climate change, capacity to adapt goals and activities, monitoring strategies, plan updates, and 
plan funding) were summed to give the category scores listed in Table 2-1. Scores for each 
question could range from 0 to 3, such that any score above 0 meant that some capacity existed 
and the difference between a score of 1 and 3 was the degree to which this capacity was 
explicitly acknowledged. Most states (92%) scored at least 1 in one or more of the five 
categories assessed. These results also illustrate which aspects of state programs can be 
modified more readily. For example, when scores are summed across states for each category 
and normalized by the number of questions assessed in each category, most of the adaptive 
capacity is in two categories, plan updates and plan funding. The ability of plans to be revised to 
incorporate new information and the fact that states have sources of funding to accomplish goals 
and activities show that plans could incorporate climate-change information and take steps to 
modify goals and activities. Monitoring strategies is the next category where state plans exhibit 
substantial adaptive capacity. Relative to the other four categories, the category describing goals 
and activities currently shows the least amount of adaptive capacity. 
The highest scoring state was Washington with 17 points, though that still is less than 
half of the possible 54 points. This plan has the highest score in our assessment in part because it 
includes statements on the effects of climate on species boundaries, has a specific plan for using, 
managing, and updating monitoring data, and includes a timeline or benchmarks for updating the 
plan with new information. For example, Washington’s plan includes information on various 
invasive species such as giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta ) and water hyacinth (Eichornia 
crassipes ) that have temperature ranges that currently prevent them from invading the state— 
information important for modifying prevention and monitoring activities in response to climate 
change (Bierwagen et al., 2008; Meacham, 2001) (for detailed results on each state plan, see 
Appendix B, State Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan Summaries). 
2.3.1. Understanding and Incorporating Potential Impacts Resulting from Climate Change 
Only the Virginia state AIS management plan includes a discussion of climate change. 
Overall, 84% of the plans assessed fail to even mention climate change. However, most state 
plans (76%) include information on temperature tolerances of species, and some (40%) include 
discussions about the sensitivity of ecosystems to changing conditions. These results indicate 
areas where capacity exists in most states to begin to identify how these species may respond as 
climate changes at their current boundaries. None of the reviewed plans identify climate change 
effects as potentially important research topics or mention the regional differences in projected 
climate changes. 
2-6 
