U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2012–1034

U.S. Department of the Interior

Southeast Climate Science Center 

Science and Operational Plan
Cover photographs. By Alan M. Cressler, U.S. Geological Survey

Foreground top: Fort Jefferson, Dry Tortugas National Park, Florida

Foreground middle: Cahaba River, Cahaba National Wildlife Refuge, Alabama

Foreground bottom: Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee

Background top: Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge, Mississippi

Background bottom: Thunderstorm, Meramec River Valley, Missouri
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Southeast Climate Science Center

Science and Operational Plan

Compiled by Sonya A. Jones and Melinda S. Dalton

Science Planning Team members include:

Levi Brekke, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; Virginia Burkett, U.S. Geological Survey; 

Catherine Burns, The Nature Conservancy; Bob Ford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 

Kevin Robbins, Louisiana State University; Margo Schwadron, National Park Service; 

and Jim Vose, U.S. Forest Service

Special thanks to:

Joe DeVivo, National Park Service, John Jones, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Alexa McKerrow, U.S. Geological Survey, and Jennifer Costanza, North Carolina 

State University

Open-File Report 2012–1034

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center

Southeast Climate Science Center
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Jones, S.A., and Dalton, M.S., comps., 2012, U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center 

Science and Operational Plan: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1034, 48 p., available online at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1034/.
iii

Executive Summary

Climate change challenges many of the basic assumptions routinely used by conservation 

planners and managers, including the identification and prioritization of areas for conservation 

based on current environmental conditions and the assumption those conditions could be 

controlled by management actions. Climate change will likely alter important ecosystem 

drivers (temperature, precipitation, and sea-level rise) and make it difficult, if not impossible, to 

maintain current environmental conditions into the future. Additionally, the potential for future 

conservation of non-conservation lands may be affected by climate change, which further 

complicates resource planning. Potential changes to ecosystem drivers, as a result of climate 

change, highlight the need to develop and adapt effective conservation strategies to cope with 

the effects of climate and landscape change.

The U.S. Congress, recognized the potential effects of climate change and authorized 

the creation of the U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science 

Center (NCCWSC) in 2008. The directive of the NCCWSC is to produce science that supports 

resource-management agencies as they anticipate and adapt to the effects of climate change on 

fish, wildlife, and their habitats. On September 14, 2009, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) 

Secretary Ken Salazar signed Secretarial Order 3289 (amended February 22, 2010), which 

expanded the mandate of the NCCWSC to address climate-change-related impacts on all DOI 

resources. Secretarial Order 3289 “Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America’s 

Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources,” established the foundation of two 

partner-based conservation science entities: Climate Science Centers (CSC) and their primary 

partners, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC). CSCs and LCCs are the Departmentwide approach for applying scientific tools to increase the understanding of climate change, 

and to coordinate an effective response to its impacts on tribes and the land, water, ocean, fish 

and wildlife, and cultural-heritage resources that DOI manages. 

The NCCWSC is establishing a network of eight DOI CSCs (Alaska, Southeast, 

Northwest, North Central, Pacific Islands, Southwest, Northeast, and South Central) that will 

work with a variety of partners and stakeholders to provide resource managers the tools and 

information they need to help them anticipate and adapt conservation planning and design for 

projected climate change. The Southeast CSC, a federally led research collaboration hosted by 

North Carolina State University, was established in 2010. The Southeast CSC brings together 

the expertise of federal and university scientists to address climate-change priority needs of 

federal, state, non-governmental, and tribal resource managers. 

This document is the first draft of a science and operational plan for the Southeast CSC. 

The document describes operational considerations, provides the context for climate-change 

impacts in the Southeastern United States, and establishes six major science themes the 

Southeast CSC will address in collaboration with partners. This document is intended to be 

reevaluated and modified as partner needs change.

The Southeast CSC receives guidance for regional science priorities from the Stakeholder 

Advisory Council (SAC), which is composed of senior-level federal and State government 

agency executives in the Southeast. A Southeast CSC LCC Advisory Committee will be 

established to provide recommendations to the SAC on priority climate science projects and 

products that will be of most benefit to LCCs in accomplishing their respective mission(s). A 

secondary purpose of the Southeast CSC LCC Advisory Committee is to provide assistance and 

input to the Science Implementation Panel (SIP), which will be responsible for peer review of 

all proposed projects, and to recommend utilization of scientific assets of the CSCs and LCCs 

to address regional science priorities. Key staff from LCCs and other partners associated with 

the Southeast CSC will serve on the SIP.
iv

The science themes described in this draft plan were established by partners in the 

southeastern conservation community to address information gaps that can inform the conservation science and resource-management needs of ecoregion conservation partnerships, such as 

the LCCs. The development of these science themes was based on priorities defined by partners 

and stakeholders in the Southeast as well as a large-scale, multi-disciplinary project developed 

in concert with the partners—the Southeast Regional Assessment Project (SERAP). In many 

instances the tasks outlined in the science themes can build on the work already begun as part 

of SERAP, providing valuable information to resource managers in the Southeast and allowing 

partners to reevaluate their priorities earlier in the process. The science plan seeks to achieve 

the following objectives: 

The Southeast CSC will use long-term and new observational records as well as 

understanding of biological and physical processes that can be expressed in quantitative models to describe the consequences of global change on natural resources; 

provide scientifically valid information and tools that can be used to adapt resource 

management to changing environmental conditions; and apply these tools to produce 

regional assessments that are widely used by policy makers, resource managers, and 

the public.

This draft plan identifies six science themes that frame the activities needed to achieve the 

objectives of the Southeast CSC: 

• Science Theme 1: Develop climate projections and determine appropriate 

projections to use for resource management,

• Science Theme 2: Land use and land cover change projections,

• Science Theme 3: Impacts of climate change on water resources, 

• Science Theme 4: Ecological research and modeling,

• Science Theme 5: Impacts of climate change on coastal and nearshore 

marine environments, and,

• Science Theme 6: Impacts of climate change on cultural-heritage resources.

The science products developed under these themes will provide models of future conditions, assessments of potential impacts, and tools that can be used to inform the LCCs and other 

partners. The information will be critical as managers anticipate and adapt to climate change. 

Resource managers in the Southeast are requesting this type of information, in many cases, 

as a result of observed climate-change effects. The Southeast CSC will support integration of 

science information into conservation delivery, by working with, and building the capacity of, 

resource managers to interpret the science in order to integrate it into their management and 

decisionmaking processes.
v

Contents

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................iii

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Climate Science Center (CSC), Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC), 

and Partner Coordination.......................................................................................................2

Southeast Regional Assessment Project ........................................................................................2

Southeast Climate Science Center Science Planning ...........................................................................6

Regional Context ...........................................................................................................................................6

Observed Climate Change ..................................................................................................................8

Projected Climate Change...................................................................................................................9

Land-Use and Land-Cover Change..................................................................................................11

Science Themes...........................................................................................................................................12

Science Theme 1: Develop Climate Projections and Determine Appropriate 

Projections to Use for Resource Management ...............................................................14

Science Theme 2: Land-Use and Land-Cover Change Projections ...........................................19

Science Theme 3: Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources .......................................22

Science Theme 4: Ecological Research and Modeling ...............................................................24

Science Theme 5: Impacts of Climate Change on Coastal and Nearshore 

Marine Environments ...........................................................................................................27

Science Theme 6: Impacts of Climate Change on Cultural-Heritage Resources ....................30

Monitoring Priorities....................................................................................................................................33

Monitoring Priorities Recommendations........................................................................................33

Information Management and Data Sharing .........................................................................................33

Complementary Endeavors and Tools for Southeast CSC....................................................................34

Cooperative Research and Decision Support ...............................................................................35

Education and Training ......................................................................................................................35

Outreach and Community Involvement ..........................................................................................35

Southeast CSC Science Expertise and Skills .........................................................................................36

Selected References...................................................................................................................................37

Appendix. Bibliography ..............................................................................................................................43

Published Material..............................................................................................................................46

Other Material and Compilations .....................................................................................................48

Relevant Web sites.............................................................................................................................48
vi

Figures

1–2. Maps showing—

1. Boundaries of Climate Science Centers and Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives................................................................................................3

2. Study area for Southeast Regional Assessment Project..............................................4

3. Data-flow diagram showing Southeast Regional Assessment Project ..............................5

4–8. Maps showing—

4. Physiographic divisions within the boundary of the Southeast CSC..........................7

5. Observed changes in precipitation in the Southeast between 1901 and 2008..........8

6. Projected change in North American precipitation by 2080–2099 as 

simulated by an ensemble of 15 climate models under the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change A2 emission scenario............................................................9

7. Projected land areas in the Southeastern United States that would be 

affected by a sea-level rise of 3 and 9 feet ...................................................................10

8. Summary of trends in U.S. land cover change, 1973–2000.........................................11

Tables

1. Trends in average temperature and precipitation for the Southeast 

United States ................................................................................................................................8

A–1. List of priority science issues for partners of the Southeast 

Climate Science Center.............................................................................................................45
vii

Acronyms Used in This Report

ACF Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint 

AGCM atmospheric general-circulation models 

AOGCM atmosphere-ocean general-circulation model

BCCA Bias-Correction Constructed Analogs 

BCSD Bias-Correction Spatial Disaggregation

CCSP Climate Change Science Program 

CMIP Coupled Model Intercomparison Project

CSC Climate Science Center

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

GCM global climate model

GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies

ICLUS Integrated Climate and Land-Use Scenarios 

IPA Interagency Personnel Agreements 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LCC Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

NARCCAP North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research

NCCWSC National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center

NCDC National Climatic Data Center 

NCSU North Carolina State University

NGO non-governmental organization

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPS National Park Service 

NWIS National Water Inventory System 

PRMS Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System 

RCM regional climate model

RHESSys Regional Hydro-Ecologic Simulation System 

RPC representative concentration pathways

SAC Stakeholder Advisory Council

SARRP South Atlantic Regional Research Plan 

SERAP Southeast Regional Assessment Project
viii

SET sediment-elevation table

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIP Science Implementation Panel

SRES Special Report on Emissions Scenarios

SSPT Science Strategy Planning 

SST sea-surface temperature 

STORET Storage and Data Retrieval System 

SWAP State Wildlife Action Plan 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGCRP United States Global Change Research Program

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WB water balance (model)

WaSSI Water Supply and Stress Index (model) 

WCRP World Climate Research Program
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Southeast Climate Science Center 

Science and Operational Plan

Compiled by Sonya A. Jones and Melinda S. Dalton

Introduction

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) recognizes 

and embraces the unprecedented challenges of maintaining our 

Nation’s rich natural and cultural resources in the 21st century. 

The magnitude of these challenges demands that the conservation community work together to develop integrated adaptation and mitigation strategies that collectively address the 

impacts of climate change and other landscape-scale stressors. 

On September 14, 2009, DOI Secretary Ken Salazar signed 

Secretarial Order 3289 (amended February 22, 2010) entitled, 

“Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America’s 

Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources.” 

The Order establishes the foundation for two partner-based 

conservation science entities to address these unprecedented 

challenges: Climate Science Centers (CSCs) and Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs). CSCs and LCCs are the 

Department-wide approach for applying scientific tools to 

increase understanding of climate change and to coordinate 

an effective response to its impacts on tribes and the land, 

water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and cultural-heritage resources 

that DOI manages. Eight CSCs will be established and 

managed through the National Climate Change and Wildlife 

Science Center (NCCWSC); each CSC will work in close 

collaboration with their neighboring CSCs, as well as those 

across the Nation to ensure the best and most efficient science 

is produced. This close collaboration is necessary, as the role 

of the CSCs is to provide partners with the tools necessary 

to respond to climate change, which requires the sharing of 

resources and information across boundaries.

In the January 2011 DOI draft guidance for both CSCs 

and LCCs, the following excerpt outlines the relationship 

between CSCs and LCCs:

“Much of the information and tools provided by the 

CSCs, including physical and biological research, 

ecological forecasting, and multi-scale modeling, 

will be in response to the priority needs identified 

by the LCCs. Working closely with the LCCs, the 

CSCs will help develop statistically sound sampling 

programs and processes to monitor climate change 

effects and help develop adaptive management 

approaches. The CSCs will be partnership-based 

regional entities functioning with LCCs as well 

as the regional management community, scientific 

entities, and other stakeholders.”

The Southeast CSC was established in 2010 to address 

the regional challenges presented by climate change and 

variability in the Southeastern United States. As such, the 

focus of the center is on science needs that apply across the 

entirety of the southeastern region, and provide regional-scale 

science products that can inform the local needs of the LCCs 

and other partners. The Southeast CSC, hosted by North 

Carolina State University (NCSU), will bring together the 

expertise of federal and university scientists to address the 

priority needs of federal, State, non-governmental, and tribal 

resource managers in addressing the challenges associated 

with climate change. The purpose of the Southeast CSC is 

to provide scientific information, tools, and techniques that 

managers and other parties interested in land, water, wildlife, 

and cultural resources can use to anticipate, monitor, and adapt 

to climate change; actively engaging LCCs and other partners 

in translating science into management decisions. 

This document delivers the first draft of a science and 

operational plan for the Southeast CSC. Using the DOI 

guidance as a model, this document describes the role and 

interactions of the Southeast CSC among partners and stakeholders, describes a concept of what the center will provide 

to its partners, defines a context for climate impacts in the 

Southeastern United States, and establishes six major science 

themes the center will address through research. Each science 

theme is organized by immediate and near-future research 

needs; however, this document is intended to be reevaluated 

and modified as partner needs change.
2 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Climate Science Center (CSC), 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC), 

and Partner Coordination

The Southeast CSC receives guidance for regional 

science priorities from the Stakeholder Advisory Council

(SAC), which is composed of both federal and non-federal 

senior-level government-agency executives throughout 

the Southeast. The SAC is chaired by the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) Regional Executive for the Southeast. 

Current members include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Region 4 

Director; U.S. National Park Service Southeast Regional 

Director; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Regional Climate Services Director, Southern Region; U.S. 

Forest Service Region 8 Forester; a representative from the 

Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; and the 

Chair of the Southeast CSC LCC Advisory Committee. 

Close collaboration between the Southeast CSC and the 

seven associated LCCs enhances the functional capacities of 

both groups to develop meaningful and effective conservation 

adaptation strategies for the southeastern landscape. The 

following list of LCCs have part or all of their geography 

within the boundaries of the Southeast CSC: Appalachian, 

Caribbean, Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers, Gulf 

Coast Prairie, Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks, Peninsular 

Florida, and South Atlantic LCCs (fig. 1).

To facilitate such collaboration, a Southeast CSC LCC 

Advisory Committee will be established and composed of 

LCC Coordinators, designated LCC staff or a member of 

the LCC Steering Committee, and the CSC Director. The 

Southeast CSC LCC Advisory Committee will be chaired by 

one of the member LCC Coordinators and the Chair’s position 

will rotate among the respective LCCs on an annual basis. 

The Chair of the Southeast CSC LCC Advisory Committee 

also will serve on the SAC and will represent the needs of the 

LCCs to the SAC.

The primary purpose of the Southeast CSC LCC Advisory 

Committee is to provide recommendations to the SAC on 

priority climate science projects and products that will be 

of most benefit to LCCs in accomplishing their respective 

mission(s). It is expected that through regular communications, 

the Southeast CSC LCC Advisory Committee will determine 

shared science needs that can be addressed by science 

products and tools developed by the Southeast CSC. The 

collaborative process also will provide shared solutions and 

processes in accomplishing assessments of species and system 

vulnerabilities at both the LCC level and a more regional level 

which will be integral to managers operating in a truly adaptive 

management approach in response to changing climate.

A secondary purpose of the Southeast CSC LCC 

Advisory Committee is to provide assistance and input to the 

Science Implementation Panel (SIP), which will be responsible for peer and technical review of all proposed projects, 

and to recommend how to utilize available scientific assets of 

the CSCs and LCCs to address regional science priorities. Key 

staff from LCCs and other partners (for example, LCC Science 

Coordinators or other appropriate staff) associated with the 

Southeast CSC will serve on the SIP, to provide this oversight 

function of the CSC.

Southeast Regional Assessment Project 

In anticipation of the establishment of CSCs, and their 

collaboration with the LCCs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the USGS supported and coordinated a large-scale, 

multi-disciplinary project to provide useful information and 

tools to the resource-management community by producing 

an assessment of climate change, impacts on land cover and 

ecosystems, and priority species in the region. This project, the 

Southeast Regional Assessment Project (SERAP; fig. 2) is one 

example of how the newly formed CSCs and LCCs can work 

together. SERAP was begun in 2009 and has been under the 

coordination of the Southeast CSC since 2010. Predictive tools 

developed by the SERAP team can help resource managers 

better understand potential impacts of climate change, 

land-use change, and sea-level rise on terrestrial and aquatic 

populations in the Southeastern United States.

Project management of SERAP shifted to the Southeast 

CSC in 2010. In 2011, several components of SERAP were 

introduced in a similar project to assess the vulnerability of the 

Caribbean to climate change.

SERAP seeks to formally integrate multidisciplinary 

project components to aid conservation planning and design 

so that ecosystem management decisions can be optimized to 

provide desirable outcomes across a range of species and environments. SERAP seeks to provide a suite of regional climate, 

watershed, and landscape-change analyses and develop the 

interdisciplinary framework required for the biological planning phases of adaptive management and strategic conservation. The following four main SERAP components: 

• Developing Regionally Downscaled Probabilistic 

Climate Change Projections (Theme 1),

• Integrated Coastal Assessment (Theme 5),

• Integrated Terrestrial Assessment (Themes 2 and 4),

and

• Multi-Resolution Assessment of Potential Climate 

Change Effects on Biological Resources: Aquatic and 

Hydrologic Dynamics (Themes 3 and 4).
Introduction 3

Figure 1. Boundaries of Climate Science Centers and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. 

GuamWake Island

Papahanaumokuakea

Marine National Monument

Hawaii Johnston Atoll

Samoa

Jarvis

Island

Micronesia Marshall Islands

Howland

Island

NORTHWEST NORTHWEST

SOUTHWEST

NORTH

CENTRAL NORTHEAST

NORTHEAST

SOUTHEAST

SOUTHEAST

SOUTH

CENTRAL

Puerto 

Rico

U.S.

Virgin 

Islands

14

12

22

1

9

4

8

SE CSC

NC State

Raleigh

Landscape Conservation Cooperative in the Southeast area

EXPLANATION

1 Appalachian

4 Eastern Tallgrass 

 Prairie and Big Rivers

12 Peninsular Florida

14 South Atlantic

22 Caribbean

Approximate boundary of Climate Science Center (CSC) 

8 Gulf Coast Prairie

9 Gulf Coastal Plains 

 and Ozarks
4 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

These components produce data and other outputs that are 

compiled and used in the development of Optimal Conservation Strategies to Cope with Climate Change (fig. 3; Dalton 

and Jones, 2010), a tool for resource managers to ensure the 

most effective land-management strategies. The following 

sections outline the products that have been or will be 

produced by the SERAP:

1. Developing Regionally Downscaled Probabilistic 

Climate Change Projections. Statistically downscaled 

projections of maximum and minimum temperature and 

mean precipitation through 2099 will be developed at 

Figure 2. Study area for Southeast Regional Assessment Project.

14

12

22

1

9

4

8

SE CSC

NC State

Raleigh

Landscape Conservation Cooperative in the Southeast area

EXPLANATION

1 Appalachian

4 Eastern Tallgrass 

 Prairie and Big Rivers

12 Peninsular Florida

14 South Atlantic

22 Caribbean

Approximate boundary of Climate Science Center (CSC) 

8 Gulf Coast Prairie

9 Gulf Coastal Plains 

 and Ozarks

Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint River Basin

Southeast Regional Assessment Project (SERAP) study area

Sea-level rise study area

PUERTO 

RICO

GEORGIA ALABAMA

FLORIDA

TENNESSEE

ARKANSAS

LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI

MISSOURI KENTUCKY

NORTH

CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

SOUTH

CAROLINA

U.S.

VIRGIN 

ISLANDS

12-kilometer grids for the conterminous United States. 

A select series of derivative data produced from model 

outputs, will include but not be limited to potential 

evapotranspiration, solar radiation, fire frequency, and 

frost days.

2. Integrated Coastal Assessment. Products include 

predictive maps of shoreline erosion, data collected from 

six sediment-elevation table (SET) sites (24 total installations) located in Mississippi and Alabama, and maps of 

predicted inundation resulting from sea-level rise (available on the Web at http://gom.usgs.gov/slr/index.html). 
Introduction 5

3. Integrated Terrestrial Assessment. Products include 

urban-growth projections for 2010–2100 at 60-meter 

grids; vegetation state and transition models at 30-meter 

grids for each vegetation class in the Southeast with 

downscaled climate data incorporated as a fire multiplier 

(A1Fi, B1 scenarios); gridded output of suitable habitat, 

by species, for 606 terrestrial vertebrates that occur in the 

Southeast through 2100 for three climate scenarios (A2, 

A1B and B1) based on non-downscaled climate data; and 

land-cover maps for 1992, 2001, and 2006. 

4. Multi-Resolution Assessment of Potential Climate 

Change Effects on Biological Resources: Aquatic 

and Hydrologic Dynamics. Products available include 

predicted streamflow variables, hydrologic cycle 

components, and simulation of instream temperature 

fluctuations throughout the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–

Flint (ACF) River basin (fig. 2); and updated geomorphic 

characterization, stream-channel classification, and 

updated depression storage and vegetation coverages for 

Statistically

downscaled

GCMs

Aquatic

occupancy

modeling

Probabilistic

climate change

Avian range 

dynamics

Integrated

terrestrial 

assessment

Integrated

coastal

assessment

Optimal

conservation

strategies

Hydrologic

modeling

Stream

temperature

Channel

classification

Water 

bodies

Riparian

vegetation

Historical

Dynamically land cover

downscaled

GCMs

Current

climate

Figure 3. Southeast Regional Assessment Project data-flow diagram.

the ACF River basin. Species-response models—both 

coarse and fine resolution models—will be used to predict 

the presence or absence of aquatic species instream 

segments as a result of changing climate conditions

5. Optimal conservation strategies to cope with 

climate change. The final product will be an optimal 

conservation-strategies model based on identified 

management and policy alternatives that are most likely 

to sustain populations of focal species. The model will 

identify key elements for monitoring to reduce uncertainty 

regarding the effect of climate change on terrestrial 

and aquatic populations and their habitats and measure 

progress toward population and habitat objectives.

All project output will be maintained and readily available on the SERAP data portal. The data portal was originally 

conceived as a mechanism to help SERAP team members 

easily share data and output, but has since been adopted by 

CSCs nationwide as a preferred data-management tool known 

as the GeoData Portal.
6 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Southeast Climate Science Center 

Science Planning 

The Southeast CSC receives funding from the NCCWSC 

located at the USGS National Center in Reston, Virginia. The 

NCCWSC provides guidance for national science priorities as 

part of the USGS Climate and Land-Use Change mission area. 

Although the NCCWSC manages the Southeast CSC operations, the regional science agenda is determined by the SAC, 

which also is responsible for reviewing the overall functioning 

of the CSC. The SAC must review and approve the draft 

science and operational plan, a critical step in the development 

and implementation of the Southeast CSC science strategy. 

The process used to develop this first draft of the science 

and operational plan included an effort to involve as many 

groups as possible in both the development and review of 

the document. The interim Director of the Southeast CSC, 

in consultation with NCSU, and federal and State agencies 

invited a group of scientists to collaborate on the draft plan. 

This group of scientists, the Southeast CSC Science Planning 

Team, is composed of the following:

• Levi Brekke, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation;

• Virginia Burkett, U.S. Geological Survey;

• Catherine Burns, The Nature Conservancy;

• Bob Ford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

• Kevin Robbins, Louisiana State University; 

• Margo Schwadron, National Park Service; and

• Jim Vose, U.S. Forest Service.

The Southeast CSC Science Planning Team was tasked 

with communicating with their constituent groups to obtain 

input during development of the plan and to solicit review 

comments on the completed draft from individuals with 

recognized expertise. The review process consisted of layers 

of technical review for singular pieces of the draft plan 

and comprehensive final reviews of the entire draft plan by 

the SAC. The Science Planning Team relied on input from 

existing LCC operational plans during the development of this 

document; however, the process also allowed for input from 

many partners. Continued involvement from partners in the 

science planning process will ensure that the document and its 

science themes are more responsive and relevant to the needs 

of the conservation community into the future.

The six science themes of this draft plan focus on the 

climate-change priority issues that Southeast CSC partners 

have previously defined. These themes and their derivation 

can be found in appendix which illustrates the priority issues 

for partners throughout the Southeast in relation to climate 

change. The development of these themes relied on priorities 

described by partners and stakeholders in the Southeast as well 

as the work being done as part of SERAP. The most frequently 

referenced priority issues were the basis for developing the 

science research themes, which are the framework for this 

plan. Issues were ranked according to frequency of inclusion 

in reference materials; items most often listed as an area 

of concern or priority issue were evaluated for inclusion in 

the Science Themes section of this draft of the Southeast 

Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan 

(appendix table A–1). 

Regional Context 

The Southeast CSC represents all or part of 16 states 

and the Caribbean (fig. 1) and covers four physiographic 

divisions—the Atlantic Plain, Appalachian Highlands, Interior 

Plains, and Interior Highlands (fig. 4; Vigil and others, 

2000). A large part of the region is within the Atlantic Plain, 

a broad expanse of low-relief landscape along the gulf and 

South Atlantic coasts, from Virginia to Texas that extends 

along the Mississippi River Valley. The Atlantic Plain is very 

important ecologically in the Southeast as it contains parts of 

the Mississippi River and the associated delta as well as bays, 

estuaries, and the barrier islands associated with both the gulf 

and Atlantic coasts. 

The Appalachian Highlands includes the Piedmont 

Physiographic Province, a slightly elevated plateau that begins 

at the Fall Line of the Appalachian Mountains. The Interior 

Highlands includes the inland mountain region of the Southeast, including Ozark and Ouachita Mountains to the west, and 

the Interior Plains stretch into the north-central portion of the 

region, including parts of Tennessee and Kentucky (Fenneman 

and Johnson, 1946; Thelin and Pike, 1991; Vigil and others, 

2000). The Caribbean Islands contain geologic features similar 

to the Appalachian or Interior Highlands and Coastal Plain, 

commonly referred to as the mountainous interior, coastal 

lowlands, and the karst area.

The humid subtropical climate of the Southeast and 

tropical climate of the Caribbean, in combination with diverse 

landscapes, vegetation, and hydrology contribute to produce a 

region rich in aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna. 

Prior to European settlement, the southeastern landscape 

was dominated by upland forests, grasslands, and wetlands. 

Longleaf pine was the dominant forest species of the Southeast, 

although by 1980 less than 2 million of the original estimated 

90 million acres of longleaf pine remained (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). Even though forests presently compose 

between one-third and one-half of the land-use in the region, 

approximately 20 percent of the present forests consist of 

loblolly pine plantations. Forests of oak, gum, and cypress are 

still common, though most of the bottomland forests have been 

converted to agriculture; in fact 85 percent of the bottomland 

hardwood forests in the lower Mississippi Valley have been 

drained and cleared for agriculture (Keeland and others, 1995). 

Roughly half of the wetlands in the region have been converted 

to other land uses (Hefner, 1994); even with these losses, about 

one-half of the remaining wetlands in the United States are 

located in the Southeast (U.S. Geological Survey, 1996). In 
Regional Context 7

areas of the Southeast CSC, groups that have the highest North 

American diversities include amphibians, fishes, mollusks, 

aquatic insects, crayfishes, salamanders, land snails, and fungi 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009a; 2009b); additionally, 

the Southeastern United States has the highest diversity of 

vascular plant density and tree species richness in the Nation.

Caribbean landscapes generally are determined by the 

geology of each island. A few islands are relatively young and 

volcanically active, while others are remnants of fossilized 

coral reefs or volcanic mountain chains (Areces-Mallea and 

others, 1999). The varying geology of the Caribbean has led to 

unique terrestrial and aquatic habitats and rich species diversity. Vegetation in the Caribbean is determined by substrate, 

temperature related to altitude, and precipitation amounts and 

type. The most common vegetation type in the Caribbean 

is the pioneer vegetation along open beaches and maritime 

rocks. Forests that may have grown previously along the open 

coastline have been removed, mostly by European settlers 

or to some degree modern development. At lower altitudes 

seasonal forests are found throughout the Caribbean and 

are identified by the dominant vegetation type—evergreen, 

semi-evergreen, or deciduous. At higher elevations, montane 

forests exist although many have been cleared for crops. 

Mangroves are found in estuaries or along low-elevation 

coastlines, but populations suffer from increased demands 

for beaches, moorings, and resort development (Smithsonian 

Institution, 2011). Biological diversity is high in the Caribbean 

with estimated 13,000 native vascular plant species, 600 bird 

species, 90 mammals, 500 reptiles, 170 amphibians, and 

160 freshwater fishes (Conservation International and others, 

2008). More than 12,000 species have been reported to occur 

in the Caribbean Sea (Miloslavich and others. 2010).

Between 32 and 37 percent of the population in the 

Southeast and 60 percent of the population in the Caribbean live 

within 50 miles of the coast (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2011). Populations in the gulf coast counties of 

the Southeast increased more than 100 percent between 1960 

and 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Between 1980 and 2003 

coastal counties in the Southeast showed the largest rate of 

population increase (58 percent) of any coastal region in the 

conterminous United States (Laporte and others, 2011). Future 

projections indicate that populations along coastal counties 

in the Southeast will increase another 20 percent by 2030 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2011).

The variety of historical populations, many of which are 

still active, in the Southeastern United States and Caribbean,

have left a wealth of archeological resources that may be affected

by climate change. Examples of archeological and ethnographical resources in the Southeast that may be affected by climate 

change include both prehistoric and historic submerged sites 

and shipwrecks; terrestrial prehistoric and historic encampments, midden dumps, home sites, villages, and ceremonial 

sites; battlefields; historic homesteads, farms, plantations, and 

production sites; and historic and prehistoric structures. 

EXPLANATION

Approximate boundary of Southeast 

 Climate Science Center 

ATLANTIC PLAIN

INTERIOR

HIGHLANDS

INTERIOR PLAINS APPALACHIAN HIGHLANDS

Piedmont

Shaded relief from Thelin and Pike, 1991

Physiographic divisions from Fenneman and Johnson, 1946

Fall Line

Mississippi River

Caribbean

Figure 4. Physiographic divisions within the boundary of the Southeast CSC. 
8 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Observed Climate Change 

Long-term temperature records in the Southeast show 

that average annual temperatures have not changed significantly during the last century; since 1970 however, average 

annual temperature has increased 2 degrees Fahrenheit (°F, 

table 1; U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009). Annual 

temperature increases in the Caribbean since 1970 have been 

about 1.5 °F (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

2007). During this same period, the greatest changes in average 

annual temperature occurred during the winter months, and 

the number of freezing days per year decreased. Precipitation 

records (1970–2008) indicate a regional reduction in annual 

rainfall from 10 to 30 percent, particularly in the winter and 

spring; however, precipitation increased during the summer and 

was about the same during the fall (table 1; fig. 5). Precipitation 

patterns also changed; the intensity of storms and the occurrence and severity of droughts have increased since 1970 

(U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009). 

An increase in sea-surface temperature since 1970 has 

been accompanied by an increase in the destructive potential 

of Atlantic hurricanes that make landfall in the Southeast 

region, although changes in the frequency of hurricanes 

making landfall has not been established (U.S. Global Change 

Research Program, 2009). The increase in summer wave 

heights along parts of the U.S. Atlantic coastline since 1975 

is attributed to the increase in tropical storm intensity in the 

Atlantic basin (Komar and Allan, 2007). 

Spring Summer

Fall Winter

EXPLANATION

Percent change in precipitation

<–40 –35 –30 –25 –20 –15 –10 –5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 >40

Figure 5. Observed changes in precipitation in the Southeast 

between 1901 and 2008 (source: U.S. Global Change Research 

Program, 2009).

Table 1. Trends in average temperature and precipitation for the Southeast United 

States (from U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009). 

Average temperature change,

in degrees Fahrenheit

Precipitation change,

in percent

Season 1901–2008 1970–2008 Season 1901–2008 1970–2008

Annual 0.03 1.6 Annual 6.0 –7.7

Winter 0.02 2.7 Winter 1.2 –9.6

Spring 0.04 1.2 Spring 1.7 –29.2

Summer 0.04 1.6 Summer –4.0 3.6

Fall 0.02 1.1 Fall 27.4 0.1
Regional Context 9

Projected Climate Change

Temperature projections from both the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report 

(Parry and others, 2007) and the second national assessment 

(U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009) indicate 

continued warming for all seasons across the Southeast along 

with increased rates of temperature increases through 2099. 

Projected rates of warming are twice the rates of temperature 

increases experienced in the Southeast since 1975, and the 

greatest temperature increases are projected to occur during the 

summer months. The number of days with peak temperatures 

over 90 °F is predicted to increase at a greater rate than average 

temperature. Temperature projections vary based on emission scenarios; lower emission scenarios project an average 

temperature increase of about 4.5 °F by 2080, while higher 

emission scenarios project an average annual temperature 

increase of about 9 °F, including a 10.5 °F increase in summer 

and a much higher heat index for the Southeastern United 

States (U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009). In the 

Caribbean, average annual temperature is predicted to increase 

by about 4 °F by 2080, somewhat below the global average 

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007). Climate 

models also project a continuing decline in days below freezing 

across the entire region during the coming decades. 

Sea-surface temperature is projected to increase 

globally as the oceans absorb increasing heat energy from 

corresponding projected annual increases in air temperature. 

Tropical storm and hurricane activities are likely to increase 

in the Atlantic hurricane-formation region as a function of 

globally observed higher sea-surface temperatures (Parry and 

others, 2007; U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009). If 

the intensity of Atlantic tropical storms increases, southeastern 

ecosystems likely will be exposed to higher peak wind speeds, 

rainfall intensities, storm surges, and wave heights. 

Climate models provide divergent results for future 

average annual precipitation for most of the Southeast and 

Caribbean; however, the ensemble of models used by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Parry and others, 

2007) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (2009) 

predict that southeastern States will tend to have less rainfall 

in winter, spring, and summer (fig. 6) and precipitation in the 

Caribbean is expected to decline by about 12 percent. Because 

corresponding predicted temperature increases will lead to 

increased evapotranspiration, moisture deficits and droughts 

are likely to continue to increase (U.S. Global Change 

Research Program, 2009). 

Predicted average annual temperature increases are 

likely to warm oceans and increase the rate that land ice 

melts; global average mean sea levels are expected to 

increase up to 2 feet or more by 2100 (U.S. Global Change 

Research Program, 2009). A potential increase in the rate 

and magnitude of sea-level rise has serious implications for 

low-lying southeastern coastal wetlands and barrier islands. 

Many environments along the South Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico coastal areas have undergone land-surface subsidence 

because of factors such as groundwater withdrawals, changes 

in sediment delivery by rivers, and the drainage of soils for 

coastal development. Even if hurricanes do not increase in 

intensity, an increase in mean sea level will amplify coastal 

inundation and erosion during hurricane landfall. 

Spring Summer

Fall Winter

EXPLANATION

Percent change in precipitation

<–40 –35 –30 –25 –20 –15 –10 –5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 >40

Figure 6. Projected change in North American precipitation 

by 2080–2099 as simulated by an ensemble of 15 climate 

models under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

A2 emission scenario (source: U.S. Global Change Research 

Program, 2009).
10 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Currently 5,000 square miles of dry land are within 

2 feet of mean sea level in coastal areas of the continental 

United States. While the majority of this land currently is 

undeveloped, coastal development in the Southeast is predicted 

to increase more than in any coastal region of the United States 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2011; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2011; Laporte and others, 

2011), and any terrain within a few feet above mean sea level 

could be inundated (fig. 7; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2011). Currently, sea levels are rising at 0.07 inch 

per year. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Parry 

and others, 2007) predictions of future sea-level rise through 

2100 are between 0.6 and 2 feet. Impacts of rising sea levels 

include coastal erosion; coastal inundation, including wetlands; 

increased storm surge; loss of habitat, property, and cultural 

resources; and degraded surface and groundwater quality. 

Highly productive coastal wetland ecosystems are particularly 

vulnerable to sea-level rise (Parry and others, 2007; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2011). These ecosystems 

provide habitats for many species, act as filters to improve 

groundwater and surface-water-quality, provide an economic 

base for many coastal communities, offer recreational 

opportunities, and protect local areas from flooding.

Projected changes in temperature, precipitation patterns, 

tropical-storm intensity, and sea-level rise over the coming 

decades have serious implications for human communities 

and natural resources in the Southeast. The warming projected 

during the next 50 to 100 years will create heat-related stress 

on people, agricultural crops, livestock, trees, transportation 

and other infrastructure, fish, and wildlife. Seasonal changes 

in precipitation patterns, coupled with increased temperature 

and evapotranspiration, could have widespread and significant 

effects on water resources, ultimately affecting fish and 

wildlife resources and the people who depend on them. Based 

on historical and projected patterns of land-cover change in 

this region, land-use change and other human development 

impacts are likely to amplify the adverse effects of climate 

change on habitats and species.

Figure 7. Projected land areas in the Southeastern United

States that would be affected by a sea-level rise of 3 and 9 feet 

(source: Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets [CReSIS], 2011). 

Land that would be inundated by a sea-level 

 rise above current (2011) sea level of

EXPLANATION

Less than 5 feet

5 to 11.5 feet

Approximate boundary of Southeast 

 Climate Science Center 
Regional Context 11

Land-Use and Land-Cover Change

The U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 defines 

global change as “changes in the global environment 

(including alterations in climate, the land surface and its 

biological productivity, oceans or other water resources, 

atmospheric chemistry, and ecological systems) that may alter 

the Earth’s capacity to sustain life” (U.S. Congress, 1990). 

Understanding how land-use change interacts with other 

climate-change drivers to influence ecosystems and ecosystem 

services may prove to be more important in the Southeast than 

in most other U.S. regions. Most of the Southeast experienced 

a 10- to 33-percent change in land use during 1973–2000 

(fig. 8). In the Southeast, land-use change can be attributed 

to forest industry practices and urban growth. Short harvest 

cycles of pine plantations result in a considerable amount of 

land changing from forested to cleared and back to forested. 

Commonly in the Southeast, agricultural lands are lost to 

urban growth and forestry practices. More importantly, 

development is accelerating across the Southeast and is 

causing the conversion of both agricultural and forested lands 

to urban (Loveland and Acevedo, 2010). 

Projections of increased temperatures and changes in 

precipitation patterns also could affect land-use patterns in 

the Southeast. Predicted climatic changes could reduce the 

net primary productivity (net amount of carbon fixed by green 

plants over the course of a year) of southern pines. Model 

results indicate that southern hardwoods will be much more 

productive than southern pines and that forest productivity 

will shift northward. As a result, agricultural productivity 

is expected to increase in areas where forest productivity is 

reduced (U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009), which 

indicates a future shift of land-use in the South from forested 

back to agriculture.

Percent land-cover change from 1973 to 

 2000, by ecoregion (EPA defined 1999)

0.4 to 3.0

3.1 to 6.0

6.1 to 10.0

EXPLANATION

10.1 to 15.0

15.1 to 33.8

Figure 8. Summary of trends in U.S. land cover change, 1973–2000 (source: USGS Earth Resources and 

Observations Science Center, 2011).
12 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Science Themes

The Southeast CSC Science and Operational Plan presents science themes and tasks, established by partners in the 

southeastern conservation community, to address information 

gaps that can inform the conservation science and resourcemanagement needs of ecoregional conservation partnerships, 

such as the LCCs. The themes presented here will evolve 

and be modified through an adaptive management approach 

incorporating observed results and management assumptions 

developed by resource managers at various spatial scales. The 

process seeks to achieve the following objectives: 

The Southeast CSC will use long-term observational 

records and understanding of biological and physical processes that can be expressed in quantitative 

models to describe the consequences of global 

change on natural resources, provide scientifically 

valid information and tools that can be used to 

adapt resource management to changing environmental conditions, and apply these tools to produce 

regional assessments that are widely used by policy 

makers, resource managers, and the public.

The Southeast CSC will provide the scientifically valid 

information needed to manage southeastern ecosystems and 

cultural resources, thus maximizing their values in a changing 

climate. The Southeast CSC will provide models of future 

conditions, assessments of potential impacts, and other 

products used to inform the decision-support tools developed 

by LCCs, and other partners, for resource managers in order 

to anticipate and adapt to climate change. Resource managers 

in the Southeast are requesting this type of information as a 

result, in many cases, of observed climate-change effects. 

This science plan is intended to prioritize basic or applied 

research required to move data and models from the research 

environment to the operational environment where they are 

needed most. The science plan identifies six science themes 

that frame the activities needed to achieve the objectives of the 

Southeast CSC: 

• Science Theme 1: Develop climate projections and 

determine appropriate projections to use for resource 

management,

• Science Theme 2: Land use and land cover change 

projections,

• Science Theme 3: Impacts of climate change on water 

resources, 

• Science Theme 4: Ecological research and modeling,

• Science Theme 5: Impacts of climate change on 

coastal and nearshore marine environments, and,

• Science Theme 6: Impacts of climate change on 

cultural-heritage resources.

The development of these themes relied on priorities 

described by partners and stakeholders in the Southeast as 

well as a previous large-scale, multi-disciplinary project—the 

SERAP, developed in concert with partners. In many instances 

the tasks that are defined for each of the science themes as part 

of this plan can use the work already begun as part of SERAP 

to build upon, providing valuable information to resource 

managers in the Southeast and allowing partners to reevaluate 

their priorities earlier in the process. 

In order to understand the degree to which natural and 

cultural resources in the Southeast may be affected by climate 

change, the Southeast CSC also will provide support for 

vulnerability assessments conducted for the natural and human 

systems across the Southeast, regardless of political boundary 

and including U.S. territories in the Caribbean. Derivative 

products developed by the CSC, such as numbers of freeze 

days or fire frequency, provide valuable information for finer 

scale conservation planning. The Southeast CSC will share 

derivative products and engage in finer scale planning efforts 

related to vulnerability. By comparison, conservation science 

partnerships, such as LCCs, can use CSC assessments and 

derivative products in conducting vulnerability assessments 

for specific natural or cultural resources. 
Science Themes 13

Vulnerability assessments can be undertaken at a range of 

geographic scales to address individual species or ecosystem 

elements in order to identify vulnerabilities affecting the 

assessment target or to evaluate relative vulnerabilities of 

multiple targets across geographic areas. It is imperative that 

the CSC work closely with finer scale efforts by the LCCs 

and other partners to ensure that vulnerability assessments at 

different spatial scales and for different purposes are complementary and add value to future iterations of assessments. 

Vulnerability assessments generally address one or more of the 

following factors: (1) sensitivity of the resources in question 

to climate change, (2) likely exposure of the resources in 

question to climate change, and (3) adaptive capacity of the 

resources in question to climate change. 

The Southeast CSC will develop science products to help 

address the impacts listed in the most recent U.S. national 

assessment (U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009). 

Examples of the kinds of impacts that are anticipated in the 

Southeast and Caribbean include the following:

• Decreased water availability because of increased 

temperature and fewer rainfall events, coupled with 

increased societal demand could affect many sectors 

of the southeastern economy. Projected increases 

in temperature are likely to lead to more frequent 

outbreaks of shellfish-borne diseases in coastal waters, 

altered distribution of native plants and animals, loss 

of many threatened and endangered species, displacement of native species by invasive species, and more 

frequent and intense wildfires.

• The hydrology of natural systems also is affected by 

climate change and related human-response strategies, 

such as increases in storage capacity (dams) and in 

irrigated croplands. As humans seek to adapt to climate 

change by manipulating water resources, streamflow 

and biological diversity may be adversely affected. 

During droughts, recharge of groundwater declines as 

the temperature and spacing between rainfall events 

increase. Increasing groundwater pumping to supplement water needs will stress or even deplete aquifers 

and place increasing strain on surface-water resources. 

Increasing evapotranspiration rates alter the balance 

of runoff and groundwater recharge, which can lead to 

saltwater intrusion into shallow aquifers in many parts 

of the Southeast, not just in the coastal zone.

• Mean sea-level rise and increased hurricane intensity 

are likely to be among the most significant economic 

consequences of climate change for this region over 

the next 50–100 years. As sea levels rise, gulf and 

South Atlantic coastal shorelines will retreat, and 

low-lying areas will be inundated more frequently, if 

not permanently, by the advancing sea. As temperature 

increases and rainfall patterns change, soil moisture 

and runoff to the coast likely will be more variable, 

changing the input of sediments, nutrients, and saline 

water to estuaries, coastal wetlands, and tidal rivers. 

• Most island communities in the Caribbean have limited 

sources of freshwater to support unique ecosystems 

and biodiversity, public health, agriculture, and 

tourism. Since rainfall triggers the formation of a 

freshwater lens in shallow aquifer systems, changes 

in precipitation, such as the projected significant 

decreases for the Caribbean, can drastically affect the 

availability of groundwater. Because tropical storms 

replenish water supplies, potential changes in these 

storms are a great concern. Small islands are considered among the most vulnerable to changes in weather 

patterns and the frequency and intensity of extreme 

events. Sea-level rise, coastal erosion, coral-reef 

bleaching, ocean acidification, and contamination 

of freshwater resources by saltwater are among the 

climate change impacts that small islands face. 

• A rapid acceleration in the rate of increase in sealevel rise could potentially threaten a large portion 

of the southeastern coastal zone. The likelihood of 

a catastrophic increase in the rate of sea-level rise is 

dependent on ice-sheet response to warming, which 

is the subject of much scientific uncertainty (U.S. 

Global Change Research Program, 2009).

These and other changes in southeastern ecosystems 

are likely to accelerate if the climate continues to warm as 

projected by climate models. The effects of climate change, 

coupled with the extensive development of land and water 

resources in this region, portend widespread and serious 

challenges for resource managers. 

The science themes of this draft plan reflect the current 

state of the science and the stated needs of resource managers 

in the Southeast. The near- and long-term task recommendations under each theme are based, in large part, on existing 

plans and documents from other federal agencies, states, and 

non-governmental organizations (NGOs) across the Southeastern United States (appendix), as well as work already 

underway in the SERAP project. It is a high priority of the 

Southeast CSC to coordinate all research support and funding 

decisions with our partners to best leverage available resources 

in the Southeast and neighboring regions.
14 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Science Theme 1: Develop Climate Projections 

and Determine Appropriate Projections to Use 

for Resource Management 

Easily accessible high-quality climate projections 

are a critical need for the Southeast CSC and its partners. 

This section identifies some available climate projections 

and describes how the projections can be used to address 

impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation assessments conducted 

by the Southeast CSC. The section includes both “bottomup” (Task 1) and “top-down” approaches (Tasks 2–4). 

The bottom-up approach involves using LCCs and the 

conservation community at large to identify aspects of climate 

that are relevant to resource management, research, and 

assessment questions being addressed (for example, which 

climate variables are characterized and at what scales?). 

A top-down approach involves surveying and evaluating 

available global climate-projection information, deciding 

which projections should be retained for Southeast CSC 

activities, and processing this information from global-model 

to basin-relevant resolution (for example, using spatial

downscaling). Ultimately the findings from these two 

approaches merge (Task 5), and decisions are made as to the 

aspects of the retained information that can be used to inform 

management activities and actions for a sustainable landscape. 

Under each task, framing considerations are summarized, 

existing information resources are listed, and general recommendations are offered.

Task 1: Evaluate Needed Climate Information 

Within the Framework of Southeast CSC 

Focus Resources and Study Questions

A well-developed sense of the climate conditions that 

are most relevant is needed when surveying available climateprojection information and deciding how it can be used in 

Southeast CSC assessments. Partner workshops, most likely 

focused within LCC geographies, will be crucial in providing 

this type of information by asking such questions as, “Which 

resources are most important to inform partners’ decisions 

about how to sustain landscapes, ecosystems, cultural 

resources, and fish and wildlife populations?” and “Which 

resource metrics will be used to assess the resource under 

current and future conditions?” and “Which scale is most 

appropriate, both spatially and temporally?”

After working with partners to define a set of resources, 

appropriate metrics, and scales, it is important to evaluate 

sensitivity to changes in climate. Climate changes may stem 

from different variables, such as precipitation and temperature; 

scales (spatial and temporal resolution); and statistical 

measures, such as regional versus catchment-scale weather; 

long-term mean condition versus short term potentially 

extreme condition. 

The objective of this task is to develop a better understanding of the more relevant aspects of climate change 

for selected resources and metrics. This understanding, in 

conjunction with understanding the strengths and weaknesses 

of available climate-projection information (Tasks 2–4), 

will lead to better informed selections of climate-projection 

information and decisions on how to use such information in 

Southeast CSC activities (Task 5). 

Near term recommendations

• Work with the conservation community, specifically 

through LCCs, using a structured decision-making 

process to identify resource-management questions and 

determine the downscaled information that is the most 

useful for the identified problem(s).

Long term recommendations

• Apply findings from partner workshops to help 

guide refined selection of CMIP31 and (or) CMIP52

information (discussed further in Task 2) for continued 

use in Southeast CSC activities.

Task 2: Survey Available and Forthcoming 

Global Climate Projections

During the past decade, global climate projections have 

been made available through the efforts of the World Climate 

Research Program (WCRP) Coupled Model Intercomparison 

Project (CMIP), which has advanced in three phases—CMIP1 

(Meehl and others, 2000), CMIP2 (Covey and others, 2003)], 

and CMIP3 (Meehl and others, 2007). The CMIP3 efforts 

were fundamental to completing the IPCC Fourth Assessment 

Report (Parry and others, 2007). CMIP3 data are publicly 

available and well documented. They represent climate 

simulations reflecting multiple pathways of greenhouse-gas 

emissions (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000), as simulated by 

23 coupled atmosphere-ocean general-circulation models 

(AOGCMs), from multiple initial climate-system conditions 

(indicated by the run number for a given combination of 

emissions scenarios and AOGCM). 

The next generation, CMIP5, has been designed 

(Taylor and others, 2011), and projections are scheduled 

to arrive during 2011–2012. Subsequently, it is expected 

that an evaluation phase will be carried out by the broader 

climate-science community (for example, laboratories at the 

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Goddard 

Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)), which will begin 

the process of characterizing the strengths and weaknesses 

of CMIP5 projection information. CMIP5 will reflect a new 

1

 About CMIP3: http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/about_ipcc.php

2

 About CMIP5: http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/
Science Themes 15

set of greenhouse-gas emissions pathways, referred to as 

representative concentration pathways (RPCs)3, and a new 

collection of climate models. The latter will include CMIP3-

style AOGCMs, as well as coupled climate and carbon cycle 

models and higher-resolution atmospheric general-circulation 

models (AGCMs). However, CMIP3 may be nearing the end 

of its shelf life, and it remains to be seen whether the CMIP5 

ensemble offers a substantially different portrayal of the future 

than CMIP3 (for example, climate variable and scale for a 

given region). It also is expected that assembly and characterization of the CMIP5 ensemble will take the better part of 

the next couple of years, particularly the characterization of 

strengths and weaknesses. This vetting ideally will include 

discussion of which CMIP5 focus (first or second) seems most 

appropriate for the types of impact-assessment questions being 

considered within the Southeast CSC. (For example, should an 

impact assessment reference results from the decadal prediction experiments, from the 21st century CMIP3-style AOGCM 

projections, or from the 21st century coupled climate and 

carbon cycle projections?)

Near term recommendations

• Use CMIP3 information as the basis for 

Southeast CSC climate projections. 

Long term recommendations

• Anticipate use of CMIP5 information—either as a 

replacement for CMIP3 or a blending of CMIP5 

with CMIP3.

Task 3: Decide Whether and (or) How to Cull 

and Update Global Projections

When scoping research or assessments on climate-change 

impacts, a common question is whether the wealth of available 

global climate-projection information can be parsed so that 

focus can be given to a more credible subset of projections. 

Frequently, this question is motivated by interest in reducing 

the cone of uncertainty in the projection, and the belief that 

more credible climate projections can or will diminish the 

cone of uncertainty.

The CMIP3 ensemble has been subjected to considerable 

study on the matter of selecting “more credible” climate 

projections. Some studies have discussed the matter in terms 

of the relative likelihood of emissions scenarios, with some 

discussion focused on how recent rates of global greenhousegas emissions exceed the early 21st century scenario rates of 

global greenhouse emissions (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000) 

as reflected in CMIP3. However, it is generally understood 

that despite the recent trend in global emissions rates, it is 

3

 For a description of the RCPs, see Moss and others, 2008, report from the 

IPCC Expert Meeting Towards New Scenarios, held in Noordwijkerhout, The 

Netherlands, in September, 2007 (see http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/, “IPCC New 

Scenarios” (Taylor and others, 2011)

unclear whether recent trends will persist in a way that some 

emissions pathways can be judged as more likely. Switching 

from emissions likelihoods to climate model skill, other 

studies have focused on evaluating historical simulations from 

AOGCMs, considering their abilities of simulating global to 

regional climate conditions. In summary, it has been shown 

that CMIP3 AOGCMs can be ranked and (or) weighted on 

some set of climate-simulation metrics where observed and 

simulated metrics are compared during a common historical 

period (Knutti and others, 2010). However, it also has been 

shown that rank results depend on the climate simulation 

metrics that are considered (Brekke and others, 2008; Gleckler 

and others, 2008). Further, it has been shown that the use of 

model ranking to cull projections does not necessarily lead to 

more confident results in a variety of studies, including those 

involving historical climate-change detection and attribution 

(Santer and others, 2009) and assessments of future climate 

uncertainty (Brekke and others, 2008; Pierce and others, 

2009; Knutti and others, 2010). Reasons for these outcomes 

warrant further review; however, two contributing factors may 

be (1) disparate initial conditions in global simulated climate 

projections can affect interpretation of regional climate change 

signal relative to noise (Hawkins and Sutton, 2009; Hawkins 

and Sutton, 2010; Deser and others, 2011), and (2) is how a 

climate model’s skill in simulating a climate system response 

to a change in forcing is not necessarily well-connected to its 

skill in simulated baseline period climatology. Based on these 

evaluations, it seems justifiable to forego culling or weighting 

of CMIP3 projections based on perceptions of credibility 

(Mote and others, in review). This conclusion will need to 

be revisited with CMIP5, when new global climate models 

(GCM) simulations are available to establish performance 

metrics that may be more robust (Knutti and others, 2010). 

The preceding discussion only addresses the decision 

whether to cull or not to cull climate-projection information 

based on a sense of relative credibility. The discussion does 

not address whether the culled or full-projection ensemble 

adequately portrays a given climate condition, such as variable, 

metric, or scale. However, an answer to the latter question 

depends on whether and how the raw AOGCM outputs are 

bias-corrected and spatially downscaled over the region. For 

this reason, the latter question is discussed under Task 4.

Near term recommendations

• Use CMIP3 information without credibility-based 

projections culling. 

Long term recommendations

• Anticipate using CMIP5 information and revisit the 

matter of whether it appears that a robust basis can be 

established for judging CMIP5 projections credibility 

over the Southeast CSC domain and for regional 

climate metrics of interest.
16 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Task 4: Characterize how Global Projections 

May be Downscaled and Bias Corrected 

Use of global climate-projection information for 

assessing projected regional and local conditions usually 

requires two fundamental steps and decisions: (1) how to 

relate the spatially coarse global climate model output to more 

localized conditions (that is, how to spatially downscale this 

information), and (2) how to compensate for the source GCM 

simulation biases when developing the projected climate information (that is, how to bias-correct climate model output).

For the first fundamental step it is generally agreed 

that one issue with the CMIP3 projections is that the spatial 

scale of climate model output is too coarse for regional 

studies (Fowler and others, 2007; Maurer and others 2007). 

Several reports offer discussion on the various methodologies 

(Wigley, 2004; Parry and others, 2007 [Report from Working 

Group I—Chapter 11, “Regional Climate Projections”]; 

Brekke and others, 2009a, 2009b). Two primary approaches 

to downscaling the information are statistical (non-dynamical) 

and dynamical downscaling, where the latter is performed 

using a regional climate model. Both class types and available 

sources of downscaled CMIP3 information within these class 

types are described below.

Statistical downscaling

Relative to dynamical downscaling described later, statistical downscaling offers a large collection of global climate 

projections for a continuous period spanning 1950–2099. 

Hence, these resources could be labeled as projections “rich,” 

permitting characterization of climate-projection uncertainty 

over the Southeast during the course of the 21st century. 

This characterization may be useful in serving risk-based 

assessments of effects, vulnerabilities and adaptation needs. 

However, these empirically and statistically downscaled 

resources have the drawback that they reflect some degree 

of assumed statistical stationarity between fine- and coarseresolution surface climate, even though large-scale climate 

change may affect such relations. 

SERAP-downscaled CMIP3 projections. The USGS 

NCCWSC has supported the development of a series 

of downscaled climate scenarios as part of SERAP. The 

downscaling methodology is described in Dalton and Jones 

(2010) and follows the asynchronous regression method 

described in O’Brien and others (2001) and Dettinger and 

others (2004), complemented by a mixture model-clustering 

approach with non-homogeneous transition probabilities to 

simulate the occurrence and intensity of daily precipitation 

(Vrac and others, 2007). The methodology was applied to a 

collection of 16 CMIP3 projections—four climate models 

and their respective simulations of four emissions scenarios 

(B1, A1b, A2, and A1fi; Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000) and 

produced gridded projections of daily minimum temperature, 

maximum temperature, and precipitation for 1950–2099 over 

the continental U.S. at a 1/8o spatial resolution. The effort is 

complemented by an evaluation of the climate models for 

simulation-skill characteristics, resulting in a model weighting 

scheme that might be used to combine this projection information (see Bayesian ensemble dressing methods described 

in Dalton and Jones [2010]), following Draper (1995) and 

Hoeting and others (1999). A Web-based data service was 

scoped and implemented during spring 2011. 

Bias correction and downscaled World Climate Research 

Program CMIP3 climate projections. Similar to the SERAP 

effort, this public archive serves a large collection of 

downscaled CMIP3 climate projections over the continental 

United States. The initial archive scope (Maurer and others, 

2007) included monthly projections of temperature and 

precipitation at 1/8o spatial resolution, developed by applying 

the Bias-Correction Spatial Disaggregation (BCSD) technique 

(Wood and others, 2002) to 112 CMIP3 projections (stemming 

from 16 CMIP3 GCMs, each simulating three emissions 

scenarios—SRES B1, A1b, and A2—one or more times 

reflecting one or more initial climate-system conditions). 

Since then, the archive has undergone two expansions. 

The first occurred in 2009, which added gridded weather 

observations (1/8o “obs” from Maurer and others, 2002) and 

2o re-gridded CMIP3 projections (before bias correction) 

and 2o bias-corrected projections. The second is ongoing 

and involves serving daily downscaled climate projections 

based on application of a new technique—Bias-Correction 

Constructed Analogues (BCCA; Maurer and others, 2010). 

As with the SERAP application of asynchronous regression, application of BCCA yields gridded projections 

of daily minimum temperature, maximum temperature, 

and precipitation. This procedure was applied to 53 of the 

112 CMIP3 projections subjected to BCSD. Looking ahead, 

the archive collaborators (led by Climate Central) plan to 

apply monthly BCSD and daily BCCA to CMIP5 projections 

as they become available.

Dynamical downscaling

Dynamically downscaled projections may reveal changed 

relations (historical to future) between local surface climate 

and large-scale atmospheric circulation; albeit, interpretation 

of these changed relations is limited by uncertainties and error 

characteristics of the regional climate models (RCMs) used 

in the effort. These projections describe coupled land and 

atmospheric-column conditions. Compared to the empirically 

and statistically downscaled resources above, dynamically 

downscaled resources could be labeled as variable “rich” 

(including all simulated variables in surface water and energy 

balances, atmospheric-column states) and projections “poor.” 

These resources also tend to be limited in terms of temporal 

coverage because of the high computational costs of dynamically downscaling long time periods. As for spatial resolution 

comparison, two resources are described below La Florida 

(more regionally focused) and North American Regional 

Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP, national 

to continental scale).
Science Themes 17

La Florida climate downscaling experiments.4 This 

information resource reflects downscaled translations of two 

time periods (1971–2000 and 2041–2070) from three CMIP3 

projections over a domain representing the Southeastern 

United States. Downscaling was performed by using a single 

RCM, which also was used to downscale historical atmospheric reanalysis over the region. Data are served at a spatial 

resolution of 10 kilometers (about 1/8o) and time-aggregated 

to hourly and daily time-steps.

North American Regional Climate Change Assessment 

Program.5 This information resource reflects downscaled 

translations of the same two time periods (1971–2000 and 

2041–2070) but from four CMIP3 projections over a North 

American domain produced by four GCMs. Downscaling was 

performed by using a suite RCMs in which each participating 

RCM was used to downscale at least two CMIP3 projections. 

These RCMs also were used to downscale historical atmospheric reanalysis to gain relative simulation characteristics 

among the participating RCMs. Data are served for the 

conterminous United States and much of Alaska at a spatial 

resolution of 50 kilometers (about 1/2o). Reported data are 

time-aggregated for various time-steps, ranging from monthly 

to sub-daily.

On the matter of compensating for the GCM simulation 

biases when developing the downscaled climate-projection 

information, multiple ways of bias correcting such outputs 

are available. Common themes involve identifying a given 

climate model’s biases in simulating historical conditions 

during a period overlapping with observations (for example, 

1950–1999 monthly mean precipitation and temperature over 

a region, or some other statistical aspect of monthly or other 

time-step and (or) variable). After identifying this bias, the 

historical climate simulation results are corrected statistically 

to match observations during the period of bias identification. 

Similar corrections also are made for the projection period 

that follows. Depending on methods selected, bias correction 

might happen before or after downscaling (for example, bias 

correction of surface climate conditions could be done after

dynamical downscaling given that RCM simulation inputs 

depend on a large set of land-surface and atmospheric-column 

GCM outputs that would be difficult to bias-correct in a 

coordinated fashion. Bias correction of statistical downscaling 

could be done before or afterwards, depending on the method). 

GCM bias correction is treated differently in the 

various resources described above. Both of the empirical 

and statistical resources are based on procedures that feature 

bias correction of CMIP3 output, either integrated into the 

spatial downscaling procedure or performed beforehand. 

The dynamically downscaled resources do not feature bias 

correction of CMIP3 output prior to downscaling or after 

RCM simulation. However, if the information is used to define 

climate change scenarios, such as assessing change in climate 

4 http://www.floridaclimateinstitute.org/projects/88-projects/158

5

 http://www.narccap.ucar.edu/

from NARCCAP 1971–2000 output to NARCCAP 2041–2070 

output, and these scenarios then are used to perturb historically 

observed weather conditions to define future weather conditions, then it can be said that “bias correction in the mean” is 

being performed and, in this case, bias correction of the serial 

GCM-RCM simulation. 

Opportunities to Leverage Various Sources of Information

Moving forward, it seems that the Southeast CSC is well 

positioned to utilize the information produced through the 

SERAP effort. SERAP is unique in that among the resources 

listed above, it is the only project to consider climate projections forced by the A1Fi emissions scenario, which features a 

greater rate of greenhouse-gas emissions compared to the other 

Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) represented in 

the other downscaled projections resources (B1, A1b, and A2). 

Noting these advantages of referencing SERAP as a 

primary resource, there are still opportunities to leverage other 

resources. For example, the second empirical and statistical 

resource offers similar daily-gridded climate projections and 

a greater number, which may provide assistance in characterizing future projection uncertainties. Also, this second resource 

features empirical downscaling conducted by two alternative 

techniques, which affords the opportunity to explore empirical 

downscaling uncertainties over the region. Switching attention 

to dynamically downscaled resources, both options offer opportunities to assess whether large-scale changes in climate could 

trigger local-scale changes in land and atmosphere interactions 

(something that is not revealed in the empirical and statistical 

techniques). Comparing the two dynamical resources, the multiRCM, 50-kilometer resolution NARCCAP information is useful 

for exploring RCM uncertainties, whereas the single-RCM, 

10-kilometer resolution La Florida information is characterized 

at a resolution that may be more comparable to the empirical 

and statistical resources, again offering opportunities to assess 

uncertainties associated with downscaling techniques. 

On judging which downscaled-projections information 

to use for which Southeast CSC activities, it is recommended 

that the hanging question from Task 3 also be considered, 

which is whether the retained climate-projection information adequately portrays a given climate condition over the 

Southeast (for example, variable, metric, scale). In other 

words, which simulated climate conditions do we have more 

confidence in, and why. Any evaluation of the “credibility” of 

projected climate information must consider downscaling as 

well as any climate projections bias correction that happens 

before, during, or after the downscaling procedure. Such 

evaluation ideally would be conducted through broader federal 

vehicles (for example, through development of the 2013 

National Climate Assessment or activities within the NOAA 

regional climate services). However, it seems worthwhile for 

climate-science leads from the Southeast CSC to be engaged 

in such efforts, perhaps sharing insights about which climate 

conditions are relevant to the Southeast (Task 1) in a way that 

could sharpen the scope of such assessment.
18 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Near term recommendations

• Obtain available CMIP3 climate-projection information (raw AOGCM results and bias-corrected and (or) 

downscaled translations) throughout the Southeast. 

Evaluate the historical periods of simulation and 

evaluate simulation adequacy for the menu of climate 

conditions considered. 

Long term recommendations

• Track ongoing downscaling research activities, 

consider findings from the preceding task, and make 

decisions on whether improved bias correction and 

downscaling methodologies should be adopted. 

Task 5: Develop Climate Scenarios for 

Southeast CSC Impacts, Vulnerability, and 

Adaptation Assessments

As stated in the introduction of this section, the determination of how climate-projection information will be used 

for Southeast CSC research and assessment activities can 

be informed by results from the “bottom-up” (Task 1) and 

“top-down” assessments (Tasks 2–4). In other words, the 

relevant resources identified during Task 1 might be reviewed 

in concert with available global and downscaled climate 

projection information (Tasks 2–4) to help determine how this 

information should be sampled and used in Southeast CSC 

activities. In this sense, the collective tasks in this section are 

somewhat linked.

Given how Task 1 outcomes may vary depending on 

the resource considered, and how outcomes from Tasks 2–4 

regarding projection credibility may vary, the combined 

consideration of outcomes from Tasks 1–4 leads to several 

options for assessment methodologies. Options vary in terms 

of what is sampled from climate-projection information and 

used to define future climate scenarios that would frame 

Southeast CSC assessments on various resources conditions 

(for example, hydrology, ecosystem resiliency, managed water 

systems, coastal resources). Broadly speaking, these methodologies can be categorized roughly into two classes—transient 

and period change.6

The transient class features a single time-evolving portrayal 

of climate and natural system conditions to reveal impact over 

time, whereas the period-change class features a comparison 

of two climate and natural system portrayals to reveal impact 

spanning two periods in time—one portrayal under historical 

conditions and an alternative under conditions at some milestone 

date in the future. The climate projections from Tasks 2–4 are 

examples of the transient class, as they portray time-series 

climate-system conditions under evolving emissions conditions.

6

 In USGS Circular 1331 (Brekke and others, 2009), these were respectively 

labeled “system projection” and “shifted stationarity.”

Regardless of the chosen methods class (transient or 

period-change), a common goal of the impacts, vulnerability, 

and adaptation assessments is to be able to characterize uncertainties about the results. Uncertainties arise from various 

sources, including uncertainties about global climate forcing, 

how to simulate global climate response to change in climate 

forcing, how to relate global climate-simulation results to 

locally relevant conditions (that is, bias correction and spatial 

downscaling), and how to simulate natural resource response to 

changes in locally relevant conditions. The climate-projection 

ensemble (Tasks 2–4) affords some opportunity to characterize 

uncertainties relative to these sources, and the transient impacts 

assessment view is well designed to incorporate these uncertainties into results. Period-change assessments also can incorporate 

such uncertainties provided they are designed to feature multiple 

climate-change scenarios sampled from the cone of projections 

in a way that is meant to reflect change uncertainty.

Note that whether transient or period-change assessments 

are implemented, it is important to scope the assessment to 

reflect the distribution of future climate and impacts possibilities. 

This sets up a probabilistic view of future conditions, which is 

a necessary precursor for risk-based assessment of vulnerability 

and adaptation options. Transient approaches, given that they 

typically are framed by a large ensemble of climate projections, are naturally suited for producing such probabilistic 

information, and are attractive in that they characterize 

probabilistic conditions continuously through time. Periodchange approaches also can be framed to produce probabilistic 

information provided that an ample number of period-change 

possibilities are considered (Brekke and others, 2009b), or that 

small subsets of period changes are defined in order to represent 

the breadth of climate change possibilities (for example, defining 

either projection-specific or ensemble-informed period changes).

Near term recommendations

• Determine climate scenarios that can be developed to 

support different Southeast CSC activities, including 

an ensemble of time-evolving (transient) climate 

projections, a small set of simple climate-change 

scenarios (perhaps projection-specific and sampled 

from the transient ensemble) and a small set of 

complex climate-change scenarios (perhaps ensembleinformed and defined from the transient ensemble). 

Long term recommendations

• In conjunction with Task 4, track ongoing downscaling 

activities being applied to the Southeast and the arrival 

of CMIP5 information; evaluate new information 

sources as they become available; revisit the validity 

and utility of climate scenarios already developed

• Based on findings, consider developing new climate 

scenarios based on CMIP5 and (or) improved techniques in downscaling and information evaluation. 
Science Themes 19

Science Theme 2: Land-Use and Land-Cover 

Change Projections

The Southeastern United States is among the fastest 

growing regions in the country, and modeling related to 

climate impacts must be done in the context of land-use 

change. The pattern and extent of land-cover change has 

important implications for conservation of species and 

ecosystems; changes in land-use can affect terrestrial and 

aquatic habitats, lead to habitat fragmentation, and affect water 

quality. These changes can affect the ability of ecosystems 

and species to respond to changing conditions. The Southeast 

CSC will examine land-use patterns across the Southeast, 

especially in light of climate-change effects, while conservation partnerships, such as LCCs, will examine these patterns at 

a finer spatial scale. This section describes how the Southeast 

CSC will address land-use and land-cover change and the 

interactions and effects of land-use and land-cover change 

with climate change on habitats and water quality. 

Land cover in the Southeast has undergone tremendous 

changes since European settlement. Prior to settlement, longleaf 

pine woodlands were the dominant vegetation type in the 

coastal uplands (Frost, 1993; Christensen, 1999). Extensive 

river corridors bisected the upland matrix, and concentrations 

of non-riverine wetlands covered vast acreages (Richardson, 

2000). Today urban, row-crop agriculture, and managed pine are 

the most extensive land-cover types in the region. Recent landuse change has been extensive, and has been the result of timber 

harvesting and urban growth (Loveland and Acevedo, 2010). In 

a conservation assessment of the United States and Canada, the 

World Wildlife Fund identified every ecoregion in the Southeast 

as vulnerable, endangered, or critical (Ricketts and others, 

1999). These threats are directly related to the diversity of the 

region and the fact that less than 10 percent of the lands are 

within the conservation network (Ricketts and others, 1999).

Rapid urbanization, climate change, and the direct 

and indirect effects of these two dynamics on vegetation, 

ecosystems, and habitats are major challenges to developing 

long-term conservation strategies. Resource agencies increasingly are challenged to predict and respond to the potential 

effects of climate and land-use change on the habitats, species, 

and cultural resources they manage. Historically, agencies 

have focused on managing individual public lands or species. 

However, the scale and extent of the potential impacts of these 

new threats require that managers consider strategies across 

ownership boundaries, multiple species, cultural resources, 

and at multiple temporal and spatial scales. This list of 

required considerations makes for a very complex management situation. The Southeast CSC is in a position to provide 

the support needed for resource managers to address unique 

management challenges in the region. 

Several regional and national efforts to examine land-use 

changes and trends—past, present, and future—have been 

completed recently. For example, the USGS Land Cover 

Trends Project examined changes in land cover from 1973 to 

2000, and detected a high degree of change in the Southeast 

compared to other regions of the U.S. (Drummond and 

Loveland, 2010; Loveland and Acevedo, 2010; Napton and 

others, 2010). In addition, the Southern Forest Futures Project, 

a major assessment by the U.S. Forest Service, determined 

that in the future, climate change, population growth, timber 

markets, and other major drivers such as invasive species will 

interact to influence forests, and water quality and quantity, 

across the Southeast (Wear and Greis 2011, draft report). The 

project results also highlight the importance of forest conservation and management in mitigating these effects (Wear and 

Greis, 2011, draft report). Finally, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Integrated Climate and LandUse Scenarios (ICLUS) projected housing-density scenarios 

through 2050 following IPCC climate-change scenarios and 

examined the effects on water quality and habitat across the 

United States. Results indicated potential substantial changes 

to watersheds and habitats and significant variation by 

scenario (Bierwagen and others, 2010). Taken together, these 

recent studies all point to the importance of additional research 

on land-use change, its interaction with climate change, and its 

effects on water quality and habitat availability. 

The results of these recent regional and national projects 

are similar to three of the goals and objectives for priority 

research that have been identified in the USGS Global Change 

Science Strategy (Burkett and others, 2011): (1) Land-use 

and land-cover change rates, causes, and consequences; (2) 

droughts, floods, and water availability under changing landuse and climate; and (3) biological responses to global change. 

Priority research specific to land-use and land-cover change in 

the Southeast will be directly related to these goals. Following 

is a summary of the research needs for the Southeast relative 

to these three goals.
20 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Task 1: Conduct Regionally Focused Research 

on Land-Use and Land-Cover Change Rates, 

Causes, and Consequences

With some of the highest rates of land-use and land-cover 

change in the Nation, effective resource management in the 

Southeast requires understanding of the extent, pattern, and 

effects of those changes and conveying that understanding 

through products that support adaptive-management processes. 

Several national programs, including the National Land 

Cover Dataset (Fry and others, 2009), and the Coastal Change 

Analysis Program have produced current and recent landcover data, and thus provide the national context for land-use 

and land-cover trends. Similarly, the National Gap Analysis 

Program has developed a thematically rich vegetation map 

to support regional conservation assessments (Aycrigg and 

others, 2010). Others programs discussed above, such as the 

Land Cover Trends Project, ICLUS, and the Southern Forest 

Futures Project, provide a starting point for examining trends 

and major factors driving land-cover change. Several studies 

are producing downscaled climate data that can be useful 

for climate-change assessments, including SERAP. While 

these data provide a baseline for planning, regionally focused 

research is needed to build on these and other previous efforts 

to guide resource management and decisionmaking in the 

Southeast. The Southeast CSC serves as an important source 

of application testing, feedback, and refinement for existing 

national and regional land-cover products.

Near term recommendations

• Develop land-cover mapping and change-detection 

methods with increased accuracy and spatial and 

temporal resolution by building on previous research, 

conducted as part of SERAP.

• Modify regional datasets to accommodate site-specific 

management needs.

Long term recommendations

• Develop methods to process and convey higher 

resolution data, such as multi- and hyper-spectral, 

high spatial resolution, and multi-temporal imagery, 

in support of determining which existing datasets are 

inadequate and subsequent planning.

• Increase the efficiency and standardization of the 

national product for use in an adaptive-management 

framework for decision support in the Southeast.

• Develop approaches to mitigate the consequences 

of land-use and land-cover change in the Southeast, 

focusing on impacts from primary human-related 

drivers of change in the region, such as urbanization, 

timber management, and agricultural practices, their 

interaction with climate change, and their influence on 

habitat and water quality.

• Evaluate trends in land-use change. Quantify current 

trends and use the data to inform models of potential 

impacts of these trends; additionally, develop 

alternative scenarios and the potential impacts in a 

context of the most important natural and cultural 

resources in the region. 

Task 2: Research Droughts, Floods, and 

Water Availability under Changing Land-Use 

and Climate

In addition to the broader goals related to water 

resources, research specific to the interaction between land use 

and land cover is critical in the Southeastern United States. 

With increased demand for water and potential changes in the 

amount and timing of precipitation due to climate change, it 

is important for managers and policy makers to understand 

how decisions specific to land use and land cover influence 

flows and water availability, as well as how droughts affect the 

available range of land management options. 

Near term recommendations

• Improve the characterization of variability in hydrologic processes on the landscape. Identify land-use 

practices that enhance or decrease the effects of 

climate change on water resources.

Long term recommendations

• Develop land-use change models that incorporate 

findings from the near term recommendations.
Science Themes 21

Task 3: Research Biological Responses to 

Changing Land-Use and Climate

An important focus for the Southeast CSC will be the 

influence of land-cover change on species habitat and plant 

communities separate from and in conjunction with the effects 

of climate change. Central to this research are the baseline 

datasets that provide insights regarding the relations between 

species, plant communities, and land cover. Research related 

to the maintenance, update, and enhancement of land-cover 

datasets is important to supporting an adaptive management 

framework in which managers can build decision-making 

processes that include the evaluation of land-cover trends. 

Near term recommendations

• Identify potential effects of land-cover change on 

species distributions and plant communities through 

modeled scenarios. 

Long term recommendations

• Understand the impacts of habitat fragmentation and 

connectivity on species distributions, as well as the 

impact of ecological stressors (invasive species, pathogens, and insect outbreaks) on systems and provide 

information specific to the potential for management 

and policy decisions to mitigate the impacts.

• Use these land-cover data and change model results 

in conjunction with sea-level rise projections and 

vegetation dynamics models from SERAP to produce 

land-use and habitat maps for priority species identified by LCCs and other partners.

Task 4: Develop Land Cover and Habitat 

Projections for the Southeastern United States

The continued rapid urbanization in the Southeastern 

United States necessitates projections of future growth 

and climate change to allow resource managers to develop 

conservation plans for future conditions. Developing urbangrowth projections at regional and appropriate sub-regional 

spatial scales is a critical task for the Southeast CSC, while 

simultaneously working with LCCs and other partners to 

provide requested science products for fine-scale resolution 

to projected change. The science process of the CSCs and partners will be a process of adaptive management, where each is 

informed by the other. The science will be updated continually 

in response to changing conditions and partner needs. Because 

changes in land use influence climate, and climate and other 

global change factors, in turn, influence change in land use, 

understanding the interactions between these drivers will 

allow for better projections of both drivers. At local and 

regional scales, changes in urbanization may alter hydrologic 

conditions and water quality, effect habitat fragmentation, and 

cause a number of other alterations that impact management. 

The Southeast CSC will work in partnership with LCCs and 

other partners to identify critical tasks.

Near term recommendations

• Continue to collaborate with LCCs and other partners 

to determine needs and develop tools to support 

management decisions.

• Build on existing models of vegetation dynamics that 

are being developed as part of SERAP and tailored to 

the Southeast.

• Use available land-cover data and derived change 

detection products, as well as field data, test models 

of urban growth, land-cover change, and vegetation 

dynamics in the Southeastern United States and 

Caribbean that assume historical patterns.

• Continue developing models of land-cover change 

and vegetation dynamics that incorporate the influences of projected climate changes from Theme 1. 

Model the influence of land-cover change scenarios on 

regional climate, such as urban growth and resultant 

heat island effects).

• Validate change detection, vegetation dynamics, and 

urban growth based on field data.

• Ensure that models are the same spatial and temporal 

scales as other models (downscaled climate, watershed, 

vegetation, etc.) developed for the Southeast CSC. 

Long term recommendations

• Work with national land-cover mapping programs to 

create a seamless flow of land-cover mapping data into 

regional modeling and the decisionmaking processes.

• Work with partners to refine vegetation-dynamics 

modeling, improve ancillary data (for example, 

information on vegetation condition and structure 

produced through advanced remote sensing) to refine 

modeling parameters and select relevant scenarios 

for modeling.

• Examine the relevance of these information products 

for resource-management decisionmaking and refine 

as appropriate.

• Update land-cover, vegetation, and urban-growth 

models to reflect patterns and processes as conditions 

and driving factors in the region change.
22 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Science Theme 3: Impacts of Climate Change on 

Water Resources 

The ability to sustain freshwater quality and quantity 

is a critical issue for maintaining societal expectations and 

needs. The demands of a growing human population for 

freshwater combined with the desire to conserve diverse 

aquatic habitats and species will create increasing conflicts in 

the Southeast. Changes in flow regimes and water quality as a 

result of land-use changes, increasing frequencies of extreme 

precipitation events, and warmer temperatures over the past 

few decades have raised doubts about the sustainability of 

freshwater supplies and the viability of endemic freshwater 

species (Vorosmarty and others, 2000; Vorosmarty and others, 

2010). Climate-change projections indicate that climate-driven 

impacts on water supply and quality may further threaten 

social and ecological systems throughout the Southeast over 

the coming decades. For example GCMs predict increased air 

temperatures of 4 to 9 °F for the Southeast by 2080. Projected 

changes in precipitation patterns are less certain; however, 

models predict changes in seasonal patterns, regional drying, 

and increased intensity of tropical storms (U.S. Global Change 

Research Program, 2009). Increased air temperature and more 

variable precipitation will have both direct and indirect effects 

on water supply and quality. Direct effects occur by changes in 

rainfall and temperature, whereas indirect effects are associated 

with changes in vegetation composition, structure, and physiology. For example, higher temperatures result in increased soil 

evaporation and plant transpiration, which lead to reduced soil 

moisture and streamflow; and ultimately, to changes in species 

(Iverson and Prasad, 1998). More extreme rainfall events are 

likely to increase flood and drought severity and frequency. 

Most importantly, climate change will interact with land-use 

change and alter disturbance regimes to exacerbate the direct 

impacts on water quantity and quality (Wilcox, 2010). 

The Southeast CSC will work with partners to facilitate 

development of a predictive and reliable understanding of 

the impacts of climate change on water resources in the 

Southeastern United States, and provide consistent and 

reliable data to ecoregional conservation science partnerships, 

such as the LCCs. The complexity of hydrologic systems over 

space and time and uncertain knowledge about climate, soil, 

and topographic interactions in the future make evaluating 

the impact of climate change on water resources difficult. 

Numerous hydrologic models already exist, such as SERAP 

and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Water Supply and Stress 

Index model (WaSSI), and may be applicable for assessing the 

potential impacts of climate change on water resources. These 

models also may serve as platforms for further model refinements and applications specific to objectives of the Southeast 

CSC. For example, spatial and temporal resolutions of existing 

models may not be fine enough to support land-management or 

planning decisions. In addition and despite model availability, 

the rapid pace of co-occurring human-induced changes—

climate and land use—challenge models that were developed 

and calibrated with historical information and data (Vose and 

others, 2011). Accurate predictions of hydrologic responses 

to climate change require a more complete understanding of 

how all the components of hydrologic processes (for example, 

climate, soils, vegetation, topographic features, and human 

subsystems, such as reservoirs and dams) have co-evolved 

in the past and how they are likely to do so in the future 

(Wagener and others, 2010). 

The Southeast CSC will play an important role in 

meeting the needs of decision makers for reliable estimates of 

climate-change impacts on water resources by: (1) producing 

predictive groundwater and surface-water models as well 

as water-quality models, (2) supporting research to improve 

hydrologic models to provide spatially and temporally relevant 

predictions, (3) providing Web-based access to currently 

available hydrologic models; historical, current, and projected 

climatic-driving variables using downscaled GCMs; and 

calibration data, (4) providing support in developing vulnerability assessments, and (5) developing and responding to an 

interactive adaptive process with LCCs to use site-specific and 

ecoregional observations to drive the development of future 

priority science needs. All of these tasks will be necessary to 

understand how climate-change impacts on water resources 

will affect social, ecological, and aquatic systems, and inform 

socioeconomic and institutional responses to these impacts. 

Task 1: Develop Predictive Groundwater, 

Surface-Water, and Water-Quality Models in 

Natural and Human Dominated Systems

Hydrologic model development will include: (1) methods 

that focus on multiple spatial extents and resolutions within 

a single data structure; (2) support for multiple temporal 

contexts (historical, current, and future); and (3) a mechanism 

for sharing inputs and outputs with other modelers. This 

structure supports an approach for applying hydrologic 

models to increase understanding of climate change and to 

coordinate an effective response climate-change effects that 

fosters cross-discipline and cross-agency collaboration and 

long-term archival of model outputs in a simple discoverable 

and accessible form.

Near term recommendations 

• Work with LCCs and other partners to identify and 

prioritize watersheds and aquifers identified as 

important for resource management.

Long term recommendations

• Use models to develop regional-scale predictions 

that include both climate and land-use change 

projections produced in Themes 1 and 2 and build 

on the work of SERAP.

• Work with the LCCs and other partners to develop 

models at scales appropriate for resource management.
Science Themes 23

Task 2: Conduct Research to Improve 

Hydrologic Models

The Southeast CSC will facilitate new research 

approaches to improve the capacity of hydrologic models 

to project impacts of climate change and interactions with 

other co-occurring forces such as land-use change, and 

altered disturbance regimes on water resources. In particular, 

predicting the response of hydrologic systems to a changing 

environment requires models that account for the complex 

interactions among physical, biogeochemical, ecological, and 

human subsystems. As such, one of the tasks of the Southeast 

CSC will be to foster interdisciplinary approaches in model 

conceptualization and development. Improving the spatial and 

temporal resolution of hydrologic models is an important focal 

area required to assess impacts. Models are often evaluated 

based on their ability to simulate long-term means at large 

spatial scales; however, analyses of both ecological and socioeconomic impacts as well as responses by decision makers 

will require much finer temporal- and spatial-resolution 

projections. Indeed, it may be more relevant that models reliably predict the impacts of climate change on water resources 

at the extremes, such as maximum or minimum daily flows 

instead of long-term averages.

Near term recommendations

• Identify and assess high-priority information needs for 

water-resource and emergency-response management 

and planning agencies in the southeastern region. 

• Develop new models or tools that focus on multiple 

spatial and temporal scales. The models should be scalable so that local managers can use the data produced 

by a larger scale model to populate finer scale models.

Long term recommendations

• Apply new tools to existing models. Develop new 

models as needed.

Task 3: Provide Web-Based Portal Access to 

Hydrologic Models and Calibration Data

A large number of hydrologic models currently are 

available to project the potential impacts of climate change on 

water sheds (for example, RHESSys, Tague and Band, 2004; 

WaSSi, Sun and others, in press; WB, Hay and McCabe 2010; 

PRMS, Leavesley and others, 1983); however, these models 

differ considerably in spatial and temporal scale, parameterization and calibration requirements, and overall approaches, 

such as process as opposed to empirical model. Web-based 

access to a suite of hydrologic models, common climatic 

datasets, and calibration data facilitates efficient applications 

of models already available and collaborative opportunities for 

adapting existing models to specific research needs. 

Near term recommendations

• Continue to develop the structure for a Web-based 

portal (SERAP) that will allow the modeling community to share input and output data (similar to existing 

sites such as www.data.gov and www.climate.gov) in 

formats that are appropriate for many different models. 

Long term recommendations

• Add new models to the portal and new datasets as 

they become available. Make the portal available 

to a wide audience.

Task 4: Provide Support to the LCCs and Other 

Partners to Produce Vulnerability Assessments 

Freshwater ecosystems in the Southeast are vulnerable 

to many aspects of a changing climate, especially increased 

numbers of extreme annual weather events, increased summer 

droughts, and ambient temperature rises. Physical changes 

in freshwater systems can affect water supply, entire aquatic 

communities, and threatened and endangered species. The 

ability for both human and natural communities to adapt to 

these changes requires an assessment of system vulnerability 

at various spatial scales and for different conservation 

targets (for example, physical stream characteristics, such as 

dissolved oxygen and temperature, but also populations of key 

species such as mussels and fish).

Near term recommendations

• Provide support in conducting vulnerability assessments of freshwater systems based on watershed or 

appropriate geographic measures in relation to the 

hypothesis or species or population of management 

concern, and share appropriate derivative products 

with LCCs and others for further collaborative work 

in priority areas.

Long term recommendations

• Using vulnerability assessments of freshwater systems, 

combined with LCC assessments of priority species 

and population, define critical freshwater streams, 

aquifers, or lakes
24 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Science Theme 4: Ecological Research 

and Modeling 

Climate change currently has and will continue to have 

significant impacts on the distribution and phenology of 

individual species, population demography, and abundance. 

Climate science has made substantial progress in formulating 

predictions for altered species distributions under various 

climate scenarios, a critical step toward developing a predictive framework of how biological systems respond to changing 

conditions. However, modeling (and monitoring) populations 

and single-species responses is insufficient, as models must 

incorporate ecological interactions and evolutionary processes 

to increase the reliability of projections. For example, the 

ranges and phenologies of individual species do not all 

respond to changing climate conditions at the same rate, which 

means that new species come into contact with each other and 

create new ecosystem interactions, such as predator and prey, 

competitive, and host and parasite interactions. 

Research suggests that responses vary among different 

organisms, so a wholesale “reshuffling” of species is likely 

in many areas, including in the Southeast (Burns and others, 

2003; Montoya and Rafaelli, 2010). Climate change has been 

linked to altered competitive and predator-prey interactions 

and to the increased intensity of pathogen infection (Tylianakis 

and others, 2008; Barton and others, 2009). Predicting the 

long-term consequences of these interactions for community 

composition and food-web structure is a considerable challenge, but one that must be met to accurately predict how 

species and communities will be shaped by climate change.

Changes in species distributions and phenologies and 

the resulting changes in species interactions and food-web 

structure also have the capacity to significantly affect 

ecosystem processes, such as rates of decomposition, water 

filtration, and primary productivity (Montoya and Raffaelli, 

2010). Impacts of climate change are just beginning to be 

understood and because ecosystem responses are shaped 

by the combined responses of many different species and 

their interactions, research must focus on what drives 

species- and community-level changes in order to accurately 

forecast ecosystem responses. In addition to these changes 

in ecosystem processes, disturbance regimes, such as the 

frequency and intensity of fire and hurricanes, vary with 

changing climate conditions. These disturbance regimes can 

produce rapid and marked changes in ecosystem structure and 

function in the short and long term (Turner, 2010). Developing 

tools to predict ecosystem-level changes in response to climate 

is important for maintaining a diverse and functional natural 

world and for ensuring the well being of the population whose 

lives depend on the services these ecosystems provide.

Southeast CSC research will generate region-wide or 

range-wide models of priority species, and eventually the 

interactions and processes related to the direct (effects on 

phenology, performance, and dispersal) and indirect (effects 

on vegetation dynamics and habitat) influences of climate 

change. In close collaboration with LCCs and other partners, 

models will be developed by building on the work done 

in SERAP to identify the relative impacts and efficacy of 

different landscape-scale management decisions, such as 

investment in corridors or refuges on priority species and 

populations. Using available information, such as priority 

species lists from State Wildlife Action Plans and information 

consolidated by LCCs and others, the approach is first to 

identify the species to be considered, second to lay out shortterm goals, and third to indicate long-term projects that should 

be of a high priority.

One proposed method is to focus on three groups of 

species most directly related to Southeastern United States 

cultural and natural heritage—focal taxa (including rare and 

climate-threatened species), pest and invasive species that 

threaten cultural or natural resources, and foundation species 

on which many other species and processes depend. The 

Southeast CSC will focus research objectives on priority 

species identified by States, NGOs, and federal agencies 

in concert with LCCs. The close collaboration between the 

CSC and southeastern LCCs will ensure complimentary, not 

duplicative, efforts at various spatial scales.

Focal Taxa. Focal taxa are relatively well-studied taxa, 

including species of current or future conservation concern 

that are likely to be influenced by climate change, whether 

positively or negatively. Potential focal taxa include but are 

not exclusive to birds, freshwater mussels, freshwater and 

diadromous fish, butterflies, ants, and salamanders. Rapid 

progress in understanding climate-change impacts on some 

of these taxa is expected in the short-term, in part because of 

long-running projects and (or) large datasets for each of these 

taxa in the Southeast. In considering the choice of taxa, the 

criteria used to determine the focal taxa will be those taxa 

most relevant to the LCCs and other partners, regional experts, 

and potential for major, high-profile. 

Pest and Invasive Species. Pest and invasive species have 

the potential to alter the ability of native species to travel, on 

occasion leading to local and, in some cases, global extinctions (Crowl and others, 2008). Many pests, invasive species, 

and pathogens have the potential for increased abundance 

and impacts on natural resources with climate change (Crowl 

and others, 2008). Research conducted by the Southeast CSC 

should consider a subset of these species with the greatest 

potential to affect wild habitats, rare species, and foundational 

species such as hemlock woolly adelgids or the redbay beetle. 

The objective is to understand climate effects on key invasive 

and pest species rather than trying to monitor all such species. 

The Southeast CSC will seek to understand how land-use decisions influence the potential for spread of pest and invasive 

species (or conversely, local extinctions of native species) 

given different climate-change scenarios.
Science Themes 25

Foundation Species. A foundation species is a species 

that “by virtue of its structural or functional attributes creates 

and defines an entire ecological community or ecosystem, can 

have dramatic effects on the perception of the landscape and 

broad consequences for associated biota, ecosystem function, 

and stability (Ellison and others, 2005).” An objective of the 

Southeast CSC when modeling the distribution of species 

is to develop comprehensive studies of foundation species. 

Changes in the abundance of foundation species have the 

potential for large impacts, but importantly, foundation species 

also include many of the species most amenable to active 

management—whether by assisted migration, restoration or 

something else.

In forested ecosystems, foundation species tend to be 

trees, though other organisms also can have foundational roles, 

such as beavers whose decline in the Southeast appears linked 

to the decline of several species dependent on beaver meadows, 

such as the St. Francis satyr butterfly. In aquatic systems, foundation species generally are mussels. A recent review identified 

a suite of southeastern foundation species (Ellison and others, 

2005), but the Southeast CSC will identify foundation species 

in consultation with LCCs and other partners. 

A key initial step in understanding organism responses 

is to study the responses of individual species of focal taxa, 

pest species, and foundation species. The approaches used to 

study these species includes a range of modeling approaches, 

integrated across levels of organization (that is, genes → 

individuals → populations → communities → ecosystems), 

and combined ecological and evolutionary approaches. In 

assembling a team of climate scientists that can address the 

other priorities described in this plan, the Southeast CSC will 

bring together a unique group of scientists with the combined 

skill sets needed to make meaningful decisions in these areas 

and to accurately inform conservation and management in the 

face of climate change. 

Task 1: In Close Collaboration with LCCs, 

States, and Other Stakeholders, Determine 

the Highest Priority Species and Populations 

for the Development of Distribution Maps and 

Population and Phenology Models 

Geospatial information will be a useful tool in 

determining the fate of species under different management 

strategies and whether species can be conserved in situ or will 

need to move, either through corridors and matrix habitat or 

by active transport. 

Near term recommendations

• Along with partners and stakeholders, continue the 

process of identifying priority species within the 

boundaries of the Southeast CSC that began during 

SERAP stakeholder meetings

• In cooperation with partners and stakeholders, identify 

subsets of, and develop future distribution models for, a 

range of focal taxa, pest species, and foundation species. 

• Develop phenology models for the selected subset of species. 

• Identify species for which more detailed studies of 

the responses of genotypes and local populations can 

be conducted.

Long term recommendations

• Understand how the distributions, phenologies, and 

populations of species are influenced by different 

land-use, policy, and other scenarios with a particular 

focus on the potential role of corridors and refuges.

Task 2: Test Whether the Predicted Responses 

of Species to Climate and Land-Use Changes 

Match Observed Changes

A key need in modeling species and later ecosystem 

processes is verifying that such models have empirical 

validity. Comparing model results to empirical climateinduced changes is one approach in testing model validity. 

Simultaneously, assessing which aspects of models (for 

example, predictions of southern versus northern range shifts) 

are most consistently wrong and in need of modification is 

another approach for determining model validity.

Near term recommendations

• Identify taxa for which data are available or can be 

made available to study historical (for example, during 

glacial cycles) responses to climate change or modern 

(last hundred years) responses to climate change. 

• Provide support to partners and stakeholders in the 

development of monitoring plans for priority species.

Long term recommendations

• Study the extent to which empirical responses of 

species to climate change (whether in terms of 

distribution, phenology, or abundance, match model 

predictions. Historical changes in climate include 

those due to regional climatic changes as well as 

those due to local climatic changes resulting from 

urbanization and associated heat-island effects.
26 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Task 3: Conduct Laboratory and Field 

Experiments to Document Organismal 

Responses to Climate Change

Along with the robust amount of literature and data 

available on climate-change experiments, the Southeast has 

an infrastructure of experimental climate-change arrays for 

studying the effects of experimental climate changes. These 

facilities allow a suite of predictions generated by models of 

focal, pest, and foundation taxa to be tested experimentally. 

The Southeast CSC will build on existing work in chamber 

experiments to develop models of the future distribution 

of species based not just on specimen records but also on 

knowledge derived from experimental manipulation of key 

climate variables.

Near term recommendations

• Review literature for available information on 

organismal response to climate change.

• Perform climate-chamber research and other experiments most germane to the focal taxa, pest species, 

and foundation species identified as priority species. 

Incorporate results from experiments into distribution, 

phenology, and abundance modeling approaches.

Long term recommendations

• Identify the experimental resources most relevant 

to the needs of the Southeast CSC in terms of understanding organismal responses to climate change.

Task 4: Identify New or Altered Species 

Interactions that are Likely to Have a 

Disproportionate Impact on Community 

Structure and Ecosystem Function 

Change in community composition and species interaction can be assessed by building on data generated from 

modeling focal, foundation, and pest species responses to 

climate change. While many new interactions can occur 

without having strong ripple effects, a subset of interactions 

is likely to significantly alter community composition, 

structure, and ecosystem function. Identifying in advance 

the interactions that have the potential to have disproportionate impacts is a necessary step toward forming a more 

accurate understanding of the impacts of climate change on 

natural systems. 

Near term recommendations

• Use insights gained from executing Tasks 1–3 to 

identify (1) pest and pathogen species that are likely 

to interact strongly with a new set of hosts, and 

(2) anticipated new sets of predator-prey and 

competitive interactions that are likely to have 

large community or ecosystem consequences.

Long term recommendations 

• Model the extent to which species interactions have 

the potential to alter community structure, such as 

simplification of food-web structure, and ecosystem 

processes, such as productivity, decomposition, etc. 

Task 5: Provide Support to LCCs in Assessing 

New Strategies to Conserve Natural 

Communities and Ecosystems

Entities working towards conservation in the Southeast 

have identified portfolios of critical conservation areas, but 

many of these identified areas may not serve the needs of 

present species within as little as a few decades, because 

distributions of species change as a result of climate change. 

Accurately predicting the composition of natural communities 

in any specific location is nearly impossible given the level of 

uncertainty regarding changing climate and biotic responses 

to new conditions. This is the case both terrestrially and 

aquatically, which requires a way to prioritize the conservation 

of biological diversity and functional ecosystems in spite of 

this uncertainty. The Southeast CSC will provide support to 

partners as they identify ways to protect and manage natural 

systems that are not contingent on precisely predicting 

the responses of every species within the community. For 

example, an approach recently taken in the Northeastern 

United States focuses efforts on conserving particular 

geophysical settings that have been shown to be highly correlated with species diversity—an approach that researchers 

predict should will biodiversity under both current and future 

climates (Anderson and Ferree, 2010; Beier and Brost, 2010).

Near term recommendations

• Provide support to the LCCs and other partners as they 

formulate a set of strategies to identify on-the-ground 

priorities for conservation that are most likely to 

protect biodiversity in the future, but that do not hinge 

on assumptions surrounding species-specific responses 

to climate change. 

Long term recommendations 

• Provide support to the LCCs and other partners in the 

implementation and (or) generation of landscape conservation priorities in the Southeast that will be distributed 

to Southeast CSC and LCC partners and other interested 

groups for planning future conservation goals.
Science Themes 27

Science Theme 5: Impacts of Climate Change on 

Coastal and Nearshore Marine Environments

The low-lying southeastern coastal zone was characterized as a hot spot of ecological vulnerability in the first two 

national assessments (U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

2000, 2009) and in numerous other assessments and independent investigations (Field and others 2001; Scavia and others, 

2002; Burkett and others, 2005; and, U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program, 2008). The gulf and south Atlantic coasts 

have low topographic relief and are subject to land-falling 

hurricanes and strong frontal systems, during which coastal 

shorelines can retreat by several meters, and wetlands can 

be permanently lost to open water. As is the case along most 

U.S. coasts, the direct impacts of human activities on the 

coastal zone have been more significant over the past century 

than the impacts that can be attributed directly to observed 

climate change (Scavia and others, 2002). The population of 

coastal counties in the gulf coast region increased more than 

100 percent between 1960 and 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2003). Between 1980 and 2003, coastal counties in the south 

Atlantic region had the largest rate of population increase (58 

percent) of any coastal region in the conterminous United 

States (Laporte and others, 2011). The major direct impacts of 

human development in the gulf and south Atlantic coastal zone 

include drainage of coastal wetlands, changes in hydrology 

that alter sediment and fresh water delivery to the coast, 

land clearing and deforestation, the discharge of sewage and 

contaminants into coastal waters, and the construction of 

seawalls and other structures that “harden” the coast. Development activities also have altered coastal systems in the United 

States and in protected regions of the Caribbean. 

The region historically has had the highest rates of coastal 

wetland losses in the United States (Dahl, 2006; Stedman and 

Dahl, 2008). Some parts of the southeastern coastal margin are 

sinking because of subsurface fluid withdrawals, changes in 

surface-water hydrology, and a decline in sediment delivery to 

the coast. Barrier-island systems in the region are considered 

highly vulnerable to climate change (U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program, 2009) with some nearing the tipping points 

at which they may be completely lost to open water. As barrier 

islands recede and channel passes enlarge, the dominance 

of marine forces (tides, salinity, waves) tend to increase and 

accelerate changes in coastal marshes and estuaries. Wetlands 

that cannot accrete sediments at rates that keep pace with 

sea-level rise either drown in place or, possibly, migrate inland 

if the landward transgression is not prevented by human 

developments, such as roads, levees, and other impediments. 

Sea-level rise increases tidal flushing in estuaries and 

storm surge over low-lying coastal landforms. Average and 

peak salinity levels in estuaries and adjacent habitats tend 

to increase as sea-level rises, thereby altering the zonation 

of vegetation and other biota (Burkett, 2001). Increased 

tidal levels and storm surge also intensify energy regimes in 

shallow coastal waters, altering sediment transport and other 

coastal processes that influence the maintenance of coastal 

substrates and intertidal vegetation. Sea-level rise observed 

along the U.S. coastline varied between and within coastal 

regions during the 1900s, but in general, the U.S. Gulf of 

Mexico and south Atlantic coasts (with the exception of 

Florida) have experienced rates that are significantly greater 

than those observed along the U.S. Pacific coast (Scavia and 

others, 2002).

Coral reefs of the gulf and south Atlantic continental 

shelf waters are vulnerable to two important global-change 

drivers—increased ocean temperature and ocean acidification. 

Coral bleaching resulting from the loss of symbiotic algae 

and (or) their pigments has been observed on many reefs 

since the early 1980s in response to seasonal increases in 

sea-surface temperature (SST) and solar radiation. Many coral 

species pale or bleach white in response to anomalously high 

SST (that is, temperatures of 1.8 °F or more above average 

seasonal maxima) and have reduced growth rate and reproductive ability. If bleaching is prolonged, or if SST exceeds 

3.6°F above average seasonal maxima, corals die (Nicholls 

and others 2007). Corals decline in the waters off the Florida 

coast and Caribbean islands is of high concern to resource 

managers. Other calcifying organisms, in addition to corals 

that can be affected by ocean acidification include oysters, 

clams, sea urchins, formanifera, and some fish species.

Five broad research tasks that should be undertaken to 

support natural-resource management in the southeastern 

coastal zone and nearshore waters are described below, along 

with several high priority short- and long-term products. The 

products listed are not intended to be a complete list of all 

of the work that is needed to support coastal- and marineresource management in the southeastern region. The five 

broad tasks and many of the products and science activities 

are cited as high research priorities in the Gulf of Mexico 

Alliance Regional Collaboration Blueprint (2008), the Gulf of 

Mexico Research Plan (Sempier and others, 2009), the South 

Atlantic Regional Research Plan (SARRP; Laporte and others, 

2008), and the operational plans of the South Atlantic and the 

Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks LCCs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2009a, b).
28 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Task 1: Establish Ecological Baseline Conditions 

and Describe Current Climate Trends and 

Impacts in Coastal Systems

Baseline information for ecological systems is critical for 

understanding current conditions. Most models are calibrated 

to current conditions in order to predict future conditions and 

to accurately characterize past conditions. Changes in coastal 

ecosystems can occur over vastly different ranges in terms 

of magnitudes, distances, and time periods. Tipping points in 

coastal-ecosystem response to climate change generally are 

poorly understood. Understanding how changes in ranges 

or assemblages of species and their interactions will affect 

coastal and marine ecosystems is a complex and researchintensive challenge.

Near term recommendations

• Determine current available information to establish 

baseline ecological conditions and support model 

development and process understanding.

• Develop detailed maps of coastal habitats and species 

distributions in the south Atlantic and eastern Gulf of 

Mexico coastal zones, which builds on SERAP work; 

pursue additional collaboration with the South Central 

CSC to expand habitat and species distribution maps to 

cover the entire gulf coast.

Long term recommendations

• Use the baseline conditions and outputs from tasks in 

Themes 2 and 4 to model changes in habitat, species, 

and other issues of interest to partners.

• Identify tipping points or thresholds in coastal species 

and habitat responses.

Task 2: Develop Scenarios of Coastal Landform 

and Habitat Change 

The configuration of coastal ecosystems is determined by 

a combination of marine, terrestrial, and atmospheric processes 

that shape the land-ocean interface. Low lying, sedimentary 

shorelines, and barrier islands and deltas are considered 

highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. All of these 

landforms can be found in the southeastern coastal zone. Most 

barrier islands of the Southeast are retreating and diminishing 

in areal extent. Barrier islands mitigate storm surges from 

hurricanes and contribute to controlling tidal influence, 

waves, and salinity regimes in coastal habitats. Wetland loss is 

another major landform change that affects habitat and cultural 

resources along the coastline. These important resources and 

the processes that affect them must be understood to guide 

restoration and conservation efforts and predict future change. 

Near term recommendations

• Initiate process-oriented studies to quantitatively 

identify impacts of sea-level rise and other stressors on 

coastal systems in the southeastern coastal region by 

using products created during SERAP as a foundation.

Long term recommendations

• Use new geospatial technologies and high-resolution 

elevation data produced as a result of tasks in Theme 2 

to map physical and environmental changes along the 

coastline to assist with regional coastal vulnerability 

assessments. 

• Develop predictive models of coastal retreat, land-use, 

and habitat change, and land loss under a range of sealevel rise and concomitant coastal-protection scenarios.

• Update scenarios of coastal-habitat change based on 

IPCC sea-level rise estimates, the CMIP5 database for 

predicting temperature and precipitation, and results 

from Theme 1 (Southeast CSC climate models).

Task 3: Describe How Estuaries and Marine 

Resources Are Affected by Increased 

Temperatures, Sea-Level Rise, Changes in 

Runoff Patterns to the Coast, Ocean 

Acidification, and Changes in the 

Destructive Potential of Tropical Storms

Estuarine and marine resources are important components 

of coastal ecological systems and contribute substantially 

to the economy of coastal areas in the Southeastern United 

States. Understanding how these resources function and their 

response to climate change is a key component to managing 

the resources in the future. The cumulative, interactive effects 

of increased water level, salinity, pH, and storm intensity 

portend a restructuring of coastal ecosystems. 

Near term recommendations

• Work with partners to develop a monitoring framework 

for quantifying and tracking acidification in coastal and 

marine water.

• Identify field sites and candidate lists of organisms that 

can serve as marine-ecosystem “sentinels” for early 

warning purposes, and develop standard operating 

procedures for long-term monitoring.

Long term recommendations

• Conduct watershed and coastal integrated impact 

studies of climate-change drivers on freshwater 

discharge, sediment, and nutrient influx on coastal 

receiving waters.
Science Themes 29

• Conduct strategic research on the response of key 

species (living resources, foundation species, calcifiers 

and non-calcifiers, representative species from diverse 

taxonomic groups, primary producers) to climate and 

pH changes in ocean and coastal ecosystems.

• Initiate research that will help describe the potential 

response of marine mammals to climate change.

Task 4: Provide Support in Assessing Potential 

Impacts on Highly Vulnerable Coastal and 

Marine Habitats

Coastal ecosystems are intrinsically dynamic because of 

their exposure to alternate flooding and drying, winds, waves, 

tides, and storms. Organisms that inhabit coastal ecosystems 

are uniquely adapted to environmental conditions that occur 

along the energy, salinity, and moisture gradients that extend 

from the subtidal region of the coast to the inland boundaries 

of coastal wetlands, estuaries, and flood plains. While all 

coastal ecosystems in the Southeast are vulnerable to the 

impacts of accelerated climate change, some coastal locations 

and habitats are more vulnerable and likely to be affected 

sooner than others. In order to develop conservation strategies, 

land managers and others in the conservation community 

must know which areas and habitats are most vulnerable. 

Vulnerability analysis of the coastal system provides critical 

information to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, States, 

and others involved with the LCCs to conduct species- and 

population-vulnerability assessments in coastal zones and 

appropriate conservation planning. 

The Southeast CSC will work with LCCs and other 

partners to determine how to approach vulnerability assessments in the Southeast. 

Near term recommendations

• The Southeast CSC will collaborate closely with LCCs 

and other partners (for example, NOAA) to develop a 

working list of priority coastal habitats and locations 

for the entire Southeast CSC.

• Provide coastal-system vulnerability assessments and 

the necessary derivative products, such as sea-level rise 

models, to LCCs to support vulnerability assessments 

of priority species in coastal zones.

Long term recommendations

• Use the list of priority habitats generated by partners 

to provide support when producing large geographicscale assessments. 

• Work with LCCs to integrate system level and species 

and population vulnerability assessments to better 

define the highest priority conservation strategies for 

specific locations.

• Expand the Integrated Coastal Assessment part of the 

SERAP to improve support of the management of 

coastal resources—more integrated assessments of 

sea-level rise and climatic change in coastal areas are 

needed, including the significant non-climatic drivers.

Task 5: Provide Support for the Assessment of 

Potential Management Responses

Resource managers are faced with difficult decisions that 

require real-time responses and may involve large expenditures 

of resources. Many resource-management agencies—local, 

State, and federal as well as private landowners—have tremendous need for information that facilitates decision making, not 

only for immediate needs but for future needs as well. 

Near term recommendations

• Provide support to the LCCs and other partners to 

identify how management for priority species and 

habitats from Theme 4 and cultural-heritage resources 

from Theme 6 can incorporate climate and land-use 

change trends and projections from Themes 1 and 2. 

• In collaboration with partners and stakeholders, select 

a representative set of indicator species and habitats for 

the southeastern coastal zone.

Long term recommendations

• Improve and expand ecosystem-based management 

models for the Southeast.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of ecological restoration 

projects that incorporate climate change in design—

and range from large-scale efforts to alter or restore 

flow in the Florida Everglades to small scale projects, 

such as the re-establishment of subtidal and intertidal 

oyster reefs and small-scale wetland restoration.
30 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Science Theme 6: Impacts of Climate Change 

on Cultural-Heritage Resources

Climate change poses a significant and unique threat to 

cultural-heritage resources. As with natural resources, culturalheritage resources are at risk from the effects of climate 

change, including increased severity, frequency, and size of 

wildfires; increased frequency of extreme weather events, 

such as thunderstorms, hurricanes, windstorms, droughts, 

and freezes; increased ocean temperatures and acidification; 

changing lake and river levels; rising global sea levels and 

increased erosion brought on by these increasing trends and 

events. However, cultural-heritage resources face a different 

type of challenge than many living natural resources face. 

Unlike living communities, cultural-heritage resources cannot 

adapt, migrate, or reproduce. They are fixed on the landscape 

and are unique and irreplaceable resources that cannot be 

moved or relocated without great cost and the possibility of 

destroying historic integrity. 

Cultural-heritage resources include a diverse array 

of archeological sites, cultural landscapes, ethnographic 

resources, historic and prehistoric structures, museum 

collections, and Native American sacred sites. Examples of 

archeological resources include both prehistoric and historic 

submerged sites and shipwrecks, terrestrial prehistoric and 

historic encampments, midden dumps, home sites, villages 

and ceremonial sites, battlefields, historic homesteads, farms, 

plantations and production sites. Historic and prehistoric 

structures range from prehistoric mounds and rock-shelters, 

to historic buildings, earthworks and lighthouses. Museum 

collections include interpretive displays, historic maps, 

manuscripts, archives and photographs, and prehistoric and 

historic artifacts. 

Cultural landscapes are settings that humans have created 

in the natural world that reveal fundamental ties between 

people and the land based on the need to grow food, give 

form to settlements, meet requirements for recreation, and 

provide suitable places to bury the dead. Cultural landscapes 

are intertwined patterns of things both natural and constructed, 

such as plants, fences, watercourses, and buildings. They 

range from formal gardens to cattle ranches, from cemeteries 

and pilgrimage routes to village squares. They are historically special places—expressions of human manipulation of 

and adaptation to the land and the environment (Page and 

others, 2009). Cultural-heritage resources also include living 

ethnographic communities and resources, traditional cultural 

properties, and American Indian trust resources and tribal 

lands. Ethnographic resources include those cultural and 

natural features of a site or landscape that are of traditional 

significance to peoples associated with those areas based on 

ethnicity, occupation, or culture. Traditional knowledge and 

archaeological data can provide insight into climatic changes 

over the long term and to human responses to such alterations.

The Federal Government holds a unique legal and 

political relationship with Native American tribal governments 

derived from the U.S. Constitution, treaties, federal statutes, 

and executive orders, with the Federal Government’s role 

commonly referred to as the Indian trust responsibility. Native 

American communities are situated in fixed locations traditionally inhabited by their members or in areas set aside by the 

Federal Government for their use. These may or may not be 

in areas where cultural-heritage resources are abundant. Some 

tribes have treaties, executive orders, or court-decreed rights 

to fish and wildlife, water, and other resources, both on and off 

their reservations, and tribal lands can be affected by climate 

change. Some examples include decreased stream flows, 

reduced suitable habitats, reduced production of and access 

to fish, plants, or other wildlife relied on for tribal subsistence 

and in ceremonies and for traditional and customary uses. 

The impacts of climate change on cultural-heritage 

resources highly variable and depend on the resource type 

and the environment in which the resource was created or is 

located. Because the effects of climate change are predicted 

to be variable throughout the United States, and so a regional 

approach to the management, protection, and preservation 

of cultural-heritage resources in response to climate change 

in the Southeast and Caribbean is desirable. Varying degrees 

of uncertainty are associated with the timing, geographic 

distribution, and severity of each type of climate-change 

threat, but the effects already are being felt in the Southeast. 

The Southeast CSC, therefore, has a critical role in providing 

a regional framework and support to develop fundamental 

scientific information, tools, and techniques for management 

of cultural-heritage resources in the Southeast.

The following tasks provide a brief outline of the science 

needs of the Southeast CSC to support the effective management and preservation of cultural-heritage resources, and to 

build on the information developed within the other themes 

to provide resource managers the means to respond to climate 

change with respect to cultural resources.
Science Themes 31

Task 1: Provide Support in Developing 

Inventory and Monitoring Plans for CulturalHeritage Resources

Because some climate-change impacts can be projected 

(for example, sea-level rise), developing long-range scenario 

planning and adaptation strategies for climate-change effects 

to cultural-heritage resources is necessary. Obtaining an 

adequate inventory of cultural-heritage resources at risk 

within the Southeast CSCs domain is critical in the creation of 

effective planning and adaptation strategies. 

The Southeast CSC will facilitate projects that develop 

inventory or monitoring strategies for cultural-heritage 

resources throughout the Southeast. While the Southeast 

CSC will not participate in inventory and monitoring projects 

directly, the CSC will actively work with interested partners 

to continue and develop methodologies and strategies that 

promote the collection of baseline inventory data, such as 

type, character, and significance of resources; extent, depth, 

and boundary of resources; current condition and threats; 

ownership; and location data that will facilitate modeling the 

impacts and monitoring the condition. It must be noted that 

one complexity in managing cultural-heritage resource data is 

that location information usually is restricted and controlled 

by each State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), federal 

land manager, and tribe. Many cultural-heritage resources are 

sensitive and protected, such as burial mounds, sacred Native 

American sites, sites vulnerable to looting, etc., and dissemination of location information must be restricted. Federal 

archeological sites are protected under the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act (1979), and their locations cannot be 

made public without the land manager’s written consent. 

There is need to document how resources within the 

Southeast and Caribbean respond to climate change and how 

they have responded to climate change in the past. Museum 

collections provide unique data for understanding the genetic 

diversity of populations, past community and ecosystem 

structure, and past climate variability. Such information 

provides critical, cost-effective scientific evidence to guide 

management decisions. Additionally, voucher specimens of 

plant and animal species will need to be collected to document 

changes in the species distributions, and ethnographic studies 

will need to be conducted to evaluate contemporary effects 

and responses of traditional peoples.

Near term recommendations

• Work with LCCs and other partners to determine data 

currently available, and then evaluate the current 

strategies and methods used to inventory and monitor 

cultural-heritage resources; develop new or improved 

methods as needed.

Long term recommendations

• Promote and support projects that continue to 

acquire information on cultural-heritage resources 

in the Southeast.

Task 2: Provide Support to the LCCs and Other 

Partners to Assess the Vulnerability of CulturalHeritage Resources to Climate Change 

Because some cultural-heritage resources are fixedlandscape resources and cannot adapt, be replicated, moved 

or relocated, the most critical data need for land managers is 

access to relevant vulnerability data assessments to identify, 

quantify, and evaluate the degree to which cultural-heritage 

resources are likely to be affected by changing climatic conditions. Vulnerability assessments can be undertaken at a range 

of geographic scales and address a range of resource types 

(for example, submerged resources, terrestrial archeological 

sites, cultural landscapes, historic buildings), with the goal of 

identifying the types of vulnerabilities affecting the resource 

across a geographic area. Vulnerability assessments may 

address one or more of the following factors in relation to the 

resources in question—sensitivity to climate change, exposure 

to climate change, and adaptive capacity to climate change. 

Near term recommendations

• In partnership with the LCCs, SHPOs, tribes, and others 

as necessary, provide regional-scale tools and datasets 

to determine the resources that are most at risk. 

Long term recommendations

• In partnership with the LCCs, SHPOs, tribes, and 

others as necessary, develop a strategy to monitor and 

update the condition of cultural-heritage resources.
32 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Task 3: Facilitate Paleoecological and Paleoclimate Research for Cultural-Heritage Resources

Paleoecological and paleoclimate research are critical 

aspects in modeling climate change. Specifically, interdisciplinary archeological and paleoecological research have 

the potential to inform the understanding of climate-change 

patterns in the Southeast over the last 12,000 years and human 

response to those changes. 

Near term 

• Gather proxy climate data, from current data sources 

(for example, Theme 1, SERAP, data.gov, climate.gov) 

for the Southeast, including fire-frequency data, 

historical temperature and weather records, sea-level 

change, and sediment and soil profiles.

Long term 

• Support interdisciplinary paleoecological and paleoclimate research.

Task 4: Provide Support for Cultural-Heritage 

Resources Climate-Change Planning 

The newly enacted Secretarial Order 3289, “Addressing 

the Impacts of Climate Change on America’s Water, Land, 

and Other Natural and Cultural Resources,” calls for the 

DOI to fully consider the impacts of climate change on 

DOI resources, and to evaluate adaptation strategies when 

undertaking long-range planning. It mandates that agencies 

consider and analyze potential climate-change impacts when 

undertaking long-range planning exercises, setting priorities 

for scientific research and investigations, and developing 

multi-year management plans. To that end, management 

decisions made in response to climate-change impacts must 

be informed by science, and require that scientists work in 

tandem with resource managers who are confronting climatechange impacts and evaluating options to respond to 

such impacts. 

The Southeast CSC has a critical role in leading and 

increasing scientific understanding and development of 

effective adaptive-management tools to address the impacts 

of climate change on cultural-heritage resources; and, 

therefore, supports planning efforts to assure that culturalheritage resources are duly considered in all climate-change 

adaptation- and mitigation-planning activities.

Near term 

• Provide support to develop seamless southeastern 

datasets of the location, condition, and vulnerability 

of cultural-heritage resources and associated metadata 

for use by agencies, LCCs, and states for conservation 

planning. The Southeast CSC will work to develop 

capacity within the GeoData portal to ensure that all 

data and work involving cultural-heritage resources 

adhere to federal, state and tribal requirements to 

protect sensitive location information.

Long term 

• Develop partnerships with SHPOs and others as 

necessary to monitor and update the condition of 

cultural-heritage resources.
Information Management and Data Sharing 33

Monitoring Priorities

Data from monitoring networks are a critical resource 

for the Southeast CSC and LCC partners; scientific research, 

management decisions, and the evaluation of management 

outcomes all depend on data collected at the appropriate scale 

and frequency. Historical and contemporary observations and 

future predictions of climatic and biophysical factors, ecosystem 

conditions, and species distributions and diversity across the 

range of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in the Southeast 

are critical for improving downscaling model performance; 

evaluating and refining models; detecting changes in physical 

conditions, ecosystems and populations; and monitoring the 

outcomes of management and restoration activities. Although 

the CSCs are not tasked with maintaining monitoring programs, 

they will assist LCCs and other partners by helping to identify 

monitoring priorities and strategies for the regions that build 

upon the current monitoring and assessment activities and an 

awareness of current and future information needs associated 

with science, management decisions, and evaluation needs. 

As an important initial step, the Southeast CSC staff will 

work with LCC staff to develop a database that characterizes 

the wide array of long-term monitoring activities already 

underway in the Southeastern United States by federal, 

State, and local agencies, universities, and other public and 

private sector organizations. Information about some of these 

long-term networks are publicly accessible on the Internet, 

including the USGS National Water Inventory System (NWIS; 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis); NOAA’s National Climatic 

Data Center (NCDC; http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/

climatedata.html); the USEPA’s Storage and Data Retrieval 

System (STORET, which contains water-quality, biological, 

and physical-property data for the Nation; http://www.epa.gov/

STORET/); the National Park Service (NPS) Natural Resource 

Information Portal, which includes data from the NPS 

Inventory & Monitoring Program (http://science.nature.nps.

gov/im/datamgmt/index.cfm); and the USFS Forest Inventory 

and Analysis National Program (http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/), 

which provides status and trends data on the state and stage of 

the Nation’s forests annually. Additionally, many States in the 

Southeast make the water-quality, biological, and physicalproperty data they collect publicly available. Nevertheless, 

it remains relatively difficult to synthesize this information 

into an easy-to-use database of all monitoring stations in all 

networks that includes accurate, up-to-date information about 

monitoring station location and name, purpose of the network, 

types of data collected, specific parameters/variables collected, 

frequency of collection, period of record, quality assurance 

and quality-control information, and links to the data themselves. This difficulty is compounded when considering data 

collected by other entities, including NGOs and universities, 

who may not make data publicly available. A synthesis of 

what monitoring is currently being done in the Southeast is an 

important step in defining monitoring priorities and strategies. 

The Southeast CSC is also tasked with working with partners 

to ensure that data-management strategies, resources, and systems 

associated with data collected as part of CSC-funded science 

activities are compliant with DOI-wide information standards. 

Monitoring Priorities Recommendations

• Identification of the environmental driver and 

response variables that are most important for 

calibrating and verifying predictive models used to 

understand the effects of climate change and support 

adaptive management.

• Determining the extent and characteristics of 

existing networks or systems of data collection 

related to these variables.

Information Management and 

Data Sharing 

The Southeast CSC will be involved in generating, 

integrating, and disseminating data that will help resource 

managers develop adaptation strategies in response to changes 

that are induced or exacerbated by climate. The Southeast 

CSC’s science program must be of the highest quality, with 

results viewed as unbiased, based on sound science, and useful 

to resource managers. To maintain high-quality research, the 

Southeast CSC will implement strict procedures for reviewing 

proposals, avoiding conflicts of interest, and protecting 

confidential information. 

Serving and archiving data and research outputs are 

critical aspects of the CSC activities. The Southeast CSC 

data-management activities will comply with the guidance, 

policies, and standards identified in the national NCCWSC/

CSC Data-Management Policy and the NCCWSC/CSC 

Data-Sharing Policy (in development), both of which build 

on DOI and other government-wide policies. A national 

data-management strategy is needed to ensure that appropriate 

standards, consistent guidelines, and strategies are used to 

allow links to and consistency with other systems, which will 

foster a true national CSC network. Maximum efforts will be 

made to ensure the utility of the systems and data to LCCs in 

the Southeast as well. 

In implementing the NCCWSC/CSC informationmanagement and data-sharing policies, the Southeast CSC will 

leverage current resources of North Carolina State University, 

its partners, and the overall CSC network to the maximum 

extent possible. This includes computing assets, storage capabilities, and specialized analysis and visualization resources. 

In addition, as the Southeast CSC identifies regionally-specific 

data or information needs, these needs will be aggregated with 

those of the other CSCs to identify important national priorities. 
34 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Some specifics of the data requirements include 

the following:

• All data associated with the CSC will be 

fully accessible. 

• Data must be provided by all researchers funded by 

the CSC in regular defined intervals and not simply 

at the end of respective projects. 

• When research is completed, the Southeast CSC 

expects significant findings to be promptly submitted 

for publication, with authorship accurately reflecting 

the contributions of those involved. 

• Publications will be targeted toward outlets with 

maximum impact and visibility. 

• Investigators will be required to share with other 

researchers, within a reasonable time, the data, 

samples, genetic baseline data, physical collections 

and other supporting materials created or gathered. 

• For continuing observations, or long-term

 (multi-year) projects, data should be made public 

no less than annually. 

• Data for ongoing projects (particularly those of 

students) can be password protected, but must 

be provided. 

• Annual or more regular reports will be required for 

all projects. These reports will address progress on 

the sharing of data and research findings. 

• The Southeast CSC will comply with federal requirements for protection of intellectual property, including 

patents, inventions, and copyrights. 

• The Southeast CSC will comply with all federal, 

State, and tribal requirements to protect sensitive 

data against unintended public release in accordance 

with current data-protection policies.

• The Southeast CSC, as feasible and appropriate, will 

expedite access to and sharing of its facilities and 

equipment to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and 

avoid duplication of effort.

Data management and integration will be greatly 

facilitated by infrastructure investments previously made by 

NCCWSC and DOI. The GeoData portal (http://internal.cida.

usgs.gov/gdp/ui/) is a Web-delivered computer application 

for identification, selection, extraction, processing, quality 

control, and formatting of spatio-temporal data for modeling 

applications. The purpose is to bring modelers (researchers 

who require input datasets for their models) and data providers 

(researchers who process, synthesize, or otherwise provide 

information that can be used by the modelers) together in a 

common framework. While the initial intent of the GeoData 

portal is to disseminate the high-resolution national climate 

change dataset, the platform and framework of the portal will 

support other data-dissemination needs of the Southeast CSC.

Complementary Endeavors and Tools 

for Southeast CSC 

Research projects that focus on the investigation of the 

impacts of climate change are, by nature, projects that involve 

interdisciplinary teams of scientists to study interactions 

between natural ecosystems, managed landscapes, urbanization, environmental regulations, conflicting land-use policies, 

and the temporal and spatial variations and trends of the 

atmospheric climate. The focus of a DOI CSC is not the study 

of atmospheric science but rather the effects of climate change 

on priority areas and issues. The Southeast CSC will engage 

federal partners, State and local agencies, and universities to 

supply climate data, products, and expertise to complement 

activities of Southeast CSC scientists studying the effects of 

climate change. Collaboration on small-sized projects may 

develop from casual interaction among several investigators, 

but large-scale projects develop more slowly and often fail 

because of the larger number of interaction pathways that 

emerge as the number of investigators increase. Development 

of integrated adaptation and mitigation strategies will compose 

many of the Southeast CSC projects that will be investigated. 

These projects will include many complex issues and require 

cooperative research program initiatives that may bring 

together many experts from widely diverse fields.
Complementary Endeavors and Tools for Southeast CSC 35

Cooperative Research and Decision Support 

The Southeast CSC will seek to leverage its investments 

in science capacity, projects, and data with its partners in 

the research and resource-management communities to 

the maximum extent possible through communication and 

coordination with those groups. It will seek out, at every 

opportunity, cooperation and collaboration with other institutions doing complementary work so as to minimize redundancies and to integrate their efforts and products into the science 

needs identified by the Southeast CSC Stakeholder Advisory 

Committee. The Southeast CSC will seek to bring the collective knowledge of the science community into the decision 

framework of the agencies involved in the development of 

climate-change adaptation strategies, including the development and testing of novel ways of framing and presenting 

information for climate-sensitive decisions. 

One example of Southeast CSC cooperative research 

is SERAP and, in particular, the development of optimal 

conservation strategies. The scientists involved in SERAP 

solicited the input of the science community and resource 

managers throughout the development and refinement of 

decision-support tools that will inform conservation decisions. 

Developing the decision-support tools in cooperation with 

the LCCs and other resource partners is a critical step in the 

success of this task

Education and Training 

A key resource in dealing with the challenges posed 

by global change in general and climate change more 

specifically is the need for individuals trained in rigorous 

approaches to investigating the science of climate change. The 

Southeast CSC not only will support research that is useful to 

those who live and work in the region but also will work with 

NCSU to train undergraduate and graduate students in the 

skills necessary to research and communicate about climatechange science. 

Undergraduate and graduate students will be educated 

and trained in the science of climate change by NCSU and 

partner universities; the Southeast CSC staff will be instrumental in helping to train these students, by providing both 

research and mentoring opportunities. NCSU is developing 

new undergraduate and graduate programs related to the goals 

of the CSCs. The CSC will play a role in mentoring students 

associated with these programs, exposing them to cutting-edge 

science and providing the connections to partners working 

in applied and basic fields related to climate change. In some 

cases, the mentoring of students will be formal, whether 

through classes or co-advising students; in other cases, the 

mentoring will be more informal, and conveyed through 

talks and other forms of interaction. Southeast CSC scientists 

will be fully integrated into scientific departments in such a 

way that these interactions and relationships are most fluid. 

Students who are trained in association with the Southeast 

CSC will benefit greatly, but they also will be a benefit to the 

Southeast CSC by providing high-quality work, collaborating 

outside of the CSC’s existing connections, and communicating 

science to others. 

Outreach and Community Involvement 

The Southeast CSC will readily and effectively communicate scientific findings and strategies with the LCCs and 

other partners. While developing and funding climate-related 

research in the Southeast, the CSC will work closely with 

LCCs to ensure that science priorities for partners are being 

met. At the same time, it is imperative that research findings 

be communicated in a timely and efficient manner so that 

resource-management partners and the LCCs can begin 

synthesizing assessments and plan adaptive-management 

strategies through the use of the analytical and decisionmaking tools produced by the CSC. 

Additionally, the Southeast CSC and its host institution, 

NCSU, are aggressively committed to reaching a broad 

public audience for communicating science news and results. 

The Southeast CSC will use the Global Change Forum Web 

site (http://www.theglobalchangeforum.org/), developed by 

NCSU, as an outreach tool for communicating climate-change 

science being conducted throughout the Southeast. A key 

challenge in dealing with climate change is developing a 

public understanding of the sometimes complicated science of 

climate, climate change, and biological responses to climate 

change. The continued success of the Southeast CSC and its 

mission is, at many levels, contingent on public understanding 

and support.

The Southeast CSC is committed to providing scientific 

information in the most understandable and accessible form. 

All products of the Southeast CSC will be disseminated 

to a wide audience, whether through the media, seminars, 

or symposiums. In addition, the Southeast CSC will take 

advantage of current capabilities of the Global Change Forum 

Web site for science communication and outreach. The site 

will feature profiles of climate-change scientists, highlights 

of current research in the Southeast, and information about 

upcoming meetings, symposiums, and research opportunities. 

As part of the effort to train students and reach out to the 

public, the Global Change Forum will serve as a hub for 

serving news about climate-change research to the public. 

Students involved in the Southeast CSC will be obliged to 

participate in public outreach about climate-change research. 

In addition, Southeast CSC will use the Global Change Forum 

as a tool to forge new relationships that facilitate communication of science across the Southeast. 
36 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Southeast CSC Science Expertise 

and Skills 

The Southeast CSC will target science and administrative 

staff with skills necessary to meet the science themes outlined 

in this science and operational plan. Scientists will be recruited 

who have complementary skills to those existing at NCSU and 

USGS Science Centers. Other science skill sets that may be 

available to the Southeast CSC from federal agencies, States, 

academia, and NGOs will be considered and efforts will be 

made to fully utilize existing science staff. The goal is to have 

a combination of permanent hires, rotational term appointments, Interagency Personnel Agreements (IPAs), and other 

administrative options to recruit and maintain a highly skilled 

science and administrative staff. By using several administrative mechanisms to obtain high-quality staff, the Southeast 

CSC can remain flexible and responsive to partners’ needs.

The Southeast CSC will work with LCCs, NCSU and 

other partners to target science staff hiring to benefit the CSC 

as well as other partners. The following is a list of potential 

administrative and scientific staff that the Southeast CSC 

proposes to acquire over the next two fiscal years:

A. Administrative staff—Positions to be considered for 

permanent hiring, rotational or term appointments, IPAs, 

detail assignments, and so on

1. Center Director 

2. Science Program Manager

3. Administrative support staff

B. Science staff—Positions to be considered for 

permanent hiring, rotational or term appointments, IPAs, 

detail assignments, and so on

1. Climate scientist, 

2. Ecologist and (or) biologist, with knowledge 

of climate models 

3. Population and (or) distribution modeler(s) 

4. Hydrologic modeler

5. Social scientist

6. Additional scientists to be determined after 

additional consultation with partners

7. Information management specialist
Selected References 37

Selected References

Anderson, M.G., and Ferree, C.E., 2010, Conserving the 

stage—Climate change and the geophysical underpinnings 

of species diversity: PLoS ONE, v. 5, no. 7; accessed 

online in January 2011 at http://www.plosone.org/article/

info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0011554.

Areces-Mallea, A.E., Weakley, A.S., Li, X., Sayre, R.G., 

Parrish, J.D., Tipton, C.V., and Boucher, T., 1999, A guide 

to Caribbean vegetation types—Preliminary classification system and descriptions: Arlington, Va., The Nature 

Conservancy.

Aukema, J.E., McCullough, D.E., Holle, B.V., Liebhold, A.M., 

Britton, K., and Frankel, S.J., 2010, Historical accumulation of nonindigenous forest pests in the continental United 

States: Bioscience, v. 60, p. 886–897.

Aycrigg, J.A., Davidson, Anne, Svancara, Leona, Gergely, K.J.,

McKerrow, A., and Scott, J.M., 2010, Gap analysis of 

ecological systems nationwide: Gap Analysis Program 

Bulletin 18, p. 39–40; accessed online in January 2011 at 

http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/bulletins/18/aycrigg.pdf.

Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 

1994, Ecoregions and subregions of the United States, 

with supplementary table (McNab, W.H., and Bailey, R.G., 

comps.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, scale 1:7,500,000.

Bale, J, Masters, G, Hodkinson, I, Awmack, C, Bezemer, M, 

Brown, V, Butterfield, J, Buse, A, Coulson, J, Farrer, J, and 

others, 2002, Herbivory in global climate change research: 

Direct effects of rising temperatures on insect herbivores: 

Global Change Biology, v. 8, p. 1–16.

Barras, J.A., 2006, Land area changes in coastal Louisiana 

after the 2005 hurricanes—A series of three maps: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006–1274; accessed 

online July 29, 2007, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1274/.

Barton, B.T., Beckerman, A.P., and Schmitz, O.J., 2009, 

Climate warming strengthens indirect interactions in an 

old-field food web: Ecology v. 90, p. 2346–2351.

Beier, Paul, and Brost, Brian, 2010, Use of land facets to plan 

for climate change—Conserving the arenas, not the actors: 

Conservation Biology, v. 24, p. 701–710. 

Bierwagen, B.G., Theobald, D.M., Pyke, C.R., Choate, A., 

Groth, P., Thomas, J.V., Morefield, P., 2010, National 

housing and impervious surface scenarios for integrated 

climate impact assessments: Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences, v. 107, p. 20887–20892.

Brekke, L.D., Dettinger, M.D., Maurer, E.P., and Anderson, M.,

2008, Significance of model credibility in estimating 

climate projection distributions for regional hydroclimatological risk assessments: Climatic Change, v. 89, 

no. 3–4, p. 371–394; accessed online in January 2011 at 

http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/brekke08_climchg.pdf.

Brekke, L.D., Kiang, J.E., Olsen, J.R., Pulwarty, R.S., Raff, D.A.,

Turnipseed, D.P., Webb, R.S., and White, K.D., 2009a, 

Climate change and water-resources management—A 

federal perspective: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1331, 

65 p.; available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1331/.

Brekke, L.D., Maurer, E.P., Anderson, J.D., Dettinger, M.D., 

Townsley, E.S., Harrison, A., and Pruitt, T., 2009b, 

Assessing reservoir operations risk under climate change: 

Water Resources Research, v. 45, no. 4, 16 p.; accessed 

online in January 2011 at http://tenaya.ucsd.edu/~dettinge/

brekkewr09.pdf. 

Brown, Casey, 2010, Engineering with unreliable frequency 

estimates, in Olsen, J.R., Kiang, J., and Waskom, R., eds., 

2010, Workshop on nonstationarity, hydrologic frequency 

analysis, and water management, Boulder, Colo., 

January 13–15, 2010: Colorado Water Institute Information 

Series 109, p. 184–191; available online at http://www.cwi.

colostate.edu/publications/is/109.pdf. 

Buckley L.B., and Jetz, W., 2007, Environmental and historical constraints on global patterns of amphibian richness: 

Proceedings of Biological Science, v. 274, no. 1614, 

p. 1167–1173; accessed online in January 2011 at 

www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2189569/.

Burkett, V.R., Ritschard, R., McNulty, S., O’Brien, J.J., Abt, R.,

Jones, J., Hatch, U., Murray, B., Jagtap, S., and Cruise, J., 

2001, Potential consequences of climate variability and 

change for the Southeastern United States, in National 

Assessment Team, U.S. Global Research Program, eds., 

Climate change impacts in the United States: potential 

consequences of climate variability and change, Foundation 

document: Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 

p. 137–164.

Burkett, V.R., Wilcox, D.A., Stottlemyer, R., Barrow, W., 

Fagre, D., Baron, J., Price, J., Nielsen, J.L., Allen, C.D., 

Peterson, D.L., Ruggerone, G., and Doyle, T., 2005, 

Nonlinear dynamics in ecosystem response to climatic 

change—Case studies and policy implications: Ecological 

Complexity, v. 2, p. 357–394.

Burkett, V.R., Taylor, I.L., Belnap, J., Cronin, T.M., 

Dettinger, M.D., Frazier, E.L., Haines, J.W., Kirtland, D.A., 

Loveland, T.R., Milly, P.C.D., O’Malley, R., and Thompson, R.S., 2011, USGS global change science strategy—

A framework for understanding and responding to climate 

and land-use change [Public review draft]: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2011–1033, 32 p.; available online 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1033/.
38 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Burns, C.E., Johnston, K.M., and Schmitz, O.J., 2003, Global 

climate change and mammalian species diversity in U.S. 

National Parks: Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences, v. 100, no. 20, p. 11474–77.

Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets (CReSIS), 2011, 

Sea-level rise maps for the Southeastern U.S.: Lawrence, 

Kan., The University of Kansas data products; accessed 

online June 20, 2011, at https://www.cresis.ku.edu/data/sealevel-rise-maps?quicktabs_3=3#quicktabs-3.

Christensen, N.L., 1999, Vegetation of the Southeastern 

Coastal Plain, in Barbour, M.G., and Billings, W.D., eds., 

1999, North American terrestrial vegetation (2d ed.): Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press, p. 397–448.

Conservation International, Hogan, C.M., and McGinley, Mark,

2008, Biological diversity in the Caribbean Islands, in

Cleveland, C.J., ed., Encyclopedia of Earth; Washington, 

D.C., Environmental Information Coalition, National 

Council for Science and the Environment; accessed 

online April 25, 2011, at http://www.eoearth.org/article/

Biological_diversity_in_the_Caribbean_Islands.

Cope, W.G., and Waller, D.L., 1995, Evaluation of freshwater 

mussel relocation as a conservation and management strategy: Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, v. 11, 

no. 2, p. 147–155.

Covey, C., AchutaRao, K.M., Cubasch, U., Jones, P.D., 

Lambert, S.J., Mann, M.E., Phillips, T.J., and Taylor, K.E., 

2003, An overview of results from the Coupled Model 

Intercomparison Project: Global and Planetary Change, 

v. 37, no. 1–2, p. 103–133.

Crossett, K.M., Culliton, T.J., Wiley, P.C., Goodspeed, T.R., 

2004, Population trends along the coastal United States, 

1980–2008: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 47 p.; available online at http://oceanservice.noaa.

gov/programs/mb/pdfs/coastal_pop_trends_complete.pdf.

Crowl, T. A., Crist, T. O., Parmenter, R. R., Belovsky, Ariely, G.,

and Lugo, A. E., 2008, The spread of invasive species and 

infectious disease as drivers of ecosystem change: Frontiers 

of Ecology and the Environment, v. 6, no. 5, p. 238–246.

Dahl, T.E., 2006, Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004: Washington, D.C., 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 112 p.

Dalton, M.S., and Jones, S.A., comps., 2010, Southeast 

Regional Assessment Project for the National Climate 

Change and Wildlife Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1213, 

38 p.; available online at http://serap.er.usgs.gov/docs/

SerapOFR2010_1213.pdf.

Daszak, P., Scott, D.E., Kilpatrick, A.M., Faggioni, C., 

Gibbons, J.W., and Porter, D., 2005, Amphibian population declines at Savannah River Site are linked to climate, 

not Chytridiomycosis: The Ecological Society of America, 

Ecology, v. 86, no. 12, p. 3232–3237. 

Daufresne, Martin, and Boët, Philippe, 2007, Climate change 

impacts on structure and diversity of fish communities in 

rivers: Global Change Biology, v. 13, no. 12, p. 2467–2478.

Daufresne, Martin, Roger, M.C., Capra, H., and Lamouroux, N.,

2003, Long-term changes within the invertebrate and fish 

communities of the Upper Rhône River—Effects of climatic 

factors: Global Change Biology, v. 10, no. 1, p. 124–140.

Deser, Clara, Phillips, Adam, Bourdette, Vincent, and 

Teng, Haiyan, 2010, Uncertainty in climate change projections: the role of internal variability: Climate Dynamics, 

20 p.; accessed in June 2011 at http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/

cdeser/Docs/deser.internal_variab.climdyn10.pdf.

Dettinger, M.D., Cayan, D.R., Meyer, M.K., and Jeton, A.E., 

2004, Simulated hydrologic responses to climate variations 

and change in the Merced, Carson, and American River 

basins, Sierra Nevada, California, 1900–2099: Climatic 

Change, v. 62, p. 283–317.

Draper, David, 1995, Assessment and propagation of model 

uncertainty: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series 

B-Methodological, v. 57, no. 1, p. 45–97. 

Drummond, M.A., and Loveland, T.R., 2010, Land-use 

pressure and a transition to forest-cover loss in the eastern 

United States: Bioscience, v. 60, no. 4, p. 286–298. 

ESSA Technologies Ltd., 2008, TELSA—Tool for exploratory 

landscape scenario analyses, model description, version 3.6: 

Vancouver, BC, 64 p.; accessed in February 2011 at http://

www.essa.com/documents/telsa/ModelDescription.pdf. 

Ellison, A.M., Bank, M.S., Clinton, B.D., Colburn, E.A., 

Elliott, K., Ford, C.R., Foster, D.R., Kloeppel, B.D., 

Knoepp, J.D., Lovett, G.M., Mohan, J., Orwig, D.A., 

Rodenhouse, N.L., Sobczak, W.V., Stinson, K.A., 

Stone, J.K., Swan, C.M., Thompson, J., Von Holle, B., 

and Webster, J.R., 2005, Loss of foundation species—

Consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested 

ecosystems: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 

v. 3, no. 9, p. 479–486.

Fenneman, N.M., and Johnson, D.W., 1946, Physiographic 

divisions of the conterminous United States: Washington, 

D.C., U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:7,000,000, 1 pl.
Selected References 39

Field, J.C., Boesch, D.F., Scavia, D., Buddemeier, R., 

Burkett, V.R., Cayan, D., Fogerty, M., Harwell, M., 

Howarth, R., Mason, C., Pietrafesa, L.J., Reed, D., 

Royer, T., Sallenger, A., Spranger, M. and Titus, J.G., 2001, 

Potential consequences of climate variability and change 

on coastal and marine resources, in Climate Change 

Impacts in the United States—The potential consequences 

of climate variability and change: New York, NY, Cambridge University Press, Report for the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, p. 461–487. 

Fowler, H J., Blenkinsop, S., and Tebaldi, C., 2007, Review: 

Linking climate change modelling to impacts studies—

Recent advances in downscaling techniques for hydrological modelling: International Journal of Climatology, v. 27, 

p. 1547–1578.

Frost, C.C., 1993, Four centuries of changing landscape 

patterns in the longleaf pine ecosystem, in Hermann, S., ed., 

Proceedings of Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, 

no. 18: Tallahassee, Fla., Tall Timbers Research Station, 

v. 18, p. 17-43.

Fry, J.A., Coan, M.J., Homer, C.G., Meyer, D.K., and 

Wickham, J.D., 2009, Completion of the National Land 

Cover Database (NLCD) 1992–2001 Land Cover Change 

Retrofit product: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2008–1379, 18 p., available online at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/of/2008/1379/.

Gleckler, P.J., Taylor, K.E., and Doutriaux, C., 2008, 

Performance metrics for climate models: Journal of 

Geophysical Research, v. 113, no. D06104, 20 p. 

Glick, P., Stein, B.A., and Edelson, N.A., eds., 2011, 

Scanning the conservation horizon—A guide to climate 

change vulnerability assessment: Washington, D.C., 

National Wildlife Federation, 176 p.

Graf, D.L., and Cummings, K.S., 2007, Review of the 

systematics and global diversity of freshwater mussel 

species (Bivalvia: Unionoida): Journal of Molluscan 

Studies, v. 73, p. 291–314.

Gulf of Mexico Alliance, 2008, Governors’ regional 

collaboration blueprint: Gulf of Mexico Alliance; accessed 

on June 29, 2011, at http://gulfofmexicoalliance.org/pdfs/

goma_whatsnext_0608.pdf.

Hawkins, E., and Sutton, R.T., 2009, The potential to 

narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions:

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, 

no. 8, p. 1095–1107.

Hawkins, E., and Sutton, R.T., 2010, The potential to narrow 

uncertainty in projections of regional precipitation change: 

Climate Dynamics, 20 p.

Hay, L.E. and McCabe, G.J., 2010, Hydrologic effects of 

climate change in the Yukon River basin: Climatic Change, 

v. 100, p. 509–523.

Hefner, J.M., 1994, Southeast wetlands: Status and trends, 

mid-1970s to mid-1980s: Atlanta, Ga., U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service, 32 p. 

Hoeting, J.A., Madigan, D., Raftery, A., and Volinsky, C., 

1999, Bayesian model averaging—A tutorial: Statistical 

Science, v. 14, p. 382–401.

Hodgson, J.A., Thomas, C.D., Oliver, T.H., Anderson, B.J., 

Brereton, T.M., and Crone, E.E., 2011, Predicting insect 

phenology across space and time: Global Change Biology, 

v. 17, no. 3, p. 1289–1300.

Horn H.S., 1975, Markovian properties of forest successions, 

in Cody, M.L., and Diamond, J.M., eds., Ecology and the 

evolution of communities: Cambridge, Mass., Harvard 

University Press, p. 196–211.

Iverson, L.R., and Prasad, A.M., 1998, Predicting abundance 

of 80 tree species following climate change in the eastern 

United States: Ecological Monographs v. 68, no. 4, 

p. 465–485.

Karl, T.R., Melillo, J.M., and Peterson, T.C., eds., 2009, 

Global climate change impacts in the United States: New 

York, N.Y., Cambridge University Press, 189 p.; accessed 

in December 2010 at http://downloads.globalchange.gov/

usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf.

Keeland, B.D., Allen, J.A., and Burkett, V.R., 1995, 

Southern forested wetlands, in LaRoe, E.T., Farris, G.S., 

and Doran, P.T., eds., 1995, Our living resources—A report 

to the Nation on the distribution, abundance and health of 

U.S. plants, animals and ecosystems: Washington, D.C., 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological 

Service, p. 216–218.

Knutti, Reto, Furrer, Reinhard, Tebaldi, Claudia, Cermak, Jan, 

and Meehl, G.A., 2010, Challenges in combining projections from multiple climate models: Journal of Climate, 

v. 23, p. 2739–2758.

Komar, P.D., and Allan, J.C., 2007, Higher waves along U.S. 

east coast linked to hurricanes: Eos, Transactions American 

Geophysical Union, v. 88, no. 30, p. 301.

Krosby, Meade, Tewksbury, Joshua, Haddad, N.M., and Hoekstra, Jonathan, 2010, Ecological connectivity for a changing 

climate: Conservation Biology, v. 24, p. 1686–1689.

Kurz W.A., Beukema, S.J., Klenner, W., Greenough, J.A., 

Robinson, D.C.E., Sharpe, A.D., and Webb, T.M., 2000, 

TELSA—The tool for exploratory landscape scenario 

analyses: Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, v. 27, 

p. 227–242.
40 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Laporte, C., Alber, M., Bryant, D., DeVoe, M.R., Havens, K.,

Hopkinson, C., Rebach, S., Sanger, D., Spranger, M., and 

Voiland, M., 2010 (rev. 2011), South Atlantic regional 

research plan: Athens, Ga., Georgia Coastal Research 

Council, University of Georgia, 29 p.; available online 

at http://www.gcrc.uga.edu/SARRP/Documents/SARRP_

ResearchPlan_2010.pdf.

Leavesley, G.H., Lichty, R.W., Troutman, B.M., and 

Saindon, L.G., 1983, Precipitation-runoff modeling 

system—User’s manual: U.S. Geological Survey Water 

Resources Investigations Report 83–4238, 207p.

Lee, J.C., Haack, R.A., Negrón, J.F., Witcosky, J.J., and 

Seybold, S.J., 2007, Invasive bark beetles: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Forest Insect & Disease 

Leaflet 176; available online at http://na.fs.fed.us/pubs/fidls/

invasive_bark_beetles/inv_bark_beetles.pdf.

Loveland, T.R., and Acevedo, W., 2010, Land cover change 

in the Eastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Land 

Cover Trends Project; accessed on April 27, 2011, at http://

landcovertrends.usgs.gov/east/regionalSummary.html.

Maurer, E.P., Brekke, L., Pruitt, T., and Duffy, P.B., 2007, 

Fine-resolution climate projections enhance regional 

climate change impact studies: Eos, Transactions American 

Geophysical Union, v. 88, no. 47, p. 504.

Maurer, E.P., Hidalgo, H.G., Das, T., Dettinger, M.D., and 

Cayan, D.R., 2010, The utility of daily large-scale climate 

data in the assessment of climate change impacts on daily 

streamflow in California: Hydrology and Earth System 

Sciences, v. 14, p. 1125–1138.

Maurer, E.P., Wood, A.W., Adam, J.C., Lettenmaier, D.P., 

and Nijssen, B., 2002, A long-term hydrologically-based 

dataset of land surface fluxes and states for the conterminous United States: Journal of Climate, v. 15, no. 22, p. 

3237–3251.

Meehl, G.A., Boer, G.J., Covey, C., Latif, M., and Stouffer, R.J.,

2000, The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP): 

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 81, 

no. 2, p. 313–318.

Meehl, G.A., Covey, C., Delworth, T., Latif, M., McAvaney, B.,

Mitchell, J.F.B., Stouffer, R.J., and Taylor, K.E., 2007, The 

WCRP CMIP3 multimodel dataset—A new era in climate 

change research: Bulletin of the American Meteorological 

Society, v. 88, no. 9, p. 1383–1394.

Melillo, J.M., Janetos, A.C., Karl, T.R., Corell, R.C., 

Barron, E.J., Burkett, V.R., Cecich, T.F., Jacobs, K., 

Joyce, L., Miller, B., Morgan, M.G., Parson, E.A., 

Richels, R.G., and Schimel, D.S., 2000, Climate change 

impacts on the United States—The potential consequences 

of climate variability and change, Overview: Cambridge, 

UK, Cambridge University Press, 154 p.

Menke, S.B., Guénard, B., Sexton, J.O., Weiser, M.D., 

Dunn, R.R., and Silverman, J., 2011, Urban areas may 

serve as habitat and corridors for dry-adapted, heat tolerant 

species; an example from ants: Urban Ecosystems, v. 14, 

p. 135–163. 

Milanovich, J.R., Peterman, W.E., Nibbelink, N.P., and 

Maerz, J.C., 2010, Projected loss of a salamander 

diversity hotspot as a consequence of projected global 

climate change: PLoS ONE, v. 5, no. 8, e12189. 

Miloslavich, Patricia, Díaz, J.M., Klein, E., Alvarado, J.J., 

Díaz, C., and others, 2010, Marine biodiversity in the 

Caribbean: Regional estimates and distribution patterns: 

PLoS ONE, v. 5, no. 8, e11916.

Mohseni, O., Stefan, H.G., and Eaton, J.G., 2003, Global 

warming and potential changes in fish habitat in U.S. 

streams: Climatic Change, v. 59, p. 389–409.

Montoya, J.M., and Raffaelli, D., 2010, Climate change, biotic 

interactions and ecosystem services: Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, v. 365, p. 2013–2018.

Mote, P.W., Brekke, L.D., Duffy, P.B., and Maurer, E.P., 2011, 

Guidelines for constructing climate scenarios: Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, v. 92, no. 31, p. 257.

Nakicenovic, Nebojsa, and Swart, Rob, eds., 2000, Special 

report on emissions scenarios, in Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change, 2000: Cambridge, UK, Cambridge 

University Press, 570 p.; available online at http://www.

grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/.

Napton, D.E., Auch, R.F., Headley, R., and Taylor, J.L., 2010, 

Land changes and their driving forces in the southeastern 

United States: Regional Environmental Change, v. 10, 

no. 1, p. 37–53. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

2011, NOAA’s state of the coast—Communities: the U.S. 

population living in coastal watershed counties: accessed 

on June 29, 2011, at http://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/

population/welcome.html.

Nicholls, R.J., Wong, P.P., Burkett, V.R., Codignotto, J, 

Hay, J., McLean, R., Ragoonaden, S., and Woodroffe, C.D.,

Coastal systems and low-lying areas, in Parry, M.L, 

Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., and 

Hanson, C.E. (eds.), Climate change 2007—Impacts, 

adaptation and vulnerability: Contribution of Working 

Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK, 

Cambridge University Press, 2007, 315–356.

O’Brien, T.P., Sornette, D., and McPherron, R.L., 2001, 

Statistical asynchronous regression— Determining the 

relationship between two quantities that are not measured 

simultaneously: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 106, 

p. 13247–13259.
Selected References 41

Omernik, J.M., 1995, Ecoregions—A spatial framework for 

environmental management, in Davis, W.S., and Simon, T.P.,

eds., Biological assessment and criteria—Tools for water 

resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton, Fla., 

Lewis Publishers, p. 49–62.

Page, R.R., Killion, J.K., and Hilyard, G., 2009, National Park 

Service cultural landscapes inventory professional procedures guide: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, 281 p. 

Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J.,

and Hanson, C.E., eds., 2007, Climate change 2007—

Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Contribution of 

Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Cambridge, 

UK, Cambridge University Press, 976 p.

Pelini, S.L., Bowles, F.P., Ellison, A.M., Gotelli, N.J., Sanders, 

N.J., and Dunn, R.R., 2011, Heating up the forest—Opentop chamber warming manipulation of arthropod communities at Harvard and Duke Forests: British Ecological 

Society, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7 p.

Pierce, D.W., Barnett, T.P., Santer, B.D., and Gleckler, P.J., 

2009, Selecting global climate models for regional climate 

change studies: Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences, v. 106, p. 8441–8446.

Richardson, C.J., 2000, Freshwater wetlands, in Barbour, M.G.,

and Billings, W.D., eds., North American terrestrial vegetation (2d ed): Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 

p. 449–499.

Ricketts, T.H., Dinerstein, E., Olson, D.M., and Loucks, C.J., 

1999, Who’s where in North America? Patterns of species 

richness and the utility of indicator taxa for conservation: 

Bioscience, v. 49, no. 5, p. 369–381.

Ricketts, T.H., Dinerstein, E., Olson, D.M., Loucks, C.J., 

Eichbaum, W., Kavanagh, K., Hedao, P., Hurley, P.T., 

Carney, K.M., Abell, R., and Walters, S., 1999, Terrestrial 

ecoregions of North America—A Conservation Assessment: 

Washington, D.C., Island Press, 485 p.

Santer , B.D., Taylor, K.E., Gleckler, P.J., Bonfils, C., 

Barnett, T.P., Pierce, D.W., Wigley, T.M.L., Mears, C., 

Wentz, F.J., Brüggemann, W., Gillett, N.P., Klein, S.A., 

Solomon, S., Stott, P.A., Wehner, M.F., 2009, Incorporating 

model quality information in climate change detection and 

attribution studies. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences of the United States of America, v. 106, no. 35, 

p. 14778–14783.

Scavia, D., Field, J.C., Boesch, D.F., Buddemeier, R.W., 

Cayan, D.R., Burkett, V., Fogarty, M., Harwell, M., 

Howarth, R., Mason, C., Reed, D.J., Royer, T.C., 

Sallenger, A.H., and Titus, J.G., 2002, Climate change 

impacts on U.S. coastal and marine ecosystems: Estuaries, 

v. 25, no. 2, p. 149–164.

Schurbon, J.M., and Fauth, J.E., 2003, Effects of prescribed 

burning on amphibian diversity in a southeastern U.S. 

national forest: Conservation Biology, v. 17, p. 1338–1349. 

Sempier, S.H., Havens, K., Stickney, R., Wilson, C., and 

Swann, D.L., 2009, Gulf of Mexico research plan: 

MASGP-09-024, 12 p.

Smithsonian Institution, 2011, Caribbean Islands regional 

overview; accessed on April 25, 2011, at http://botany.

si.edu/projects/cpd/ma/ma-carib.htm.

Sohl, T., and Sayler, K., 2008, Using the FORE-SCE model to 

project land-cover change in the southeastern United States: 

Ecological Modeling, v. 219, p. 49–65.

Stedman, S., and Dahl, T.E., 2008, Status and trends of wetlands in the coastal watersheds of the Eastern United States 

1998 to 2004: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, 32 p.

Sun, Ge, and others, 2011, Upscaling key ecosystem 

functions across the conterminous United States by a 

water-centric ecosystem model: Journal of Geophysical 

Research, v. 116, 16 p.

Tague, C.L., and Band, L.E., 2004, RHESSys: Regional 

Hydro-Ecologic Simulation System—An object-oriented 

approach to spatially distributed modeling of carbon, water, 

and nutrient cycling: Earth Interactions, v. 8, p. 1–42.

Taylor, K.E., Stouffer, R.J., and Meehl, G.A., 2011, A summary of the CMIP5 experiment design, 33 p.; available 

online at http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/Taylor_

CMIP5_design.pdf. 

Thelin, G.P., and Pike, R.J., 1991, Landforms of the conterminous United States—A digital shaded-relief portrayal: 

U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations 

Series Map I-2206, scale 1:3,500,000, 1 pl.

Todd, B.D., Scott, D.E., Pechmann, J.H.K., and Gibbons, J.W.,

2010, Climate change correlates with rapid delays and 

advancements in reproductive timing in an amphibian 

community, in Proceedings of Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B; available online at http://

rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/12/09/

rspb.2010.1768.full.pdf+html.

Turner, M.G., 2010, Disturbance and landscape dynamics in 

a changing world: Ecology, v. 91, no. 10: p. 2833–2849. 

Tylianakis, J.M., Didham, R.K., Bascompte, J., and 

Wardle, D.A., 2008, Global change and species 

interactions in terrestrial ecosystems: Ecology Letters, 11, 

p. 1351–1363; available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.

com/doi/10.1111/j.1461-0248.01250.x/abstract.
42 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

U.S. Census Bureau, 2003, Population estimates, datasets for 

all geographies: U.S Census Bureau, Population Division, 

available online at http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html.

U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2008, Impacts of 

climate change and variability on transportation systems 

and infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I: Washington, 

D.C., Department of Transportation, a report by the U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee 

on Global Change Research, 445 p.

U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2009, Coastal sensitivity to sea-level rise—A focus on the Mid-Atlantic region: 

Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a 

report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the 

Subcommittee on Global Change Research, 320 p.

U.S. Congress, 1990, U.S. Global Change Research Act of 

1990: Public Law 101–606 (11/16/90) 104 Stat. 3096–3104; 

available online at http://www.gcrio.org/gcact1990.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011, Climate 

change—Health and environmental effects: Coastal zones 

and sea level rise: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Website; accessed on April 27, 2011, at http://www.epa.gov/

climatechange/effects/coastal/index.html.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2009a, Gulf Coastal Plains 

and Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

development and operations plan, sustaining the Nation’s 

treasured natural resources; accessed on June 29, 2011, 

at http://www.fws.gov/southeast/LCC/GulfPlains/pdf/

GCPOLCCDevOpPlanFinal12112009.pdf.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2009b, South Atlantic 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative development 

and operations plan; accessed on June 29, 2011, at 

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/LCC/GulfPlains/pdf/

SALCCOperationalPlanExtended%202112009.pdf.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2010, Carolina Sandhills 

National Wildlife Refuge, the longleaf pine/wiregrass 

ecosystem; accessed on April 26, 2011, at http://www.fws.

gov/carolinasandhills/longleaf.html#demise.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1996, National water summary on 

wetland resources: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 2425, 431 p.

Vigil, J.F., Pike, R.J., and Howell, D.G., 2000, A tapestry 

of time and terrain: U.S. Geological Survey Pamphlet to 

accompany Geologic Investigations Series I–2720.

Visser, M.E., and Both, C., 2005, Shifts in phenology due to 

global climate change—The need for a yardstick: Proceedings of The Royal Society B, v. 272, p. 2561–2569.

Vorosmarty, C.J., Green, P., Salisbury, J., and Lammers, R.B., 

2000, Global water resources: vulnerability from climate 

change and population growth: Science, v. 289, no. 5477, 

p. 284–288.

Vorosmarty, C.J., and others, 2010, Global threats to 

human water security and river biodiversity: Nature, 

v. 467, p. 555–561.

Vose, J.M., Sun, Ge, Ford, C.R., Bredemeier, M., Ostsuki, K., 

Wei, A., Zhang, Z., and Zhang, L., 2011, Forest ecohydrological research in the 21st century: What are the critical 

needs?: Ecohydrology, v. 4, no. 2, p. 146–158.

Vrac, M., Stein, M., and Hayhoe, K., 2007, Statistical 

downscaling of precipitation through a nonhomogeneous 

stochastic weather typing approach: Climate Research, 

v. 34, p. 169–184.

Wagener, T., and others, 2010, The future of hydrology—

An evolving science for a changing world: Water Resources 

Research, v. 46, 10 p.

Wear, D.N., and Greis, J.G., 2011, The Southern Forest 

Futures Project—Summary report [draft for public review]: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station; accessed on June 21, 2011, at http://www.

srs.fs.usda.gov/futures/reports/draft/summary_report.pdf. 

Wigley, T.M.L., 2004, Input needs for downscaling of climate 

data: Discussion paper prepared for California Energy 

Commission Public Interest Energy Research Program, 

500-04-027; available online at http://www.energy.ca.gov/

reports/2004-04-22_500-04-027.PDF.

Williams, J.D., Warren, M.L., Cummings, K.S., Harris, J.L., 

and Neves, R.J., 1993, Conservation status of freshwater 

mussels of the United States and Canada: Fisheries, v. 18, 

no. 9, p. 6–22.

Wood, A.W., Maurer, E.P., Kumar, A., and Lettenmaier, D.P., 

2002, Long-range experimental hydrologic forecasting for 

the Eastern United States: Journal of Geophysical Research, 

v. 107, no. D20, 4429, 15 p.

Wilcox, B.P., 2010, Transformative ecosystem change and 

ecohydrology—Ushering in a new era for watershed 

management: Ecohydrology, v. 3, p. 126–130.

Xian, G., Homer, C., and Fry, J., 2009, Updating the 2001 

National Land Cover Database land cover classification 

to 2006 by using Landsat imagery change detection 

methods: Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 113, no. 6, 

p. 1133–1147. 
Appendix. Bibliography 43

Appendix. Bibliography 

The following materials were used to develop the list of science themes and tasks. The 

information was collected from plans developed by agencies and organizations that will potentially be or are already partners of the Southeast CSC. These materials include peer-reviewed 

publications, unpublished drafts, and relevant Web sites that contain relevant information on 

priority issues or areas of scientific concern related to the effects of climate change. These 

priority issues were ranked according to frequency of inclusion in the reference materials; those 

items most often listed as an area of concern, or a priority issue, were evaluated for inclusion 

in the Science Themes section of this draft of the Southeast CSC Science and Operational Plan 

(table A–1). 

Table A–1 was constructed after a literature review of publications that focused on climate 

change and resulting needs by federal, State, and local partners. The focus of publications 

ranged from a national to local scales, but the focus of the Southeast CSC is on priority 

science needs or issues in the Southeast. Publications of both federal and State agencies were 

considered during this exercise; however, in order to ensure an equal weighting of priority 

issues among agencies, and other partners, some publications were consolidated to account 

for only one record. For example, each of the 16 states within the boundaries of the Southeast 

CSC produces a State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP), the priority issues for the SWAPs were 

consolidated and recorded just once during ranking. The same can be said for the individual 

NPS Inventory and Monitoring Networks within the boundary of the Southeast CSC (five 

total). In order to ensure that the priorities of these programs were not weighted higher than any 

others they were consolidated into one record.

Each mention of a priority science need or issue was recorded and then aggregated to 

develop a list of the most “important” science needs or issues in the Southeast. While this 

list was compiled through a literature review, it is not complete and should be considered an 

on-going exercise.
44 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Table A–1. List of priority science issues for partners of the Southeast Climate Science Center.

[Blue denotes priority issues addressed by the Southeast Climate Science Center Draft Operational and Science Plan; CCSP, Climate Change Science 

Program; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; NPS, National Park Service; USFWS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 

USGCRP, United States Global Change Research Program; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; SSPT, Science Strategy Planning Team]

Publication 

by partner

Priority issue 

Clean Coastal and Ocean Waters

Water Quality for Healthy Beaches/Seafood

Coastal Response to Sea-Level Rise 

and Climate Change/Coastal Geomorphology

Adaptation, Mitigation, Vulnerability 

Research

Freshwater Habitat Change with 

Fluctuating Water Availability

Healthy Ecosystems/Vegetation 

Communities

Global Carbon Cycle Understanding 

and Prediction, Climate Data

Human Populations, Socioeconomic, 

Urban Issues, Cultural Resources

Improved Data Management and 

Sharing of Climate-Change Data

Improved Monitoring Networks 

of Resources Affected By Climate Change

CCSP, Preliminary Review of Adaptation 

Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems

and Resources

1 

Governors Gulf of Mexico Alliance 1 

Governors South Atlantic Alliance 1 1 

National Research Council: Americas 

Climate Choices

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

NOAA Climate Service 1 1 1 1 1 

NPS Climate Change Response Strategy 1 1 1 1 1 

NPS Inventory and Monitoring Networks1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

State Wildlife Action Plans2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

USFWS Strategic Habitat Conservation 1 

USFWS Strategic Plan 1 1 1 1 

U.S. Forest Service Climate Change 

Resource Program

1 1 1 1 

USGCRP, Potential Consequences of Climate 

Variability, Southeast Region Chapter

1 1 1 

USGCRP, 2009, Global Climate Change Impacts 

in United States, State of Knowledge Report

1 1 1 

USGCRP, 2000, Conclusions and Research 

Pathways Section

1 1 1 1 

USGS Global Change SSPT 1 1 

Cumulative mention of Science Priority 8 8 7 7 7 6 5 5 5 

1Compilation of all five Inventory and Monitoring Networks.

2 Compilation of all 16 State priority issues.
Selected References 45

Table A–1. List of priority science issues for partners of the Southeast Climate Science Center.—Continued

[Blue denotes priority issues addressed by the Southeast Climate Science Center Draft Operational and Science Plan; CCSP, Climate Change Science 

Program; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; NPS, National Park Service; USFWS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 

USGCRP, United States Global Change Research Program; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; SSPT, Science Strategy Planning Team]

Priority issue

Biological Planning, Conservation 

Design, Conservation Delivery

Climate Model Limitations/

Uncertainty

Imperiled and Rare Communities/

Invasive Species

Biological Response to Climate 

Change

Environmental EducationForest Productivity

Land-Use and Land-Cover ChangeUnderstanding Past Climate Change 

and Sea-Level Rise

Assumption-Based ResearchChanges in Extremes of weather and 

climate; climate policy

Crop Yields and Economic ImpactsMarine Benthic Communities/

Coral Reefs

Outcome Based Monitoring and 

Adaptive Management

Public Participation in Developing a 

Solution to Climate Change Impacts

Amphibians and Reptile CommunitiesWorking Waterfront

1 1

1

1

1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
46 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Published Material

Anderson, J.E., ed., 2006, Arkansas wildlife action plan: Little 

Rock, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, 2028 p.

Beller-Simms, Nancy, Ingram, H., Feldman, D., Mantua, N. 

Jacobs, K.L., and Waple, A.M., 2008, Decision support 

experiments and evaluations using seasonal to interannual 

forecasts and observational data, Final report: Asheville, 

N.C., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.3, 192 p. 

Brekke, L.D., Kiang, J.E, Olsen, J.R, Pulwarty, R.S, Raff, D.A,

Turnipseed, D.P, Webb, R.S, and White, K.D., 2009, 

Climate change and water resource management—A federal 

perspective: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1331, 65 p.; 

accessible online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1331/.

Burkett, V.R., Taylor, I.L., Belnap, J., Cronin, T.M., 

Dettinger, M.D., Frazier, E.L., Haines, J.W., Kirtland, D.A., 

Loveland, T.R., Milly, P.C.D., O’Malley, R., and 

Thompson, R.S., 2011, Public review draft—USGS global 

change science strategy: A framework for understanding 

and responding to climate and land-use change: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1033, 32 p.; 

available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1033/. 

Dietz, Thomas, and Stern, P.C., eds., 2008, Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making: 

Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 322 p.

DeVivo, J.C., Curtis, T., Byrne, M.W., Gregory, M.B., and 

Wright, C.J., 2011, Southeast Coast Network Climate 

Science Strategy: Fort Collins, Colo., National Park Service 

Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR–2010/436. 

DeVivo, J.C., Wright, C.J., Byrne, M.W., DiDonato, E., and 

Curtis, T., 2008, Vital signs monitoring in the Southeast 

Coast Inventory & Monitoring Network: Fort Collins, 

Colo., National Park Service Natural Resource Report NPS/

SECN/NRR–2008/061. 

Emmott, R.G., Murdock, N., Flaherty, P., and Ranney, J., 

2005, Appalachian Highlands Inventory and Monitoring 

Network, vital signs monitoring plan: Asheville, N.C., 

National Park Service, 206 p. 

Fagre, D.B., Charles, C.W., Allen, C.D., and others, 2009, 

Thresholds of climate change in ecosystems, final report: 

U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.2, 156 p.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2005, 

Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative, Tallahassee, Fla.; 

available online at http://myfwc.com/conservation/specialinitiatives/fwli/.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources 

Division, 2005, A comprehensive wildlife conservation 

strategy for Georgia: Atlanta, Ga., 790 p.; available online 

at http://www1.gadnr.org/cwcs/Documents/strategy.html.

Jacob, J.S., and Showalter, S., 2008, The resilient coast: Policy 

frameworks for adapting the wetlands to climate change and 

growth in coastal areas of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico: U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Sea Grant Office, 40 p.; 

available online at http://222.urban-nature.org/publications/

documents/ResilientCoastWetlands-sm.pdf.

Jacobs, K.L., 2002, Connecting science, policy and decision 

making—A handbook for researchers and science agencies: 

Silver Spring, Md., National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Office of Global Programs.

Julius, S.H., and West, J.M., eds., Baron, J.S., Joyce, L.A., 

Kareiva, P., Keller, B.D., Palmer, M.A., Peterson, C.H., and 

Scott, J.M., 2008, Preliminary review of adaptation options 

for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources, Final report: 

Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and 

Assessment Product 4.4, 873 p.

Karl, T.R., Melillo, J.M., and Peterson, T.C., eds., 2009, 

Global climate change impacts in the United States: New 

York, N.Y., Cambridge University Press, 189 p.; accessed 

in December 2010 at http://downloads.globalchange.gov/

usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf.

Kentucky's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, 

2010, Kentucky’s wildlife action plan: Frankfort, Ky., 

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources; 

available online at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

Leibfreid, T.R., Woodman, R.L., and Thomas, S.C., 2005, 

Cumberland Piedmont Network and Mammoth Cave 

National Park prototype—Vital signs monitoring plan: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

125 p.; accessible online at http://science.nature.nps.gov/

im/monitor/plans/CUPN_MonitoringPlan.pdf.

Lester, G.D., Sorenson, S.G., Faulkner, P.L., Reid, C.S., and 

Maxit, I.E., 2005, Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy: Baton Rouge, La., Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, 455 p.; available 

online at http://www/wildlifeactionplans.org/pdfs/action_

plans/la_action_plan.pdf.

Melillo, J.M., Janetos, A.C., Karl, T.R., Corell, R.C., 

Barron, E.J., Burkett, V.R., Cecich, T.F., Jacobs, K., 

Joyce, L., Miller, B., Morgan, M.G., Parson, E.A., 

Richels, R.G., and Schimel, D.S., 2000, Climate change 

impacts on the United States—The potential consequences 

of climate variability and change, Overview: Cambridge, 

UK, Cambridge University Press, 154 p.
Appendix. Bibliography 47

Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, 2005, Mississippi’s 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: Jackson, 

Miss., Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and 

Parks, Mississippi Museum of Natural Science; available 

online at http://wildlifeactionplans.org/pdfs/action_plan_

summaries/mississippi.pdf.

National Park Service, 2011, Climate change science in the 

national parks: U.S. Department of the Interior, National 

Park Service, Climate Change Response Program Science 

Brief, 1 p.; available online at http://www.nature.nps.gov/

climatechange/docs/ClimateScienceBrief.pdf.

National Park Service, 2010. Gulf Coast Network: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast 

Region Inventory & Monitoring Program, Climate Change 

Resource Brief, 2 p.; available online at http://www.nature.

nps.gov/climatechange/docs/GULN_CC.pdf.

National Park Service, 2010. South Florida / Caribbean 

Network: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, Southeast Region Inventory & Monitoring 

Program, Climate Change Resource Brief, 2 p.; available 

online at http://www.nature.nps.gov/climatechange/docs/

SFCN_CC.pdf.

National Park Service, 2010. Southeast Coast Network: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast 

Coast Network Inventory and Monitoring Program, Climate 

Change Resource Brief, 2 p.; available online at http://www.

nature.nps.gov/climatechange/docs/SECN_CC.pdf.

National Research Council, 2006, Completing the forecast:—

Characterizing and communicating uncertainty for better 

decisions using weather and climate forecasts: Washington, 

D.C, National Academies Press, 124 p.

National Research Council, 2007, Evaluating progress of 

the U.S. Climate Change Science Program—Methods and 

preliminary results: Washington, D.C., National Academies 

Press, 178 p.

National Research Council, 2009a, Informing decisions in a 

changing climate: Washington, D.C., National Academies 

Press, 200 p.

National Research Council, 2009b, Observing weather and 

climate from the ground up—A nationwide network of networks: Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 250 p.

National Research Council, 2009c, Restructuring federal 

climate research to meet the challenges of climate change: 

Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 266 p.

National Research Council, 2010a, Adapting to the impacts 

of climate change: Washington, D.C., National Academies 

Press, 292 p.

National Research Council, 2010b, Advancing the science 

of climate change: Washington, D.C., National Academies 

Press, 528 p.

National Research Council, 2010c, Informing an effective 

response to climate change: Washington, D.C., National 

Academies Press, 348 p.

National Research Council, 2010d, Limiting the magnitude 

of future climate change: Washington, D.C., National 

Academies Press, 276 p.

NIDIS Implementation Team, 2007, The National Integrated 

Drought Information System Implementation Plan; 

available online at http://www.drought.gov/pdf/NIDISIPFinal-June07.pdf

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005, North 

Carolina Wildlife Action Plan, Raleigh, NC.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2011, 

Sector Applications Research Program (SARP): National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate Program 

Office, Information Sheet, 1 p.; available online at 

http://www.cpo.noaa.gov/cpo_pa/sarp/. 

Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J.,

and Hanson, C.E., eds., 2007, Climate change 2007: 

Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Contribution of 

Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, 

UK, Cambridge University Press, 976 p.

Patterson, M.E., Atkinson, A.J., Witcher, B.D., Whelan, K.R.T.,

Miller, W.J., Waara, R.J., Patterson, J.M., Ruttenberg, B.I., 

Davis, A.D., Urgelles, R., Shamblin, R.B., 2008, South 

Florida/Caribbean Network vital signs monitoring plan: 

Fort Collins, Colo., U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, Natural Resource Report NPS/

SFCN/NRR—2008/063. 

Segura, M., Woodman, R., Meiman, J., Granger, W., and 

Bracewell, J., 2007, Gulf Coast Network vital signs monitoring plan: Fort Collins, Colo., U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, Natural Resource Report 

NPS/GULN/NRR–2007/015. 

Society for Ecological Restoration International, 2009, Policy 

Position Statement—Ecological restoration and rare species management in response to climate change: Tucson, 

Az., Society for Ecological Restoration International, 7 p.; 

available online at http://www.ser.org/pdf/PPS_on_Rare_

Species_Final2.pdf.

Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., 

Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., and Miller, H.L., eds., 2007, 

Climate change 2007—The physical science basis: 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 996 p.
48 U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 2005, South 

Carolina comprehensive wildlife strategy: Columbia, S.C., 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 848 p.

Stern, P.C., and Easterling, W.E., eds, 1999, Making climate 

forecasts matter: Washington, D.C., National Academies 

Press, 192 p.

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, 2005, Tennessee’s 

comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy: Nashville, 

Tenn., Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), 231 p.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2009b, South Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative development and operations plan; accessed on June 29, 2011, 

at http://www.fws.gov/southeast/LCC/GulfPlains/pdf/

SALCCOperationalPlanExtended%202112009.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge 

System, 2010, Strategic plan for inventories and monitoring 

on National Wildlife Refuges—Adapting to environmental 

change: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 56 p.; available online 

at http://www.fws.gov/filedownloads/ftp_region6_upload/

Brian_C_Sanchez/IMDocs/National/046159_StrategicPlan_

FINAL_for_DTS_and_DIRCTOR_MEMO.pdf. 

U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009, Global climate change impacts in the US: Available online at http://

www.globalchange.gov/wat-we-do/assessment/previousassessments/global-climate-change-impacts-in-the-us-2009.

Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 2005, 

Conserving Alabama’s wildlife: a comprehensive strategy: 

Montgomery, Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, 322 p.

Other Material and Compilations

Alaska Climate Science Center Draft Science Plan, 

January 2011

Compilation of responses to Department of Interior HPPG 

data call on vulnerability assessment activities FY2011

CSC/LCC Implementation Guidance Document (Draft—

January 2011)

National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, 2009, 

Proposed 5-year strategy, Unpublished Draft, 7/17/09, 

22 p., available online at http://nccwsc.usgs.gov/documents/

NCCWSC_5_year_strategy_ver_7-13-09b.pdf.

Relevant Web sites

Carolinas RISA (CISA):

http://www.cas.sc.edu/geog/research/cisa/

Gulf of Mexico Alliance:

http://gulfofmexicoalliance.org/welcome.html

National Park Service Climate Response Program:

http://www.nature.nps.gov/climatechange/

National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS): 

http://www.drought.gov/

NOAA Climate Services:

http://www.climate.gov/

Southern Climate Impacts Planning Program (SCIPP): 

http://www.southernclimate.org/

Southern Regional Climate Center (SRCC): 

http://www.srcc.lsu.edu/

Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP):

http://southeastaquatics.net/

Southeast Climate Consortium (SECC):

http://seclimate.org/

Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and

 Sustainability (SERPPAS): http://serppas.org/

U.S. Climate Change Science Program:

http://www.climatescience.gov/default.php

USEPA Climate Change Program:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

USFWS Climate Change, Southeast Region: 

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/climate/

USFWS Gulf Coastal Plain and Ozarks LCC: 

http://gcpolcc.ning.com/

USFWS South Atlantic LCC:

http://www.southatlanticlcc.org/

U.S. Forest Service Climate Change Resource Center: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/
Manuscript approved on February 22, 2012

Layout by Caryl J. Wipperfurth

Science Publishing Network, Raleigh PSC

For more information about this publication, contact:

Gerard McMahon

Director, DOI Southeast Climate Science Center

240 David Clark Labs

North Carolina State University

Raleigh, NC 27695

e-mail: gmcmahon@usgs.gov

http://www.theglobalchangeforum.org/se-csc/
Jones and Dalton—U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan—Open File Report 2012–1034