that you could take to reduce the likelihood of more intense precipitation causing further CSO 

problems.

Transfer: Another entity in your study area is already working to reduce CSOs. Your organization will 

participate in this effort but will not be the lead.

Accept: Your organization is going to accept that CSOs may increase from more intense precipitation. No 

action is identified at this time, but this risk will be monitored and reviewed.

Avoid: Your organization recognizes that it is not effective to continue to work on controlling point sources 

of pollution given that CSOs are going to increase from more intense precipitation. Resources will be 

realigned to focus on other goals.

Choosing an approach for each risk

Every risk that is on your matrix—whether in the high, medium or low category—represents a potential 

event that you determined could keep your organization from meeting its goals. In many cases you can 

transfer all or some of the risk to a partner, you can simply accept and run a risk, or you can change your 

goals so you avoid it altogether. If these are feasible or palatable then they are what you should do. 

What you cannot transfer and do not want to accept or avoid, you must mitigate yourself.

Mitigating a risk: Every risk that has a potential action that could lower it could be assigned to this 

category. Actions that are easy, that you would do in pursuit of no-regrets or win-win solutions, or that 

you simply think your organization should do, should be in this category.

Accepting a risk: If you turn to your vulnerability assessment, you will find a time horizon determination 

for each risk. All green risks in your C/P matrix (Step 5) are good candidates for an accept approach. The 

farther out in time they seem to be, the better the accept approach gets. Yellow risks that are decades 

away are also good candidates for the accept approach.

Not accepting a risk: Risks with a high impact (red risks in your C/P matrix) are bad candidates for the 

accept approach. You and your team identified these risks as highly likely to derail your organization. In 

order to continue to function as an effective organization that can meet its goals, you should probably 

choose another approach for these high-impact risks. 

Risks you could accept but should assign for mitigation: These are the green risks that are happening 

now as well as the yellow risks that are expected within the next 10–30 years. The green risks are lowconsequence problems anyway, and you have some time to respond to the yellow risks (unless the 

response requires a very long lead time). Assigning them to the mitigation approach has the potential 

advantage of keeping them moving through your adaptation planning steps. 

If you assign these green or yellow risks to the accept approach, they will be out of sight and out of mind 

as you create your action plan. The advantage of bringing them forward is that they will be in front of you 

when you are trying to decide the mitigating actions you do need to pursue. Actions that might address 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 61

Step 7

higher risks could address these lower risks too. You might select some actions over others if you are 

actively aware that they address lower risks too. Carrying these risks into the mitigation planning (Figure 

7-2) may lead to better organizational choices about actions than if the risks are assigned to the accept 

approach.

Figure 7-2. Some risks that are logical candidates for the “accept” approach could be strategically 

assigned to the “mitigate” approach based on their time horizons. Table that suggests three steps for assigning risks to either the accept or mitigate category based on whether they are green, yellow, or red risks and their time horizon. The left column of the table uses a depiction of the consequence/probability matrix concept to illustrate each of the three steps outlined in the table.

Green risks Yellow risks Red risks

(a) Risks that are logical candidates for the “accept” approach All, i.e., time 

horizon:

• Already 

occurring or 

0–10 years

• 10–30 years

• More than 

30 years

Time horizon:

• 10–30 

years

• More than 

30 years

None

(b) Risks that are logical candidates for “accept” but could be 

strategically assigned to the “mitigate” approach

Time horizon:

• Already 

occurring or 

0–10 years

Time horizon:

• 10–30 

years

Not 

applicable

(c) Risks that would remain assigned to the “accept” approach Time horizon:

• 10–30 years

• More than 

30 years

Time horizon:

• More than 

30 years

None

Color key: Green Yellow

Risks that are

expected in

0–10 years

Risks that are more

than 10 years away

Risks that are more

than 30 years away

Risks that are 10–30 years away

All

(a) (b) (c)

Risks that are

more than

10 years away

None None should

be in ACCEPT

None should

be in ACCEPT

Red

Color key: Green Yellow

Risks that are

expected in

0–10 years

Risks that are more

than 10 years away

Risks that are more

than 30 years away

Risks that are 10–30 years away

All

(a) (b) (c)

Risks that are

more than

10 years away

None None should

be in ACCEPT

None should

be in ACCEPT

Red

olor key: Green Yellow

Risks that are

expected in

0–10 years

Risks that are more

than 30 years away

Risks that are 10–30 years away

(b) (c)

Risks that are

more than

10 years away

None should

be in ACCEPT

None should

be in ACCEPT

Red Color key: Green Yellow

Risks that are

expected in

0–10 years

Risks that are more

than 10 years away

Risks that are more

than 30 years away

Risks that are 10–30 years away

All

(a) (b) (c)

Risks that are

more than

10 years away

None None should

be in ACCEPT

None shou

be in ACCE

Red
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 62

Step 7

Further, if the climate changes faster than you expect or if you were too optimistic in your time horizon 

determination, then by the time you complete another iteration of your vulnerability assessment, these 

unwanted risks may already be upon you. 

If you are not sure about mitigation: You are not obligated to start responding, but if you think you 

would want to mitigate a risk in the future, then you could benefit from the risk management process 

now by assigning it to the mitigation approach. In the systematic risk management process, only those 

risks that you identify for mitigation will be carried forward to Step 8a and Step 8b, where you will select 

adaptation actions for the risks, and to Step 9, where you will develop your plan. The other risks—which 

you are deciding not to actively mitigate but to transfer/accept/avoid—will be picked up in Step 10—

Monitoring and Review after you write your plan. If Step 8a and Step 8b show you that there is not a 

viable mitigation strategy for a particular risk, you can return to this step and choose another approach.

Approving the approach

After you have investigated and chosen a high-level approach (mitigate/transfer/accept/avoid) for every 

one of your risks, your organization’s key decision-makers (board of directors, management committee, 

staff, and the people who are regularly involved with deciding what you do) should agree before you go 

further with your action plan. Your organization is preparing a major strategy document. While this is not 

a new strategic plan, it is a statement of how you plan to continue being able to achieve your mission 

and goals. 

If you selected the avoid approach for any of your risks, you need to carefully think through what this 

means. You have chosen to withdraw from whatever goal would be thwarted by the risk. This may be 

the whole goal if the goal is narrow (e.g., maintain critical habitat for a particular bird species), or it may 

be a part of a goal if the goal is broad (e.g., maintain ecological diversity in your watershed). If you are 

deciding to withdraw from pursuing a goal (and thereby in effect rewriting your strategic plan), key 

decision-makers should approve this change in course.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 63

Step 7

Start

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

If yes...

No

No

No No

No NO

Is there a way to

MITIGATE the

risk?

Can you ACCEPT

this risk?

Can you ACCEPT

this risk?

Y/N depends on time horizon

If yes...

NO Y/N depends on time horizon

MITIGATE

TRANSFER

ACCEPT

AVOID

Is the action easy?

inexpensive? 

a win-win?

a should-do?

TRANSFER is

not possible

Can you

TRANSFER this

risk?

Is AVOID a

choice you are

ready to make?

As you consider each risk, the first question is whether there is even the possibility of mitigating it. 

Did you come across any action that you or others could take to change the risk path so that the risk’s 

consequence or likelihood will be reduced? If no (there is not a feasible way for you or anyone else to 

lower a risk to a tolerable level), then you either have to accept it or avoid it. If yes (there is a way to 

mitigate the risk), then mitigation could be your first choice if it is a low-intensity action or something 

you want to take on. Transferring all or some of the risk for someone else to mitigate could be the 

next best choice. If no one else will agree to the risk transfer, then you could accept the risk if it is 

low-impact, or medium-impact with a longer time horizon (see text earlier in this step for a discussion 

about selecting the accept approach). Otherwise, if you are not prepared to avoid the risk, you have to 

mitigate it yourself.

Figure 7-3. Your organization can opt for any risk management approach that serves its needs. The 

flow chart depicts a logical sequence that could help with decision-making when resources are limited 

and not every risk can be mitigated.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 64

Step 7

To Get Started

You need to mitigate everything that you cannot transfer and do not want to accept or avoid (Figure 

7-3). Deciding which risks you want to mitigate may not be the best way to begin. For a first round of 

decision-making it may be easier to leave the mitigation option for last, after you have rejected the other 

strategies. To get started you should identify the risks that you can transfer to another willing party. 

Table 7-1. Risk identification: choosing an approach Two more columns are added to Table 4-1. Users record which color category a risk is in and which risk management approach they intend to use.

Risk Is the risk in the red, yellow or 

green zone of your C/P matrix?

Approach 

(mitigate/transfer/accept/avoid)

1.

2.

3.

n.

End of table

Additional Resources

Also see Appendix B.

EPA resources for climate change adaptation options

Appendix F—Actions That Could Reduce Water Temperature

Climate Ready Estuaries. 2009. Synthesis of Adaptation Options for Coastal Areas.

http://www.epa.gov/cre/

Climate Ready Water Utilities. 2012. Adaptation Strategies Guide for Water Utilities.

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/watersecurity/climate/upload/epa817k11003.pdf

Approaches for risks

National Research Council. 2010. America’s Climate Choices: Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. 

pp. 90–120.

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/sample-page/panel-reports/panel-on-adapting-to-theimpacts-of-climate-change/

Project Management Institute. 2008. The Standard for Program Management. 2nd ed. 11.4.2.

National Wildlife Federation. 2011. Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change 

Vulnerability Assessment. pp. 9–11.

http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Climate-Smart-Conservation/NWFScanningtheCons

ervationHorizonFINAL92311.ashx
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 65

Step 8a—Finding Adaptation Actions

Partnership for the Delaware Estuary

What Is “Finding Adaptation Actions”?

In this step you will be taking a look at the risks you are choosing to mitigate and choosing a set of 

adaptation actions that could be effective. After this step the list will move forward for more evaluation in 

planning-level Step 8b and more investigation at the project level when you kick off work in Step 9.

Objective of This Step

The objective of this step is to develop a list of adaptation actions that your organization wants to further 

assess before deciding to implement them. 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 66

Step 8a

Process

You will identify potential adaptation actions for the risks you selected for mitigation in Step 7. At the 

end of this step you will have a list (Table 8a-2) of adaptation actions that address those risks. Recall that 

the risks you decided to transfer, accept or avoid will be picked back up in Step 10—Monitoring and 

Review, since your organization is not going to take any actions on them at this time. 

Recapping what has come before to help with what is next

In Step 3 you identified each risk by describing how a climate change stressor might affect your 

organization’s goals. Stressors and consequences are built in for every risk. 

In Step 4 and Step 5 you reached agreement about the consequence and likelihood of each risk and 

mapped each risk to the corresponding location in a C/P matrix. The C/P matrix is divided into three 

impact zones: high (red), medium (yellow) and low (green); each risk is within one of the impact zones (in 

shorthand, each risk is either red, yellow or green).

In Step 7 you may have familiarized yourself with a range of adaptation actions (such as in the CRE 

Synthesis of Adaptation Options) to help you with decisions about whether to mitigate/transfer/accept/

avoid the various risks. 

In Step 7 you selected which risks your organization wants to mitigate. In this step and Step 8b you will 

find and select the mitigating actions your organization will pursue.

Adaptation actions

For every risk you know that the no-action alternative

is this: when time catches up with you or your luck runs 

out, then the consequence hits. You already decided in 

Step 7 that there are a number of risks that you want to 

mitigate because you did not want to run them (i.e., did 

not want to accept them). Thus you already determined 

that you want to keep those no-action scenarios from 

occurring. 

In Step 7 the Workbook says: “Mitigating a risk involves 

taking actions to reduce the likelihood and/or 

consequence of the risk on your goals.” Thus, the 

purpose of an action is to reduce the likelihood or 

consequence of a risk—ideally substantially reducing the 

risk. You mitigate risks by implementing adaptation 

actions that move risks toward the lower left (green) 

corner of your C/P matrix (Figure 8a-1). 

Breaking the chain

A mitigating action works somewhere in a risk’s cause–effect path to make a difference in the severity of 

the consequence or in the likelihood of it ever happening (Figure 8a-2). 

Consequence

Likelihood

Figure 8a-1. Risks are mitigated by taking 

actions that would lead them to be 

replotted closer to the lower left corner 

of your C/P matrix. If you reduce the 

consequence or the likelihood (or both), 

you have reduced the amount of risk.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 67

Step 8a

Business as usual Climate change

stressor

Achieve

goal

Figure 8a-2. Risk mitigation has to happen in the “business as usual” part of this risk path diagram 

from Step 3. To change the likelihood or consequence of a climate change risk (and make the 

goal achievable), business as usual (either the way the environment functions or the projects the 

organization chooses to execute) needs to be different. 

To mitigate a risk you need to find actions that change course from the business as usual plan so that 

your goal can still be realized. You need to understand what happens in the “business as usual” cloud 

in Figure 8a-2, and you need to rely on your professional knowledge to conceive how an action could 

produce a different outcome. 

Finding where you could act

If your risks follow the format described in Step 3 then you already have a lot of information about the 

risk path:

Stressor X could _____, and the result is that we might not attain Goal Y.

The “blank” in this template is what you need to alter so that you achieve Goal Y regardless of Stressor 

X. You need to understand the unwanted cause–effect path so that you can find an action that will 

disrupt it.

As you search for meaningful intervention points, you 

can imagine the risk path in your head or you can use a 

graphical illustration to help you understand the system. 

In Step 3—Risk Identification you may have used a 

graphical description of your system (like the U.S. Postal 

Service diagram in Figure 3-2 or a conceptual diagram as 

described in Appendix D) to help identify how stressors 

could act to produce risks. You can use similar diagrams or 

turn to the same ones you used in Step 3.

The more detailed your understanding is, the more 

opportunities you can see for where a mitigating action 

would have some potential. Figure 8a-3 shows how to use a 

conceptual diagram to trace a risk path and aid in finding good intervention points. Diagrams like these 

do not show you what to do; they show you where you could act to disrupt a risk’s cause–effect pathway. 

Next you find actions that could act at those spots.

Sidebar elaboration that acknowledges how knowledge gaps may guide an organization in its approach to adaptation planning. 

Knowledge gaps

You may have a high risk that you 

must mitigate, but still have a poor 

understanding of how its environmental 

system functions. A research project 

may need to be the first mitigating 

action. But don’t let a desire for perfect 

understanding become an excuse for 

inaction. End of sidebar
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 68

Step 8a

human activity

source

interacting 

stressor

proximate

stressor

response

modifying factor

LEGEND

ecosystem processes

↓ condition behavior

population & community structure

↑ mortality ↓reproductive success

↑ barriers to movement

discharge patterns water velocity 

& depth

↓ large

woody debris ↓ bank

habitat

↓cover

↓ riparian

habitat

↑ runs pools ↓ riffles

geomorphological

units

↓ physical habitat availability↓ physical habitat quality

↑ bedload &

deposited sediment

gradient

geology

stormwater runoff point effluent discharges

industry

channel

alteration

agriculture forestry & silviculture mining & urbanization resource extraction

Figure 8a-3. A conceptual diagram with detail of how a system functions will show many places where 

you could intervene to disrupt the risk path. It might also show how actions that alter other model 

paths could lower impacts from climate change too.

In this diagram, chains connect stormwater runoff (starred) and the population and community 

structure of various taxa (starred). You can see how increased precipitation from climate change can 

work through the system. Stormwater runoff drives two response paths, one (red) affecting habitat 

through effects on sediment and another (blue) related to how the stream responds to the volume of 

water. Any action in either path that keeps increased precipitation from having an unwanted ecological 

effect would change the likelihood or consequence of that climate change stressor producing an 

unwanted impact.

Secondly, seeing more of the system than the pathways from stormwater to the biological population 

reveals more opportunities to intervene. If the volume of stormwater seems to be increasing, you 

can look at controlling runoff or discharge from other land uses. You could look at establishing other 

riparian habitat to compensate for the climate impacts. You could remove barriers to movement so 

populations could find refuge during extreme events.

The fuller your understanding of your system, the more places you can find where actions could lower 

the risk. You want as many options as you can find because some will be better than others.

Figure from EPA’s CADDIS (see Appendix D)
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 69

Step 8a

Finding mitigating actions that look promising

As you find the points along a risk pathway where opportunities exist to mitigate the risk (Figure 8a-3), 

you need to rely on your knowledge about your system to think about what actions might be promising. 

You are looking for actions to apply at the relevant spots in the risk path in order to lower the likelihood 

or consequence of a risk.

Your professional knowledge and training may lead you in certain directions. As you were familiarizing 

yourself with options in Step 7, additional ideas may have interested you. If your organization goals are 

similar to the Clean Water Act goals, then Table 8a-1 of the Workbook presents the actions from CRE’s 

Synthesis of Adaptation Options for Coastal Areas in a new format that you might find useful. If your 

organization has goals specific to the management of water utilities, see resources from EPA’s Climate 

Ready Water Utilities program. For other sets of organizational goals, the “Additional Resources” section 

at the end of this step points to sources of potential actions. 

There are hundreds of potential actions that would alter a risk path and reduce the risk’s consequence/

probability. Many actions are trivial; some are practically impossible. You want to identify a plausible 

range of actions in this step. This is probably not as open-ended a brainstorming exercise as it sounds, 

but do not reject things that are novel. You want a range of actions because in Step 8b you may decide 

that some are unpalatable for various reasons and should be rejected. Having a plausible range of 

actions will help you find opportunities to use actions that might mitigate more than one risk, bring 

co-benefits, or open up other opportunities. The best way to solve one particular risk might not be 

as advantageous as a second-best way that mitigates other risks too. It is fine (probably desirable) to 

identify the same action for more than one risk.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 70

Step 8a

In two Climate Ready Estuaries projects, the San Francisco Bay Estuary Partnership and the Massachusetts 

Bay Program each worked with EPA’s Office of Research and Development in intensive collaborations to 

identify climate change risks. Parts of the SFEP project are used here to illustrate how conceptual models 

can be used to find adaptation actions, and to show how some actions address multiple problems.

A number of SFEP’s management goals are related to salt marshes:

• Restore healthy estuarine habitat to the Bay-Delta, taking into consideration all beneficial uses of BayDelta resources.

• Stem and reverse the decline of estuarine plants, fish and wildlife, and the habitats on which they 

depend.

• Ensure the survival and recovery of listed and candidate threatened and endangered species, as well as 

special status species.

• Protect and manage existing wetlands.

• Restore and enhance the ecological productivity and habitat values of wetlands.

Sea level rise and altered hydrology are leading to increased inundation, changes in water quantity and 

quality, and patterns of sedimentation and erosion, which are interacting with other human activities to 

create risks.

As part of this project, a more expansive model of salt marsh processes was narrowed (to what is shown) 

to focus on the factors affecting marsh sediment retention. Experts reached agreement about which 

relationships had the highest impact under given climate change scenarios. Then they used the diagram to 

isolate top pathways (pathways are colored blue, green and purple in Figure ES-2 of the original report).

Tides Freshwater

Inflow

Delta Outflow Impervious

Cover

Sediment Flux Relative Sea

Level Sediment Size

Net Accretion/

Erosion

Channelization

Wind/Waves

Inundation

Regime

Reservoir

Management

Net Organic

Accumulation

Net Mineral

Accumulation

Sidebar elaboration on using risk pathways to find adaptation actions based on a study of the San Francisco Bay. 

Using Risk Pathways to Find Adaptation Actions
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 71

Step 8a

With the three top pathways graphically highlighted, opportunities emerged to find risk mitigation options. 

While keeping SFEP’s management goals in mind, participants used their judgment to identify actions 

that would respond to the climate change stressors. Understanding how the system operates pointed 

to a dozen strategies that could be used to help promote accretion in estuary marshes. Many of these 

strategies would alter more than one risk path, and all of them were identified as being helpful for other 

SFEP conservation goals. 

Table showing how identified adaptation strategies disrupt risk pathways shown in the conceptual diagram and also indicating that those strategies help meet other organizational goals as well. 

Adaptation strategies Green 

path

Purple 

path

Blue 

path

Other

goals

Start restoration soon to achieve functions of mature marshes, 

including attainment of threshold elevations for organic 

accumulation, ahead of sea level rise

x x

Plan for the temporal progression of habitats (e.g., by establishing 

habitats that will thrive under future climate conditions) x x

Plan for the spatial progression of restoration (e.g., consider 

impacts of broaching Suisun Marsh levees on downstream 

estuary restoration efforts)

x x

Support resilience by restoring habitat complexity and facilitating 

high-energy parts of the system such as tides, wind-driven waves 

and freshwater flows

x x x

Practice integrated water management, including water 

conservation, as a priority x x x

If it is not possible to make maintaining marsh salinity a top 

priority for Delta freshwater storage policies, plan for the 

restoration of tidal wetlands further up the estuary

x x

Develop methods to move sediment into the bay, to keep pace 

vertically with sea level rise x x x

Develop methods to reduce wave action on the front side of 

marshes x x

Adjust policies that prevent coarse sediment from entering the 

bay (e.g., for streams that don’t support salmonids, change 

policies to allow an increase in sediment load)

x x x

Involve authorities in flood control districts to recouple streams to 

wetlands x x

Monitor change at the landscape scale to assess management 

effectiveness x x

Develop rapid response plans for catastrophes (e.g., levee 

breaks), with the political and scientific bases in place to respond 

properly

x x

In its current program SFEP is already working on restoration, management and science activities that are 

related to these actions. The climate change vulnerability assessment and action plan can help to prioritize 

that work as well as point to how tailored projects can minimize risks.

EPA. 2012. Vulnerability Assessments in Support of the Climate Ready Estuaries Program: A Novel Approach Using 

Expert Judgment, Volume I: Results for the San Francisco Estuary Partnership. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/global/

recordisplay.cfm?deid=241556 End of sidebar
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 72

Step 8a

Table 8

a-1. 

P

o

ten

tial

a

dap

tation ac

tions for risks

t

o

Clean

Water

A

c

t goals

Par

t 1: 

Con

trol poin

t an

d nonpoin

t sources

of pollu

tion an

d clean up pollu

tion Table showing various adaptation actions that respond to risks created by crossing the goal of controlling point and nonpoint sources of pollution and clean up of pollution with the indicated climate change stressors.

Adaptation actions Warmer 

summers

Warmer 

winters

Warmer 

water

Increasing 

drought

Increasing 

storminess

Sea level 

rise

Ocean 

acidification 

Create permitting rules that constrain locations for landfills, hazardous waste dumps, mine tailings and toxic chemical facilities

x x x

Design new coastal drainage system x xPlug drainage canals for flood control x x

End of table

Par

t 2: 

Main

tain an

d improve es

tuarine habi

tat Table showing various adaptation actions that respond to risks created by crossing the goal of maintaining and improving estuarine habitat with the indicated climate change stressors.

Adaptation actions Warmer 

summers

Warmer 

winters

Warmer 

water

Increasing 

drought

Increasing 

storminess

Sea level 

rise

Ocean 

acidification 

Composite systems—incorporate elements of two or more methods (e.g., breakwater, sand fill, planting vegetation)

x x

Create a regional sediment management (RSM) plan x xCreate dunes along backshore of beach x xCreate marsh by planting the appropriate species in the substrate xDevelop adaptive stormwater management practices x x
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 73

Step 8a

Part 2: Maintain and improve estuarine habitat (continued)

Adaptation actions Warmer 

summers

Warmer 

winters

Warmer 

water

Increasing 

drought

Increasing 

storminess

Sea level 

rise

Ocean 

acidification 

Establish rolling easements xFortify dikes x xHarden shoreline with breakwaters x xHarden shorelines with bulkheads x xHarden shorelines with revetments that armor the slope face of the shoreline

x x

Harden shorelines with seawalls x xHeadland control x xIdentify and protect ecologically significant areas such as nursery grounds, spawning grounds and areas of high species diversity

x x x x

Incorporate consideration of climate change impacts into planning for new infrastructure

x x x x

Incorporate wetlands protection into infrastructure planning x xIncrease shoreline setbacks x xInstall rock sills and other artificial breakwaters in front of tidal marshes along energetic estuarine shorelines

x x
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 74

Step 8a

Part 2: Maintain and improve estuarine habitat (continued)

Adaptation actions Warmer 

summers

Warmer 

winters

Warmer 

water

Increasing 

drought

Increasing 

storminess

Sea level 

rise

Ocean 

acidification 

Incorporate coastal management into land use planning x x x x x x

Integrated Coastal Zone Management (CZM) x x x x x x

Land acquisition programs x xLand exchange programs x xManage realignment and deliberately realign engineering structures

x x

Plant submerged aquatic vegetation to stabilize sediment and reduce erosion

x x

Preserve and restore structural complexity and biodiversity of vegetation in tidal marshes, seagrass meadows and mangroves

x x

Prohibit hard shore protection xRedefine riverine flood hazard zones to tidal and riverine flow x xRemove hard protection or other barriers to tidal and riverine flow xRemove shoreline hardening structures

x
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 75

Step 8a

Par

t 2: 

Main

tain an

d improve es

tuarine habi

tat (con

tinue

d)

Adaptation actions Warmer 

summers

Warmer 

winters

Warmer 

water

Increasing 

drought

Increasing 

storminess

Sea level 

rise

Ocean 

acidification 

Replace shoreline armoring with living shorelines x xRestrict or prohibit development in erosion zones x xTrap or add sand through beach nourishment x xTrap sand through construction of groins x xUse natural breakwaters of oysters to dissipate wave action and protect shorelines

x x x x

Wetland accretion by introducing sediment xWetlands migration x

End of table
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 76

Step 8a

Part 3: Protect and propagate fish, shellfish and wildlife, including control of nonnative species Table showing various adaptation actions that respond to risks created by crossing the goal of protecting and propagating fish, shellfish and wildlife, including control of noninvasive species with the indicated climate change stressors.

Adaptation actions Warmer 

summers

Warmer 

winters

Warmer 

water

Increasing 

drought

Increasing 

storminess

Sea level 

rise

Ocean 

acidification 

Adapt protections of important biogeochemical zones and critical habitats as the locations of these areas change with climate

x x x x x x x

Connect landscapes with corridors to enable migrations x x xDesign estuaries with dynamic habitat boundaries and buffers x x x xExpand the planning horizons of land use planning to incorporate longer climate predictions

x x x x

Purchase upland development rights or property rights x xRemove invasive species and restore native species x x x x

Replicate habitat types in multiple areas to spread risks associated with climate change

x x x x x x

Strengthen rules that prevent the introduction of invasive species x x x

End of table
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 77

Step 8a

Par

t 4: 

Pro

tec

t public water supplies an

d recreational ac

tivi

ties, in an

d on

the water Table showing various adaptation actions that respond to risks created by crossing the goal of protecting public water supplies and recreational activities, in and on the water with the indicated climate change stressors.

Adaptation actions Warmer 

summers

Warmer 

winters

Warmer 

water

Increasing 

drought

Increasing 

storminess

Sea level 

rise

Ocean 

acidification 

Create water markets x x x x xEstablish or broaden “use containment areas” to allocate and cap water withdrawal

x x x

Incorporate sea level rise into planning for new infrastructure (e.g. sewage systems)

x

Integrate climate change scenarios into water supply system x x x x x x

Manage water demand x x x x x x

Prevent or limit groundwater extraction from shallow aquifers x x x x

End of table

Adapted from CRE’s Synthesis of Adaptation Options for Coastal Areas.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 78

Step 8a

Do you think it will work?

Do not worry about deeply assessing any action right now. This step is where you generate a list of 

actions for further investigation (in effect, hypotheses). At this scoping stage you can rely on your 

professional understanding of your system to ask yourself: is it reasonable to think the action would be 

effective at reducing the likelihood or consequence of the risk? 

You will assess and affirm the risk reduction potential of the adaptation actions later in Step 8b. In this 

step you will simply confirm that by implementing an action (or combination of actions) you expect to 

change the risk’s likelihood and/or consequence from high to medium or from high/medium to low. That 

is, you expect to move the risk at least one whole box in either dimension on your C/P matrix. If you are 

not going to be able to move a risk at least one box, do not spend a lot of time or money on actions that 

will not make much of a difference.

Every risk must have a mitigating action

If you cannot identify any potentially mitigating actions for a risk you should expand your conception 

of “plausible” to see if something rises up. Further, you might want to consider actions that are beyond 

your ability to implement alone. If this is a high-consequence risk to your organization, then you might 

need to take more extreme steps to mitigate it.

Ultimately, however, if you cannot find an action (or combination of actions) that will move a risk in your 

C/P matrix from high to medium or from high/medium to low, in at least one dimension, then you really 

need to review your decision of trying to mitigate it. This is another case in which more information has 

become available and you should return to an earlier step—Step 7 in this case—so you can decide 

on another approach for this risk. Note that if you cannot think of any way to mitigate the risk, then 

transferring the risk to another party to mitigate probably is not a viable option either. You probably 

need to accept or avoid this risk.

To Get Started

Take a look at each of the risks you identified for mitigation and determine if any diagrams you used to 

help with risk identification in Step 3 or if the generic conceptual models in Appendix D will be helpful 

for understanding the risk pathways.

Table 8a-2. Selection of adaptation actions Table that adds three columns to Table 7-1 asking users to list which adaptation actions they could use for each of the risks that were selected for mitigation and whether the action is thought to reduce the risk’s likelihood and/or consequence.

Risk selected for 

mitigation

Potential adaptation 

action (one or more for 

each risk)

Could the action 

reduce likelihood (by 

itself or in combination 

with another action)? 

Yes/No

Could the action 

reduce consequence 

(by itself or in 

combination with 

another action)? 

Yes/No

1.

2.

3.

n.

End of table
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 79

Step 8a

Additional Resources

Also see Appendix B.

EPA resources to identify additional adaptation actions for consideration

Climate Ready Estuaries. 2009. Synthesis of Adaptation Options for Coastal Areas.

http://www.epa.gov/cre/

Climate Ready Water Utilities. 2012. Adaptation Strategies Guide for Water Utilities.

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/watersecurity/climate/upload/epa817k11003.pdf

EPA and NOAA. 2011. Achieving Hazard-Resilient Coastal and Waterfront Smart Growth: Coastal and 

Waterfront Smart Growth and Hazard Mitigation Roundtable Report.

http://coastalsmartgrowth.noaa.gov/pdf/hazard_resilience.pdf

Using conceptual models (also see Appendix D)

EPA. 2012. Vulnerability Assessments in Support of the Climate Ready Estuaries Program: A Novel 

Approach Using Expert Judgment, Volume 1: Results for the San Francisco Estuaries Partnership.

http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=505773

EPA. 2012. Vulnerability Assessments in Support of the Climate Ready Estuaries Program: A Novel 

Approach Using Expert Judgment, Volume 2: Results for the Massachusetts Bay Program.

http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=505771

EPA. 2012. CADDIS: The Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System.

http://www.epa.gov/caddis/index.html

National Park Service. Integrated resource management applications.

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/index.cfm

https://irma.nps.gov/App/

Additional adaptation options

NOAA. 2010. Adapting to Climate Change: A Planning Guide for State Coastal Managers. Step 3.2, pp. 

46–96.

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/climate/docs/adaptationguide.pdf

Center for Climate Strategies. 2011. Center for Climate Strategies Adaptation Guidebook: 

Comprehensive Climate Action. Appendix 3.

http://www.climatestrategies.us/library/library/view/908

American Rivers and Natural Resources Defense Council. 2012. Getting Climate Smart: A Water 

Preparedness Guide for State Action. pp. 65–99.

http://www.nrdc.org/water/climate-smart/files/getting-climate-smart.pdf

National Wildlife Federation. 2014. Green Works for Climate Resilience: A Guide to Community Planning 

for Climate Change.

http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Climate-Smart-Conservation/2014/green-worksfinal-for-web.pdf

California Emergency Management Agency and California Natural Resources Agency. 2012. California 

Adaptation Planning Guide: Identifying Adaptation Strategies.

http://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/apg_identifying_adaptation_strategies.pdf
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 80
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 81

Step 8b—Selecting Adaptation Actions

EPA Office of Water, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division

What Is “Selecting Adaptation Actions”?

In this step, the adaptation actions you found in Step 8a will be screened to determine whether they are 

desirable and still candidates for implementation. Actions that pass your screening tests will be ranked 

according to risk-reduction potential and the top actions will be selected for implementation.

Objective of This Step

The objective of this step is to screen candidate adaptation actions and select the ones your organization 

will move forward for implementation. 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 82

Step 8b

Process

In Step 8a, you identified a preliminary list of adaptation actions that you believe would disrupt a 

risk and lead to a reduction of its likelihood or consequence. Some mitigating actions will be obvious 

winners, but others may have some flaws. In this step, you will further assess each adaptation action and 

use Table 8b-1 to record your results. 

When you have a set of good actions that pass your screening tests, then you will once again turn to your 

vulnerability assessment. Your C/P matrix will help you to rank your actions based on their risk reduction 

potential. Then you will select the actions that will achieve the most risk reduction for your organization 

based on your available resources.

Criteria to assess actions

In addition to risk reduction potential, which you conditionally affirmed in the last step, the Workbook

uses five other sets of questions (America’s Climate Choices Summary Report, p. 46) to apply to the pool 

of potential actions.

• Feasibility and effectiveness.

• Cost and cost-effectiveness.

• Ancillary costs and benefits.

• Equity and fairness.

• Robustness.

Risk reduction potential 

You already considered the risk reduction potential of 

actions in Step 8a by affirming that you expect each 

adaptation action (by itself or by a combination of actions) 

to move a risk at least one box on your consequence/

probability matrix. Do you still believe that?

Feasibility and effectiveness

• Is the action a proven strategy? Are there other 

places that have successfully implemented this 

action?

• Do you have enough time to implement it to prevent 

risks from occurring?

• Is it politically feasible?

• Do you have, or can you get, authority or permission 

to implement it?

• Is it something your community/stakeholders would 

accept?

Cost and cost-effectiveness

• Is it affordable? Which category does the cost of 

the adaptation action fit?

— Minor.

Sidebar elaboration on what it means to manage for change. 

Managing for change

“Beyond ‘managing for resilience,’ 

the Nation’s capability to adapt will 

ultimately depend on our ability to 

be flexible in setting priorities and 

‘managing for change.’ Prioritizing 

actions and balancing competing 

management objectives at all scales of 

decision making is essential, especially in 

the midst of shifting budgets and rapidly 

changing ecosystems....Over time, our 

ability to ‘manage for resilience’ of 

current systems in the face of climate 

change will be limited as temperature 

thresholds are exceeded, climate 

impacts become severe and irreversible, 

and socioeconomic costs of maintaining 

existing ecosystem structures, functions, 

and services become excessive. At this 

point, it will be necessary to ‘manage 

for change,’ with a re-examination of 

priorities and a shift to adaptation 

options that incorporate information on 

projected ecosystem changes.”

—Executive Summary, p. 4

USGCRP. 2008. Preliminary Review of 

Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive 

Ecosystems and Resources. Synthesis and 

Assessment Product 4.4. End of sidebar
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 83

Step 8b

— Similar to a municipal public works project (i.e., can afford this in the budget or by bonding or 

fundraising, or by extending it over multiple budget years).

— Very expensive, requiring external assistance.

— Overwhelming and impossible.

• Is the cost reasonable for the risk reduction an 

action would produce?

• Did you consider if there are long-term maintenance 

costs?

• Does the action prevent other future costs or 

damages?

• Will the action generate positive economic benefits?

Some of the most effective options may also be the most 

expensive. The converse—the cheapest actions might be 

the least effective—also holds. Later in this step you will 

consider how your available resources affect how many 

actions you can implement and how much risk reduction 

you can achieve.

Ancillary costs and benefits

• Is the action maladaptive?

— Does action in one sector/place cause problems 

in another sector/place?

— Will action to reduce some risks encourage 

people to take other risks they would have 

avoided otherwise?

— Does the action close off other options or lock 

the future onto one path?

• Co-benefits—does an action create positive side 

effects that help with other non-climate problems or 

with more than one climate change risk?

• Sustainability—is there a balance between the 

social, environmental and economic costs and 

benefits of this action?

— Are needs of present and of future generations 

considered?

— Are there adverse impacts on the environment, 

ecosystem functions or ecosystem services?

Equity and fairness

• Does it align with your ethics and principles?

• Does it cause a minority population or low-income 

population to bear disproportionately high and 

adverse effects? 

Sidebar elaboration on the definition of sustainability and its three pillars. 

Sustainability

“’[S]ustainability’ and ‘sustainable’ 

mean to create and maintain conditions, 

under which humans and nature can 

exist in productive harmony, that permit 

fulfilling the social, economic, and other 

requirements of present and future 

generations.”

—Executive Order 13514 of October 5, 

2009

The ultimate goal of adaptation is to 

create a sustainable place (otherwise 

adaptation actions are just patches and 

short-term fixes). You want to create 

places that will be resilient to the risks 

that future climate changes will pose. 

The National Research Council 

recommends the “Three Pillars” 

approach of “Social,” “Environment,” and 

“Economic” dimensions of sustainability. 

The intent is to create an integrated, 

forward-thinking approach that takes all 

of those elements into account.

National Research Council. 2011. 

Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. End of sidebar

Sidebar elaboration on why equity and fairness are important when considering adaptation actions for implementation. 

A “disproportionately high 

and adverse” effect or 

impact...

“...(1) is predominately borne by any 

segment of the population, including, 

for example, a minority population and/

or a low-income population; or (2) will 

be suffered by a minority population 

and/or low-income population and is 

appreciably more severe or greater in 

magnitude than the adverse effect or 

impact that will be suffered by a nonminority population and/or non-lowincome population.”

EPA. 2004. Toolkit for Assessing Potential 

Allegations of Environmental Injustice. EPA 

300-R-04-002. End of sidebar
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 84

Step 8b

• Are many asked to pay for benefits that accrue to just a few?

• Does the action limit the adaptation options of other places or sectors?

Robustness

• Given inherent uncertainty about the future, will the action perform under a range of potential 

conditions?

• Is it a flexible adaptation action? Can it be modified at a future date if the climate changes 

differently than expected?

• Are you putting all your eggs in one basket, or is this action part of a coordinated set of actions?

• Is it a no-regrets action? Is it just a good idea regardless of how climate might change? 

• Is it a win-win action? Would it also be a good strategy for achieving other desired social, 

environmental or economic results?

• Are there any circumstances where you would become sorry you implemented this action?

These six tests can have many parts and the tests are not simple pass/fail questions. You are trying 

to find actions that are desirable as well as effective—and you want to avoid problematic actions. 

These screening tests are really about deciding whether an action is unsuitable or appropriate for your 

organization. Record your conclusions in Table 8b-1 and note whether you are willing to proceed with 

each action.

Table 8b-1. Evaluation of adaptation actions Table that adds seven more columns to Table 8a-2 asking users to list the results of screening tests and determine if the action will move forward.

Adaptation 

actions

Risk reduction 

potential

Feasibility and 

effectiveness

Cost and costeffectiveness

Ancillary costs 

and benefits

Equity and 

fairness

Robustness

Appropriate to 

proceed with 

this action? 

(yes/no)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

n.

End of table

Reviewing the screening assessment

Not every action will pass all the tests. You truly do not want to implement actions that will not work, 

that you cannot afford, or that cause other problems, but be alert for ways to compensate for those 

problems.

Which tests an action fails matter.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 85

Step 8b

• If you disqualified an action because you cannot afford it, you might be able to transfer that risk 

to others who can pay the costs. Alternatively you may need to focus attention on finding the 

funds.

• If the impediments are political or structural, then your first acts toward reducing a risk may be to 

find ways to overcome those obstacles.

• If an action generates unwanted effects, then those tradeoffs might be mitigated too.

You may not be able to find any actions for some risks.

• If you cannot find a single mitigating action for a risk that passes your screening tests and that you 

want to implement, then a potential partner probably will not find one either, so transferring this 

risk may not work. You probably need to accept or avoid the risk. 

• Keep track of actions that failed one or more of the screening tests because conditions may 

change over time and these actions may become more attractive in the future.

The best actions will pass each screening question. Actions that do satisfactorily on your tests will move 

forward for further consideration of their risk reduction potential in the rest of this step. 

Risk-based ranking of actions

This Workbook assumes (as expressed in the Introduction) that users will have to prioritize response 

actions because not all can be implemented. The mitigating actions that pass the six criteria will address 

a variety of risks that will affect different goals, that will occur in different habitat types, and that range 

from high-impact risks (red in your matrix) to low-impact risks (green). 

In a risk management process, the best actions will be the ones that achieve the most risk reduction. 

Your task now is to sort all of your screened actions according to how much of your climate change risk 

they will mitigate.

For each action, you first need to return to the C/P matrix and see whether the primary target of the 

action is a red, yellow or green risk. Do a rough sort of your list so that actions that respond to red risks 

are at the top, and actions that respond only to green risks are at the bottom (Figure 8b-2, left).

What follows is a set of decision-making guidelines that will help you refine the rough sorting. Some 

actions are more attractive because they respond to your organization’s total risk better than others, and 

they should float higher on your list. Note that a group of actions can be assessed as one coordinated 

set. Your C/P matrix and the information you developed about the action in Step 8a will help you to 

construct the ranking. 

Actions that address red risks

• Responding to red risks should be at the top of the list. You said these risks are highly likely to 

happen and will have high impacts when they do. Actions that would mitigate a red risk should 

get priority over responses to a yellow risk.

• Actions that reduce more than one risk are more attractive than comparable ones that reduce 

only one risk. Be sure the main target risk is making real movement to the lower left of your 

matrix. Do not do a little bit for a red risk just because it also does a little for a yellow risk: focus 

on meaningfully reducing risk.

• Actions that would move red risks closer to the lower left corner of your matrix are more attractive 

than comparable actions that would leave them further away. But do not spend a fortune to 

mitigate risks down to zero if getting them into the green zone is sufficient.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 86

Step 8b

• Do not duplicate efforts unless you intend to. You should not expend resources to implement 

more than one solitary action to achieve the same risk reduction, but if an action is part of 

a coordinated set of risk reducing actions, that is fine. If an action is part of a planned set of 

redundant actions, that is fine too.

Actions that address yellow risks

• Yellow risks should not be the primary target of your efforts unless you have no red risks. Look for 

opportunities to move yellow risks into the green zone as part of your work on other red risks.

• You may have an opportunity to take an action that would reduce a few yellow risks instead 

of taking another action that would reduce one red risk. This is a judgment call based on the 

magnitude of all the contextual benefits each choice could achieve. However, do not work to 

clean out the yellow zone while leaving red risks intact.

Actions that only address green risks

• Actions that respond only to green risks should be at the bottom of your list. You have decided 

these risks are less likely to occur and would not matter as much if they did. You probably should 

not dedicate any resources to them that would take away from responding to yellow or red risks. 

• Actions that have negligible costs (in time and money) and can be taken as a part of other normal 

business are more attractive than other actions aimed at green risks.

• Instead of launching a project aimed at a green risk, look for opportunities to fine-tune an 

action you will use to address a red or yellow risk. Maybe those actions can incorporate a small 

component that further reduces green risks.

After you assess your pool of actions, you should have a relative ranking (like the example on the right 

side of Figure 8b-1) of the whole set of actions based on how much of your organization’s overall risk they 

reduce. This is a risk-based ordering of actions. 

Selecting actions for implementation

You are setting out to reduce the overall climate change 

risk to your organization. A risk-based ordering of actions 

means that each action (or coordinated set of actions) 

reduces more risk than the item below it on the list. If 

you moved actions to be out of sequence on the list 

(either further up or further down), then some actions that 

reduce less risk would appear higher on your list than 

actions that reduce more risk.

If you need to prioritize response actions because you will 

not be able to implement them all, the next thing is to 

divide your actions into two tiers. Tier 1 actions are the 

ones your organization has the capacity to start on within 

your workplan cycle. Tier 2 is the waiting list. Taking into 

account your organization’s financial and human 

resources, you should draw a line separating the actions into Tier 1 and Tier 2 as far down from the top 

of the list as you can in order to maximize the number of actions in Tier 1 (Figure 8b-2).

If Tier 1 reaches down to an action that you cannot afford but you can afford more actions below that 

particularly expensive one, then: (1) note that one action is too costly and that you are skipping it in this 

Sidebar elaboration on why prioritizing response actions is emphasized in this workbook. 

Priorities

You are free to implement any actions 

you like: this ordered list is not a 

mandatory plan. The list is arranged 

by how much risk actions reduce. 

Remember that your organization 

said the highest risks had the highest 

potential to keep you from your goals. 

Be aware that the implication of 

choosing to work on smaller risks or 

pursuing actions with less mitigation 

potential is that the consequences of 

higher risks may appear. End of sidebar
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 87

Step 8b

Color key

Duplicated by Group C

Duplicated by Action 7

Duplicated by Action 2

Action 1 Action 3

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Action 5

Action 6

Action 7

Action 8

Action 8 Action 13 Action 16

Action 9

Action 10

Action 11

Action 12

Action 13

Action 14

Action 15

Action 16

Action 17

Action 18

Action 19

Action 20

Group A

Yellow

Green

Red

Action 1 Action 19

Group B

Action 4 Action 15 Action 20

Group C

Action 2

Action 5

Action 10 Action 11

Group D

Action 12

Action 7

Action 9

Action 18

Action 14

Action 17

Action 6

Figure 8b-1. Left: A rough initial sort places actions aimed at red risks at the top (in no particular order) 

and those aimed principally at green risks at the bottom. Right: Further refine the list so that from top 

to bottom, actions (or groups of actions) go from most risk reduction to least. If any actions duplicate 

the risk reduction of other actions, strike the duplicative ones and make a note (while keeping their 

place in the ordered list). An ordered list like the one on the right is your risk-based ranking of actions, 

in which every action (or group of actions) reduces overall organizational risk more than the actions 

below it. 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 88

Step 8b

Action 3 Action 8 Action 13 Action 16

Group A

Action 1 Action 19

Group B

Action 4 Action 15 Action 20

Group C

Action 2

Action 10 Action 11

Group D

Action 6

Color key

Tier 1

Tier 2

Duplicated by Group C

Duplicated by Action 7

Duplicated by Action 2

Yellow

Green

Red

Action 5

Action 12

Action 7

Action 9

Action 18

Action 14

Action 17

Figure 8b-2. Place a line as far down from the top of a list like Figure 8b-1 as your resources will allow. 

Tier 1 actions (above the line) will move forward for implementation, while Tier 2 actions (below the 

line) will not move forward right now. This is the plan that will get your organization the most risk 

reduction you can achieve using available resources. 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 89

Step 8b

work planning cycle—but don’t change its place in the ordered list—and (2) move the line down so that 

as many actions as you can afford are in Tier 1.

The actions in Tier 1 generate the most risk reduction you can realize at this time. Tier 1 actions will move 

into Step 9 for implementation. The actions that are beyond your current capacity will be in Tier 2 and 

will not move forward right now. Actions that you skip are technically in Tier 2, but keep their place in the 

ordered list.

Review your risks

Any risk that you selected for mitigation in Step 7 that does not have an associated Tier 1 action at the 

end of this step is not going to be mitigated at this time. You need to return to Step 7 and change the 

approach you selected for it. If you have an action for the risk in Tier 2 and your organization still intends 

to mitigate the risk yourself some day, then note that.

Risks that are being accepted

In Step 7—Risk Evaluation: Deciding on a Course, you may have decided to accept some risks. You 

may have elected to continue with business as usual and run a risk, dealing with the impact if/when it 

does occur. Your vulnerability assessment may have concluded that some risks are unlikely, or that their 

consequences are small. You may have decided that some risks are far enough away in time that they 

are not immediate problems and you can address them effectively later. Indeed Figure 7-3 suggests that 

when accepting a risk is a reasonable choice (e.g., for reasons like these) then you should do that.

However, you should take a closer look at the risks that you once thought should be mitigated, but now 

you will not be able to. These may have moved from the mitigation approach to the accept approach 

(Figure 8b-3) because:

• you could not find a potential mitigating option (Step 8a);

• you could not find a mitigating action that passed your screening tests (Step 8b); or

• you do not have the resources to implement a corresponding mitigation action (Step 8b).

The risks that are now in the accept group, but really need to be mitigated, are existential problems. 

When you determine that a number of risks are highly likely to occur and will have high consequences 

when they do, and you are currently unable to do anything about it, it is time for critical thought about 

your mission. If business as usual is unsustainable and you cannot find a way to maintain it, then your 

organization may need to have serious discussions about “managing for resiliency” vs. “managing for 

change.”
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 90

Step 8b

Figure 8b-3. In Step 7, Step 8a and here in Step 8b, a series of decisions may have affected whether 

risks would be assigned to either the mitigate approach or the accept approach. Some of the risks 

that have ended up in the accept approach are there because for some reason you will not be able to 

mitigate them—even if they are real threats and need to be mitigated. 

To Get Started

Start your screening with the actions in Table 8a-2 that will reduce both the likelihood and consequence 

of your risks.

Which risks remain in the

mitigation category?

After Step 7 • Red risks

• Other risks that you cannot 

transfer/accept/avoid

• Green risks that are more

than 10 years away

• Yellow risks that are more

than 30 years away

(unless you were able to

transfer them or decided to 

avoid them)

Any risks for which you could find 

a potential mitigating option

Any risks for which you could

not find any mitigating action

Any risks that for which you

cannot find a suitable mitigating

action

Any risks with mitigating actions

in Tier 2 that will not be 

implemented now because you

don’t have the resources to

move the actions forward

Any risks that have a mitigating

action that passed the screening

tests

Any risks with mitigating actions

in Tier 1 that will be 

implemented 

Some of these

risks really

need to be

mitigated, so

accepting them

now is

problematic

• Green risks expected in 

0–10 years

• Yellow risks expected in

0–10 or 10–30 years

These would otherwise be good 

candidates for accept 

After Step 8a

After Step 8b,

screening

After Step 8b, 

tiering

Which risks get added to the

accept category?

Risks that you thought you could

mitigate, but cannot

Some of these

risks would

have been in

accept in Step 7

but were 

provisionally

assigned to

mitigation;

moving them

back to accept

now is OK
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 91

Step 8b

Additional Resources

Also see Appendix B.

Resources for assessing adaptation actions

National Research Council. 2011. America’s Climate Choices: Summary Report.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12781

National Research Council. 2010. America’s Climate Choices: Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. 

pp. 137–144.

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/sample-page/panel-reports/panel-on-adapting-to-theimpacts-of-climate-change/

National Wildlife Federation. 2011. Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future. pp. 37–38.

http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Climate-Smart-Conservation/NWF_Restoring_the_

Great_Lakes_Coastal_Future_090211.ashx

New York City Panel on Climate Change. 2010. Adaptation Assessment Guidebook. Appendix B.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05324.x/pdf

ICLEI. 2007. Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Governments. 

Chapter 10.3, p. 97.

http://www.icleiusa.org/action-center/planning/adaptation-guidebook

National Wildlife Federation. 2011. Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change 

Vulnerability Assessment. Chapter 6, pp. 79–80.

http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Climate-Smart-Conservation/NWFScanningtheCons

ervationHorizonFINAL92311.ashx
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 92
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 93

Step 9—Preparing and Implementing an Action Plan

John McShane, EPA Office of Water

What Is “Preparing and Implementing an Action Plan”?

Preparing and implementing an action plan means that you will designate responsible parties for 

each Tier 1 adaptation action identified in Step 8b. You will then charge the responsible parties with 

developing and implementing project plans.

Objective of This Step

The objective is to create a plan to ensure that each action identified as Tier 1 is moving forward and that 

risks selected for mitigation are being reduced over time.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 94

Step 9

Process

You are ready to begin writing your action plan. You know your risks, you know which actions will help 

reduce your risks, and you know how you want to proceed. In this step, you will designate responsible 

parties and record information to help you track the implementation of each Tier 1 adaptation action 

you identified in Step 8b.

Concept approval

In Step 7, you may have worked with your partners to negotiate a transfer of certain risks. You may also 

have decided to run some risks by choosing to accept them. You may have decided to avoid some risks. 

You decided to try to mitigate the remaining risks. You also confirmed with your key decision-makers that 

they concur with the high-level approach for each risk. In Step 8b, you selected promising adaptation 

actions for all the risks you intend to mitigate, and you are proposing to move that set forward for project 

design and implementation. Before you go further with your action plan, this is another opportunity to 

run it by your organization board of directors, management committee, staff, and the people who are 

regularly involved in decisions for their concurrence about how you propose to manage your risks.

A planning-level plan

In this last planning-level step, you will create the 

mechanisms to ensure that you make progress. You want 

to create two risk management tracking systems. One 

tracks the actions; the other tracks the risks. You will create 

two tables that start as inverses of each other. Each table 

should be updated regularly.

The first table (Table 9-1) tracks the actions and notes 

which risks they are associated with as well as who has 

responsibility for implementing them. An action may 

address more than one risk.

The second table (Table 9-2) keeps track of your risks and 

notes what actions are being used and when they are 

completed. A risk may be affected by more than one 

action. You should also track any activities associated with 

risks transferred to another organization.

From planning level to project level 

The Workbook is designed to help you create a planning 

document for managing risks at a watershed scale. Once a 

responsible person is named for implementing an action, 

what comes next is beyond the scope of this Workbook. 

Assigning responsibility to project managers who will act 

to implement the actions that lower climate change risks 

might be this step’s most important outcome right now. 

When people are named as responsible parties, they 

Sidebar elaboration reminding users to re-evaluate the opportunities identified in Step 3: Risk Identification. 

Opportunities

If you identified any opportunities in 

Step 3: Risk Identification, this is the 

time to pick them back up. You want to 

make sure to find strategies that take 

advantage of those positive outcomes 

and maximize their benefit. 

Approaches for opportunities

Exploit—Positive impacts to your goals 

are possible, provided the necessary 

resources to realize the benefits exist.

Share—Outsourcing and making better 

use of external partnerships may be 

required in order to capture (all of) the 

opportunity.

Enhance—Affecting key drivers to 

increase the expected value of the 

opportunity.

Accept—This approach indicates that 

the program team has decided not to 

change program plans and will accept 

the opportunities or benefits as they 

occur. 

Adapted from: Project Management Institute. 

2008. The Standard for Program Management. 

Chapter 11.4.2, Plan program risk responses: 

Tools and techniques. End of sidebar
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 95

Step 9

assume all the duties of a project manager, among them 

defining the project scope, completing on time, and 

staying within resources. 

Project managers may establish project teams; do 

detailed site reconnaissance; hire experts; evaluate pros 

and cons of specific techniques; create construction 

documents; get a staffing or financing plan, or a 

cooperative agreement, in place; file for permits; hire 

a construction contractor; or initiate other related activities. It may be helpful at this point to turn to 

standard project management tools as well as to the resources in Appendix C, which are designed for 

those who are doing climate change work at finer resolutions.

To Get Started

In Table 9-1, list each Tier 1 adaptation action (from Step 8b) and identify which risk(s) it addresses; then 

do the inverse for Table 9-2.

Table 9-1. Tracking selected actions Table for users to assign project managers or responsible parties for each of the adaptation actions that were selected to move forward in Step 8b, as well as listing next steps and reporting frequencies.

Adaptation 

action

Risk(s) addressed Responsible 

party(ies)

Next steps Reporting 

frequency

1.

2.

3.

n.

End of table

Table 9-2. Tracking risk reduction Table for users to track the risks selected for mitigation and which risk-reducing actions are being employed.

Risk selected for 

mitigation

Action(s) 

employed/

completed

1.

2.

3.

n.

End of table

Sidebar elaboration on why monitoring is important. 

Monitoring

To understand whether a project has 

successfully met its objectives, you may 

need to include post-project monitoring 

activities in the scope of work. End of sidebar
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 96

Step 9

Additional Resources

Also see Appendix B.

Using vulnerability assessment results

National Wildlife Federation. 2011. Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change 

Vulnerability Assessment. Chapter 6, pp. 79–80. 

http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Climate-Smart-Conservation/NWFScanningtheCons

ervationHorizonFINAL92311.ashx

EPA Region 9 and California Department of Water Resources. 2011. Climate Change Handbook for 

Regional Water Planning. pp. 7-1–7-17.

http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/CCHandbook.cfm

EPA. 2005. Community-Based Watershed Management: Lessons from the National Estuary Program. 

Chapter 5.

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/handbook.cfm 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 97

Step 10—Monitoring and Review

Partnership for the Delaware Estuary

What Is “Monitoring and Review”?

This is the process of checking in on the effectiveness of the mitigating actions as they are implemented. 

Check back on the risks that were identified for the transfer, accept, or avoid approaches too, in case 

additional information has become available and a different approach is more appropriate. You will also 

stay current with climate change issues so that your vulnerability assessment does not get out of date.

Objective of This Step

The objective of this step is to monitor and review your vulnerability assessment and action plan and to 

return to earlier steps to update them if necessary.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 98

Step 10

Process

In Step 9 the planning-level work was done and actions were turned over to project managers for 

implementation. In this step you return to the planning level to monitor and review progress and your 

updated situation.

As risk mitigation projects progress or are completed you will have new consequences and likelihoods 

for your risks. As new scientific information emerges about the magnitude of stressors or about what the 

impacts of climate change will be, you may discover new risks or the consequences and likelihoods of 

your current risks may change. Your organization’s context or partners may also change over time in ways 

that cause you to re-evaluate how climate change will affect what you are trying to achieve.

Risk management methodologies (including ISO 31000) typically call for recycling back through the 

process once the end of an iteration is reached. Frequent monitoring and review will keep your plan fresh 

and prevent you from having to start from the beginning later on. It may make sense for your monitoring 

and review to be conducted at the same time as regularly scheduled strategic planning or management 

review of the organization.

Monitoring and review

Monitoring and review focuses on the implementation of 

your action plan. Conditions are always changing, so 

incorporate any new information to ensure the best plan is 

still in place. Considerations for monitoring and review 

include:

Context: The context of your organization has been used 

to help you identify risks relating to your goals, as well 

as determine the unique circumstances under which you 

operate and will be able to address your risks. 

As time passes, your context may change, so your plan 

will need to be adjusted to suit these changes. Your 

organization may take on new challenges and have new 

goals. Your budget or personnel may change. Perhaps the 

political situation in which you operate evolves. Or maybe 

you identify more partners to transfer risks to—freeing up 

more resources and time for you to address other risks. 

In any case, you will need to review and revise your action 

plan to reflect changes in your regulatory, political and 

financial context and ensure the plan reflects your current 

context.

Climate change: New climate change science will likely emerge after you have completed your 

adaptation plan. Information about magnitude of projected changes and new knowledge about 

expected impacts will continue to be improved. Incorporate new information (e.g., science, data) as it 

becomes available so that your plan stays current and effectively addresses your risks. The U.S. National 

Climate Assessment is updated from time to time: updated releases of the assessment might be an 

opportune time to revisit the assumptions you made about stressors and risks.

Sidebar elaboration that provides questions to consider to help guide users in monitoring and review. 

Questions to consider

How often should the planning team 

meet to review the plan and discuss its 

progress?

How will the planning team keep key 

decision-makers apprised of progress 

and obstacles?

How will progress be communicated to 

other stakeholders outside the planning 

team?

How should progress be reported?

Were there any unintended 

consequences due to implementation 

(good or bad)?

Are there any new stressors or 

challenges?

Adapted from: NOAA. 2010. Adapting to 

Climate Change: A Planning Guide for State 

Coastal Managers. End of sidebar
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 99

Step 10

Risks: Your risks will likely evolve over time as well, 

especially as climate changes accumulate or interact. What 

used to be a moderate risk could become a more severe 

risk over time, one you feel needs to be addressed sooner 

rather than later. Your own mitigating actions hopefully 

change how you would assess a risk, too. Update your plan 

to reflect changes and continue through the subsequent 

steps to revise your action plan. 

Action plan: Your action plan is meant to be a living 

document. You should update it often, especially if 

anything changes regarding your context, if new climate 

change science emerges, if new risks are identified, or if 

current risks become a more imminent danger than when 

you first addressed them. It is also useful to review the 

action plan to ensure that actions being implemented are 

having the intended effect (and not having unintended 

negative effects). If you find your identified actions are not 

the best way to address a particular risk, then cycle back 

through the action planning process for that risk.

Communications: Results of monitoring and review 

should be recorded and reported internally and externally 

as appropriate. Keep stakeholders, partners and funders 

informed about your progress and any changes to your plans. Your completed action 

plan should also be used to communicate to others what your organization is doing to address your 

climate change risks. 

To Get Started

Working within your organization and with key stakeholders and partners, determine a monitoring 

schedule for each of your mitigation projects (which could be the same as your project review period for 

other non-climate work), as well as when a review of the vulnerability assessment will occur (which could 

simply be the passage of a set period of time). 

Additional Resources

Also see Appendix B.

EPA resources for monitoring project results

EPA. 2008. Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters. pp. 12-10–12-12.

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/handbook_index.cfm

EPA. 2010. Measurement Tips & Resources for Community Projects.

http://www.epa.gov/care/library/CARE_Measurement_Tips.pdf

Sidebar elaboration that defines adaptive management. 

Adaptive management

“Adaptive management is an iterative 

approach that seeks to improve natural 

resource management by testing 

management hypotheses and learning 

from the results. A management action 

can have the desired effect on the 

distribution and abundance of the target 

species. However, depending on the type 

of management action, there can also be 

a number of unintended consequences. 

Adaptive management provides a 

research/management tool to assess the 

frequency and intensity of unintended 

effects. It is an approach that is useful 

in situations where uncertainty about 

ecological responses is high, such as 

climate change.”

USGCRP. 2008. Preliminary Review of 

Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive 

Ecosystems and Resources. Synthesis and 

Assessment Product 4.4. Chapter 5.4.1. End of sidebar
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 100

Step 10

Resources for tracking progress

Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies. 2009. Voluntary Guidance for States to Incorporate Climate 

Change into State Wildlife Action Plans & Other Management Plans. pp. 20–21.

http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/AFWA-Voluntary-Guidance-Incorporating-Climate-Change_SWAP.pdf

NOAA. 2010. Adapting to Climate Change: A Planning Guide for State Coastal Managers. Chapter 6, 

Step 4.4, pp. 104–105.

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/climate/docs/adaptationguide.pdf
Appendices

BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 103 Appendix A—Workflow Map 5—Risk Evaluation: Comparing Risks 3—Risk Identification 4—Risk Analysis

10—Monitoring

and Review 6—Establishing

the Context

8a—Finding

Adaptation Actions

7—Risk Evaluation: 

Deciding on a Course

9—Preparing

an Action Plan

8b—Selecting

Adaptation Actions

Stakeholder interests

Org'l goals Organizational goals

Consequence Likelihood

Time horizon, spatial scale, habitat type

Habitat type, spatial scale Analysis: consequence, likelihood, time horizon

Context Partners

Risks to mitigate List of actions

Organizational context Consequence/ probability matrix

List of risks

Actions to implement being Risks mitigated Existing and ongoing

climate work

Diagrams or models used

Existing and ongoing

climate work

Organizational goals

Any relevant diagrams or models

Vulnerability Assessment

Action Plan

1—Communication

and Consultation

2—Establishing

the Context

Risks associated with each action

Actions to implement Risks being mitigated

Risks being transferred, accepted or avoided

Figure A-1. A detailed map of information development and use in the Workbook. Thicker blue arrows indicate the primary information flow 

from Step 1 through Step 5 of the vulnerability assessment, and from Step 6 through Step 10 of action planning. Secondary flows of information are shown with dashed arrows. Results from earlier steps are continually being used. Communication and consultation happen throughout the process. Monitoring and review keep all the steps up to date.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 104
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 105

Appendix B—Cross-Reference to Other Resources

These cross-references are provided for those who have already used these other resources and for 

people who would like additional procedural help.

• NOAA. n.d. Roadmap for Adapting to Coastal Risk.

https://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/training/roadmap

• ICLEI. 2007. Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State 

Governments.

http://www.icleiusa.org/action-center/planning/adaptation-guidebook

• NOAA. 2010. Adapting to Climate Change: A Planning Guide for State Coastal Managers.

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/climate/docs/adaptationguide.pdf

This Workbook NOAA: Roadmap for 

Adapting to Coastal Risk

ICLEI: Preparing for 

Climate Change

NOAA: Adapting to 

Climate Change

Step 1—

Communication and 

Consultation

Introduction and Step 1: 

Any stakeholder groups or 

partners, as well as highpriority concerns 

Chapter 5: Build and 

Maintain Support to Prepare 

for Climate Change

Chapter 6: Build Your Climate 

Change Preparedness Team

Chapter 3: Establishing the 

Planning Process

Step 2—

Establishing the 

Context for the 

Vulnerability 

Assessment

External resources are not 

needed for this step

External resources are not 

needed for this step

External resources are not 

needed for this step

Step 3—

Risk Identification

Step 2: Build a Hazards 

Profile

• 2a: Identify and Examine 

Current and Past Hazard 

Risks

Step 3: Build a Social Profile

• 3a: Identify Local Societal 

Vulnerability Concerns

Step 4: Build an 

Infrastructure Profile

• 4a: Identify Local 

Infrastructure Vulnerability 

Factors and Conditions

Step 5: Build an Ecosystem 

Profile

• 5a: Identify Key Natural 

Resources and Conditions

Chapter 4: Scope the Climate 

Change Impacts to Your 

Major Sectors

Chapter 4: Vulnerability 

Assessment

• Step 2.1: Identify Climate 

Change Phenomena

• Step 2.2: Identify Climate 

Change Impacts and 

Consequences
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 106

Appendix B

This Workbook NOAA: Roadmap for 

Adapting to Coastal Risk

ICLEI: Preparing for 

Climate Change

NOAA: Adapting to 

Climate Change

Step 4—

Risk Analysis

Step 2: Build a Hazards 

Profile

• 2b: Explore Climate Trends 

and Issues

Step 3: Build a Social Profile

• 3b: Identify Trends 

and Future Conditions 

Affecting Societal 

Vulnerability

Step 4: Build an 

Infrastructure Profile

• 4b: Identify Trends and 

Issues Affecting Future 

Infrastructure Vulnerability

Step 5: Build an Ecosystem 

Profile

• 5b: Identify Ecosystem 

Resource Stressors

• 5c: Identify Trends and 

Issues Affecting the Future 

Health of Key Natural 

Resources

Chapter 8: Conduct a 

Climate Change Vulnerability 

Assessment

Chapter 9: Conduct a 

Climate Change Risk 

Assessment 

Chapter 4: Vulnerability 

Assessment

• Step 2.3: Assess Physical 

Characteristics and 

Exposure

• Step 2.4: Consider 

Adaptive Capacity

• Step 2.5: Develop 

Scenarios and Simulate 

Change

Step 5—

Risk Evaluation: 

Comparing Risks

Chapter 9: Conduct a 

Climate Change Risk 

Assessment

Chapter 4: Vulnerability 

Assessment

• Step 2.6: Summarize 

Vulnerability and Identify 

Focus Areas

Step 6—

Establishing the 

Context for the 

Action Plan

Chapter 6: Build Your Climate 

Change Preparedness Team

Chapter 3: Establishing the 

Planning Process

Step 7—

Risk Evaluation: 

Deciding on a 

Course

Chapter 4.2: What Will Your 

Level of Commitment Be?

Chapter 4: Vulnerability 

Assessment

• Step 2.6: Summarize 

Vulnerability and Identify 

Focus Areas

Step 8a—

Finding Adaptation 

Actions

Chapter 10.3: Identify 

Potential Preparedness 

Actions

Chapter 5: Adaptation 

Strategy

• Step 3.2: Identify Actions
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 107

Appendix B

This Workbook NOAA: Roadmap for 

Adapting to Coastal Risk

ICLEI: Preparing for 

Climate Change

NOAA: Adapting to 

Climate Change

Step 8b—

Selecting 

Adaptation Actions

Step 6: Identifying Strategic 

Actions 

Chapter 9.2: Establish Your 

List of Priority Planning Areas

Chapter 10.4: Select and 

Prioritize Preparedness 

Actions

Chapter 5: Adaptation 

Strategy

• Step 3.3: Evaluate, Select, 

and Prioritize Actions

Step 9—

Preparing and 

Implementing an 

Action Plan

Chapter 11: Implement Your 

Preparedness Plan 

Chapter 6: Plan 

Implementation and 

Maintenance 

Step 10—

Monitoring and 

Review

Chapter 12: Measure Your 

Progress and Update Your 

Plan

Chapter 6: Plan 

Implementation and 

Maintenance

• Step 4.4: Track, Evaluate 

and Communicate Plan 

Progress
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 108
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 109

Appendix C—EPA Resources to Evaluate the Vulnerability of

Specific Species, Sites or Sectors

This Workbook is designed to produce a planning-level watershed-scale adaptation plan. Listed below 

are EPA resources to help evaluate the vulnerability of specific species, sites or sectors. These references 

may be useful for some especially difficult parts of your vulnerability assessment or when writing project 

plans in Step 9. 

Control Point and Nonpoint Sources of Pollution and Clean Up 

Pollution

A Screening Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) 

Mitigation in the Great Lakes and New England Regions. This report is a screening-level assessment of 

the potential implications of climate change on CSO mitigation in the Great Lakes and New England 

regions. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/global/recordisplay.cfm?deid=188306

Maintain and Improve Estuarine Habitat

Climate Change and Interacting Stressors: Implications for Coral Reef Management in American Samoa. 

The purpose of this report is to provide coral reef managers with management options to enhance the 

capacity of coral reefs to resist the effects of climate change.

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/global/recordisplay.cfm?deid=173312

Vulnerability Assessments in Support of the Climate Ready Estuaries Program: A Novel Approach 

Using Expert Judgment. As part of the Climate Ready Estuaries program, EPA’s Office of Research 

and Development has prepared reports exploring a new methodology for climate change vulnerability 

assessments using San Francisco Bay’s and Massachusetts Bays’ salt marsh and mudflat ecosystems.

Volume I: Results for the San Francisco Estuary Partnership:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/global/recordisplay.cfm?deid=241556

Volume II: Results for the Massachusetts Bays Program:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/global/recordisplay.cfm?deid=241555

Aquatic Ecosystems, Water Quality, and Global Change: Challenges of Conducting Multi-Stressor 

Vulnerability Assessments. This report explores the conceptual and practical challenges associated with 

using environmental indicators to assess how the resilience of ecosystems and human systems may vary 

as a function of existing stresses and maladaptations. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/global/recordisplay.cfm?deid=231508

An Assessment of Decision-Making Processes: Evaluation of Where Land Protection Planning 

Can Incorporate Climate Change Information. The goal of this report is to assess the feasibility of 

incorporating climate change impacts into the evaluation of land protection programs. The report 

concludes that land protection may become more important for jurisdictions, particularly to ameliorate 

climate change impacts on watersheds and wildlife. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/global/recordisplay.cfm?deid=238091
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 110

Appendix C

Climate and Land Use Change Effects on Ecological Resources in Three Watersheds: A Synthesis 

Report (External Review Draft). This report provides a summary of the scientific findings from the three 

case studies and discusses insights gained from a comparison across case studies of the process of 

conducting watershed assessments and effective ways of improving our capability to support decisions. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/global/recordisplay.cfm?deid=180083

Integrated Climate and Land Use Scenarios (ICLUS). The ICLUS tools for ArcGIS will allow users to 

customize housing density patterns by altering household size and travel time assumptions; reclassify 

housing density into classes different than those already provided; and generate a map of estimated 

impervious surface based on a housing density map. 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/global/iclus/ 

Protect and Propagate Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife, Including 

Control of Nonnative Species

Climate Change and Aquatic Invasive Species. This report reviews available literature on climate-change 

effects on aquatic invasive species and examines state-level aquatic invasive species management 

activities. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/global/recordisplay.cfm?deid=188305

Climate Change Effects on Stream and River Biological Indicators: A Preliminary Analysis. This report is a 

preliminary assessment that describes how biological indicators are likely to respond to climate change, 

how well current sampling schemes may detect climate-driven changes, and how likely it is that these 

sampling schemes will continue to detect impairment. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/global/recordisplay.cfm?deid=190304

A Framework for Categorizing the Relative Vulnerability of Threatened and Endangered Species to 

Climate Change (External Review Draft). Modules in this report walk the user through a systematic 

process for (1) categorizing a species’ baseline vulnerability to extinction or major population reduction, 

(2) categorizing a species’ vulnerability to future climate change, (3) developing a matrix that gives 

an overall score of the species’ vulnerability to non-climate and climate change stressors, and (4) 

qualitatively determining the uncertainty in the estimate of a species’ vulnerability. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/global/recordisplay.cfm?deid=203743

Collaborative Guide: A Reef Manager’s Guide to Coral Bleaching. The guide provides coral reef 

managers with the latest scientific information on the causes of coral bleaching and new management 

strategies for responding to this significant threat to coral reef ecosystems. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/global/recordisplay.cfm?deid=159849

Protect Public Water Supplies and Recreational Activities, in and 

on the Water

Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments: Four Case Studies of Water Utility Practices. The case studies 

illustrate different approaches that reflect specific local needs and conditions, existing vulnerabilities, 

local partnerships, and available information about climate change. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/global/recordisplay.cfm?deid=233808

Climate Ready Water Utilities Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool. This software tool assists 

drinking water and wastewater utility owners and operators in understanding potential climate change 

impacts and in assessing the related risks at their utilities. 

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/watersecurity/climate/
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 111

Appendix D—Conceptual Diagrams

Three conceptual model diagrams from EPA’s Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System 

are shown below. They might be useful for the target audience of the Workbook. More conceptual model 

resources are available at the CADDIS website, http://www.epa.gov/caddis/index.html.

The CADDIS website (http://www.epa.gov/caddis/ssr_condiag_popup.html) describes these conceptual 

diagrams in this way:

“A conceptual diagram is a visual representation of how a system works. In CADDIS, these 

diagrams are used to describe hypothesized relationships among sources, stressors, and 

biotic responses within aquatic systems. Conceptual diagrams and accompanying narrative 

descriptions are useful tools throughout the Stressor Identification process, from structuring 

initial brainstorming, to providing a framework for data collection and analysis, to organizing 

and presenting results.

“These diagrams provide overviews of how specific stressors may be linked to sources and 

biological effects, by illustrating potential linkages among stressors (or candidate causes) 

and their likely sources and effects based on scientific literature and professional judgment. 

Inclusion of a linkage indicates that the linkage can occur, not that it always occurs.

...

“The diagrams shown here are meant to serve as starting points—consult these diagrams as 

you begin to think critically about how these sources and stressors may be operating in your 

system, and modify them as needed to reflect key components and relationships in your 

particular stream. For example, you may know that certain sources shown in a diagram are 

not found in your watershed, but other sources that are not shown are present. Your sitespecific conceptual diagram should reflect these differences.”

Users should exercise their professional judgment about whether any conceptual model adequately 

describes their environmental systems.
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 112

Appendix D

Detailed conceptual model diagram for TEMPERATURE

Developed 7/2007 by Kate Schofield & Keith Sappington; modified 7/2010

biotic response

proximate stressor

source

additional step in

causal pathway

LEGEND

interacting stressor

mode of action

human activity

↓ vegetation

↓ permeability

↑ coldwater inputs

↓ coldwater inputs ↓ thermal buffering capacity

↓ infiltration

↑ bank erosion

↓ water velocity

↑ evaporation ↓ water volume ↓ hyporheic exchange

↑ parasitism 

& disease

↓ average temperature

↑ rate of water temperature change

↑ maximum temperature ↓ minimum temperature

↑ water temperature ↓ water temperature

↑ average temperature ↑ minimum temperature

↓ rate of total heat accumulation

↑ activity

↑ predation risk

↑ metabolic rate

↓ coldwater taxa

↑ warmwater taxa

↑ voltinism

↑ rate of total heat accumulation

↑ growth rate

↓ condition ↑ mortality behavior ↓ reproductive success

↑ coldwater taxa

↓ warmwater taxa

timing of thermal cues

↑ chronic thermal stress

↑ acute thermal stress (lower limit)

↓ occurrence of coldwater cues

↑ chronic thermal stress ↑ acute thermal stress (rate of change)

↑ acute thermal stress (upper limit)

predatorprey dynamics

other biological impairments

biologically impaired invertebrate assemblages

biologically impaired fish assemblages

↑ energy

requirements

timing of thermal cues

predatorprey dynamics

solar

radiation

↑ warmwater inputs

↑ heated surface runoff

↓ canopy cover

↑ solar heating (water, streambed)

industrial effluent

deep water

release

surface water

release

↓ groundwater

recharge

↓ channel complexity

↓ floodplain connectivity

↓ dissolved oxygen

↓ baseflow

↑ ionic strength

↑ suspended sediment

↑ water

retention time

↑ water surface area

↑ channel

width

↑ solar heating (land)

↑ surface

runoff

downstream

impoundment

upstream impoundment

surface water withdrawal

groundwater withdrawal

watershed land cover alteration riparian land cover alteration

channel

alteration

Temperature: Conceptual Diagram

http://www.epa.gov/caddis/ssr_temp4d.html
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 113

Appendix D

Flow Alteration: Conceptual Diagram

http://www.epa.gov/caddis/ssr_flow4d.html
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 114

Appendix D

Physical Habitat: Conceptual Diagram

http://www.epa.gov/caddis/ssr_phab4d.html

↓ immigration

↓ sinuosity

ecosystem processes

↓ condition behavior

population & community structure

↑ mortality ↓ reproductive success

↓ clingers ↓ other sensitive

life stages

↓ richness or diversity

↓ other sensitive taxa ↑ tolerant taxa

other characteristics ↓ darters, sculpins & madtoms

↓ top carnivores & piscivores ↓ centrarchids & salmonids

functional feeding groups ↓ young-of-year

fish

↓ floodplain- dependent taxa

↓ riparian- dependent taxa

↑ barriers to movement

channel width:

depth ratio

discharge patterns water velocity & depth

↑ trampling

↓ large

woody debris

↓ riparian & bank vegetation

↓ bank habitat

↓ cover

↑ bank & channel erosion ↑ watershed erosion

↓ watershed vegetation

↓ riparian connectivity

↓ riparian habitat

pools ↑ runs ↓ riffles

geomorphological

units

↑ bank & channel erosion

↑ channel incision

↓ physical habitat

availability ↓ physical habitat quality

↑ bedload &

deposited sediment

gradient

geology

stormwater runoff

point effluent discharges

agriculture

cropfields livestock pastures CAFOs

forestry &

silviculture

urbanization

impervious surfaces

wastewater treatment plant

c

s

ombined sewer overflows

industry

upstream impoundment downstream impoundment

detention basins

drainage ditches & canals

tile drains channelized & armored streams

levees

road crossings

buried & piped streams

dredged channels

channel alteration

instream sand & gravel mines

mining & resource extraction

other mines

↓ organic matter retention

human activity

source

additional step in causal pathway

interacting

stressor

proximate

stressor

response

modifying factor

LEGEND

mode of action

Simple conceptual model diagram for PHYSICAL HABITAT
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 115

Appendix E—Climate Change Impact Resources

This resource guide was current in May 2014. 

U.S. Global Change Research Program 

The best single source for climate change projections and climate change impact reports is the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program.

http://globalchange.gov/ 

USGCRP periodically issues a National Climate Assessment that informs the nation about already 

observed changes, the current status of the climate, and anticipated trends for the future. The regional 

and sector reports could be the primary resource for much of your vulnerability assessment.

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

General EPA Resources About Climate Change

EPA: Climate Change

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange

EPA Office of Research and Development: Climate Change Research

http://www.epa.gov/research/climatescience/

EPA: Climate Change and Water

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/climatechange/index.cfm

EPA: Climate Ready Water Utilities Toolkit

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/watersecurity/climate/

Climate Change and Coasts

EPA: Climate Ready Estuaries

http://www.epa.gov/cre/

USGCRP. 2009. Coastal Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region. Synthesis and 

Assessment Product 4.1. Part 1: The Physical Environment.

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap4-1/sap4-1-final-report-all.pdf 

USGCRP. 2008. Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and 

Resources. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.4. Chapter 7: National Estuaries. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=180143

Temperature and Precipitation

The NEX-DCP30 Viewer allows the user to visualize projected climate change for any county in the 

continental United States. 

http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/clu_rd/nex-dcp30.asp
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 116

Appendix E

The USGS Derived Downscaled Climate Projection Portal allows visualization and downloading of future 

climate projections from a group of statistically downscaled global climate models.

http://cida.usgs.gov/climate/derivative/

Drought

Drought is discussed throughout the 2014 National Climate Assessment. Searching the document for 

“drought” turns up more than 400 results. Searching for “water stress,” “dry” or “soil moisture” also 

leads to useful information about the drought stressor.

Sea Level Rise Viewers

Sea level rise viewers can be a useful tool for visualizing sea level rise impacts (consequence) in your 

study area. These tools do not, however, indicate the likelihood of any given sea level rise scenario. Use 

the resources identified above to determine likely scenarios for your area. 

NOAA Coastal Services Center: Sea Level Rise and Coastal Hazards Viewer 

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slrviewer/

The Nature Conservancy: coastal resilience tool (sea level rise visualization for New York and 

Connecticut)

http://coastalresilience.org/geographies/new-york-and-connecticut 

Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program: sea level rise viewer

http://sarasotabay.org/slr-web-map/

Climate Central: Surging Seas sea level rise viewer

http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/

Ocean Acidification from Increased Carbon Dioxide Levels

National Climate Assessment: Oceans and Marine Resources

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/oceans

National Research Council: Ocean Acidification

http://nas-sites.org/oceanacidification/ 
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 117

Appendix F—Actions That Could Reduce Water Temperature

Rebecca Hansen 

If warmer water is determined to be a stressor that leads to unwanted risks, then a number of actions 

could potentially be effective at mitigating those risks. 

Table F-1. Actions that lower water temperature and control urban stormwater

Action Water temperature benefits Other benefits that might 

come from this action

Planting trees • Shades the ground and keeps it 

cooler

• Controls runoff and promotes 

infiltration

Constructing narrow streets • Results in less heat-holding 

asphalt and concrete

• Yields less runoff

Building swales and rain gardens • Gets water underground and 

maintains aquifers

• Keeps runoff out of waterways

Using rain barrels and cisterns • Reduces the need for stream 

diversions and demand on 

aquifers for irrigation water

• Keeps stormwater on a lot

Paving with permeable materials • Keeps runoff from moving over 

heated roadways and parking lots

• Promotes infiltration where the 

rain falls

Installing green roofs • Lowers temperatures compared 

to conventional roofs; reduces 

energy use and waste heat

• Traps stormwater on site
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 118

Appendix F

Table F-2. Actions that lower water temperature and restore watershed structure and

function

Action Water temperature benefits Other benefits that might come from 

this action

In-stream measures

Removing unneeded 

dams and impoundments

• Keeps impounded waters from 

heating up

• Restores natural hydrology

• Returns to natural sediment transport and 

geomorphology

• Reestablishes natural disturbance 

Releasing cold water from 

upstream impoundments

• Strategically lowers water 

temperature

• Constructs biotic refugia or habitat

• Builds biological communities

Controlling stream bank 

erosion

• Keeps channels from getting wider 

and shallower and warming more 

easily

• Returns to natural sediment transport and 

geomorphology

• Raises water quality

Creating deep pools or 

artificial logjams

• Provides shade or deep water that 

limits direct heating from sunlight

• Constructs biotic refugia or habitat

• Builds biological communities

Groundwater measures

Controlling groundwater 

withdrawal

• Maintains groundwater sources that 

supply base flow to streams

• Creates habitat and hydrologic connectivity

• Restores natural hydrology

Promoting stormwater 

infiltration

• Gets water into aquifers and away 

from exposure to the sun

• Recharges groundwater that 

supplies baseflow that regulates 

stream temperature

• Restores natural hydrology

• Returns to natural sediment transport and 

geomorphology

• Reestablishes natural disturbance 

Removing unneeded 

channelization

• Restores natural groundwater 

exchange

• Restores connection to floodplains 

which promotes floodwater 

infiltration into aquifers

• Restores natural hydrology

• Returns to natural sediment transport and 

geomorphology

• Reestablishes natural disturbance 

Land use measures

Planting forest and 

floodplain habitat

• Shades watershed lands, surface 

waters and streambeds

• Reduces runoff and promotes 

groundwater infiltration

• Creates habitat and hydrologic connectivity

• Rebuilds native vegetation and corridor 

networks

• Raises water quality

Keeping livestock out of 

streams

• Reduces bank erosion • Returns to natural sediment transport and 

geomorphology

• Raises water quality

Controlling soil erosion in 

the watershed

• Keeps sediment from clogging 

streambeds and interfering with 

groundwater exchange

• Keeps heat-trapping particles out of 

waterways

• Returns to natural sediment transport and 

geomorphology

• Raises water quality

Controlling stormwater 

runoff

• Reduces high peak flows that 

contribute to erosion and channel 

changes

• Restores natural hydrology

• Returns to natural sediment transport and 

geomorphology

• Reestablishes natural disturbance 

• Raises water quality
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 119

Appendix F

References

For more information please see the following resources:

Impairments from warmer water

EPA. 2012. Sources, Stressors & Responses—Temperature. CADDIS Volume 2.

http://www.epa.gov/caddis/ssr_temp_int.html

EPA Region 10 water temperature guidance:

• EPA. 2003. EPA Region 10 Guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water 

Quality Standards. EPA 910-B-03-002.

http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/water/final_temperature_guidance_2003.pdf 

• EPA. 2001. Issue Paper 3: Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Stream Temperature (Revised). EPA 

910-D-01-003.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/WATER.NSF/6cb1a1df2c49e4968825688200712cb7/5eb9e547ee9e111

f88256a03005bd665/$FILE/Issue%203%20Spatial%20Temp.pdf 

USGS Water Science School. 2014. Water Properties: Temperature.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/temperature.html

Managing unwanted warming

EPA. 2008. Reducing Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies.

http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/resources/compendium.htm

EPA. 2014. Green Infrastructure.

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/index.cfm

EPA. 2014. Healthy Watersheds.

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/watershed/index.cfm

EPA. 2010. A Method to Assess Climate-Relevant Decisions: Application in the Chesapeake Bay. External 

Review Draft. EPA 600-R-10-096A.

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=227483 

University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center. 2011. Examination of Thermal Impacts from Stormwater 

Best Management Practices.

http://www.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/unh.edu.unhsc/files/progress_reports/UNHSC%20EPA_Thermal_Study_

Final_Report_1-28-11.pdf 

T. Beechie, H. Imaki, J. Greene, A. Wade, H. Wu, G. Pess, P. Roni, J. Kimball, J. Stanford, P. Kiffney and N. 

Mantua. 2012. Restoring Salmon Habitat for a Changing Climate. River Research and Applications. DOI: 

10.1002/rra.2590

Website links verified in July 2014
BEING PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE | 120

www.epa.gov/cre

Office of Water

EPA 842-K-14-002

August 2014