U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Summarizing Components of U.S. Department of the 

Interior Vulnerability Assessments to Focus Climate 

Adaptation Planning

By Laura M. Thompson, Michelle D. Staudinger1, and Shawn L. Carter

Open-File Report 2015–1110
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015

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 (1–888–275–8747).

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

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

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

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may

contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items

must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Thompson, L.M., Staudinger, M.D., and Carter, S.L., 2015, Summarizing components of U.S. Department of the 

Interior vulnerability assessments to focus climate adaptation planning: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2015–1110, 14 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151110.

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
iii

Contents

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 2

Methods...................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Results and Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 3

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................ 6

References ................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Appendix A. Text distributed to DOI agencies for the initial data call on climate change vulnerability 

assessments............................................................................................................................................................. 11

Appendix B. Questionnaire used for the supplemental DOI vulnerability assessment survey. ................................. 13

Figures

1. The frequency that each of the three vulnerability components were assessed by projects in the 

DOI data call.................................................................................................................................................. 8

2. The total number of projects in the DOI data call that assessed 0 VA components, 1 VA component, 

2 VA components, or all 3 components ......................................................................................................... 8

Tables

1. Example responses from project investigators and how they were subsequently categorized based 

on the three vulnerability components (exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity) ................................... 9

2. The total number of projects in the DOI data call that addressed one or more focal resources or 

threats and the total number that assessed either exposure, sensitivity, exposure and sensitivity, 

exposure and sensitivity and adaptive capacity, or could not be classified.................................................. 10
1

Summarizing Components of U.S. Department of the 

Interior Vulnerability Assessments to Focus Climate 

Adaptation Planning

By Laura M. Thompson1, Michelle D. Staudinger1,2 , and Shawn L. Carter1

Abstract

A secretarial order identified climate adaptation as a critical performance objective for 

future management of U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) lands and resources in response to 

global change. Vulnerability assessments can inform climate adaptation planning by providing 

insight into what natural resources are most at risk and why. Three components of 

vulnerability—exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity—were defined by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as necessary for identifying climate 

adaptation strategies and actions. In 2011, the DOI requested all internal bureaus report ongoing 

or completed vulnerability assessments about a defined range of assessment targets or climaterelated threats. Assessment targets were defined as freshwater resources, landscapes and wildlife 

habitat, native and cultural resources, and ocean health. Climate-related threats were defined as 

invasive species, wildfire risk, sea-level rise, and melting ice and permafrost. Four hundred and 

three projects were reported, but the original DOI survey did not specify that information be 

provided on exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity collectively as part of the request, and it 

was unclear which projects adhered to the framework recommended by the IPCC. Therefore, the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center conducted a 

supplemental survey to determine how frequently each of the three vulnerability components was 

assessed. Information was categorized for 124 of the 403 reported projects (30.8 percent) based 

on the three vulnerability components, and it was discovered that exposure was the most 

common component assessed (87.9 percent), followed by sensitivity (68.5 percent) and adaptive 

capacity (33.1 percent). The majority of projects did not fully assess vulnerability; projects 

focused on landscapes/wildlife habitats and sea-level rise were among the minority that 

simultaneously addressed all three vulnerability components. To maintain consistency with the 

IPCC definition of vulnerability, DOI may want to focus initial climate adaptation planning only 

on the outcomes of studies that comprehensively address vulnerability as inclusive of exposure, 

sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Although the present study results are preliminary and used an

unstructured survey design, they illustrate the importance of a comprehensive and consistent 

vulnerability definition and of using information on vulnerability components in DOI surveys to 

ensure relevant data are used to identify adaptation options.

 1

U.S. Geological Survey, National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, Reston, VA 

20192-0001

2

DOI Northeast Climate Science Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003-9297
2

Introduction

Climate change profoundly affects a multitude of resources in the United States, and 

future projections suggest these trends are likely to continue (Staudinger and others, 2012). A 

coordinated response to climate change effects is important for the U.S. Department of the 

Interior (DOI), which manages 20 percent of U.S. lands, provides water resources for 

approximately 10 percent of the U.S. population, and is responsible for conserving plant, fish,

and wildlife populations, and tribal and cultural resources (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2014;

U.S. Department of the Interior, 2014). Climate adaptation is the process of preparing for and 

coping with the impacts of climate change (Glick and others, 2009, 2011) and has been identified

by the Secretary of Interior (2009) as a high priority for the DOI. Meaningful adaptation 

strategies can only be implemented when the relative vulnerabilities of resources to future 

environmental changes are understood. Vulnerability assessments (VAs) provide knowledge 

about resources likely to be affected by climate change and information on why those resources 

are vulnerable (Glick and others, 2011). Therefore, VAs are important for prioritizing 

management actions and developing appropriate adaptation responses and alternatives (Glick and 

others, 2011). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines vulnerability as 

three distinct components: (1) exposure: magnitude and rate of climate change a resource is 

likely to experience, (2) sensitivity: characteristics that mediate tolerance to climate change of a 

particular resource, and (3) adaptive capacity: the inherent ability of the target to moderate the 

impacts of climate change (IPCC 2007, Glick and others, 2011).

The simultaneous assessment of all three vulnerability components provides a

comprehensive and rigorous framework for climate adaptation planning. VAs use projections of 

changes in climate variables (for example, temperature and precipitation), sea-level, or 

hydrology to provide insight into the potential risk a resource has to climate change drivers, in 

addition to providing a suite of qualitative and quantitative techniques that can determine how 

responsive a particular resource(s) is to projected changes (for example, response models; Glick

and others, 2011). VAs also identify intrinsic traits or external factors that allow a resource to 

adapt to future climate changes (Glick and others, 2011). Managers can then identify the options 

most likely to reduce exposure and sensitivity, and increase adaptive capacity, and implement 

them through changes in practice or policy (Glick and others 2011).

In 2011, the DOI set a high priority performance goal in which 50 percent of the nation's 

resources would be assessed for climate change vulnerability by the end of 2012. As a measure 

of progress toward reaching that goal, information on completed and ongoing VAs was requested 

from the DOI, including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation 

(BOR), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS). The USGS surveyed DOI bureaus in January 2011 for VA projects 

that addressed a specific range of resources (freshwater supplies, landscapes and wildlife habitat, 

native and cultural resources, ocean health) or climate-related threats (invasive species, wildfire 

risk, sea-level rise, and melting ice/permafrost). These conservation and management endpoints 

were identified by the DOI as priorities for all bureaus and were therefore included in the survey.

Other data collected by the survey included the project title and location, Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative (LCC), start and end dates, and the principal investigator’s contact 

information (Appendix A). The survey resulted in 403 submissions from five agencies; 12 from 

NPS, 10 from BOR, 189 from USGS, 51 from BLM, and 141 from USFWS; across 21 LCC 

regions.
3

The large number and diversity of VA projects suggests the DOI was progressing

towards the high priority performance goals. However, the initial survey did not request all three 

vulnerability components as a requirement of the reporting process (Appendix A) and projects 

addressing single vulnerability components may have been reported. It was suggested by the 

IPCC (2007), and in a recently published guide on best practices for conducting VAs (Glick and 

others, 2011), that simultaneous assessments of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity are 

important for guiding climate adaptation planning. Therefore, the goal of this study was to 

determine the proportion of projects from the initial survey using the comprehensive framework

presented by the IPCC (2007), provide a detailed assessment of DOI projects focused on 

potentially vulnerable resources, and identify priority areas for climate adaptation planning.

Methods

The USGS National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) conducted 

a supplemental survey on the initial vulnerability assessment data call to identify DOI projects 

that incorporate any of the three VA components (exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity).

Contact information submitted as part of the DOI survey was used to acquire details on each 

study by interviewing project investigators over the phone and through email. Information was 

also obtained by evaluating online reports acquired from project investigators. Project 

investigators were contacted in the order that they appeared in the initial survey: BLM, BOR, 

NPS, USFWS, and USGS. Each agency pre-screened the initial DOI survey prior to the 

supplemental survey, and a large number of projects were classified as information-gathering 

studies (for example, monitoring, modeling) by the USGS (n = 109); therefore investigators from 

those projects were not contacted. Open-ended questions (Appendix B) were used to collect data

because objectives varied considerably between projects, and VA components may not have 

been a given study’s focus. Additionally, not all participants were familiar with the terms 

(exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity), so questions related to climate projections and 

response models were included to increase the ability of respondents to determine whether or not 

vulnerability components were targeted in the study. Responses to questions 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 

(Appendix B) were used to determine if each of the three VA components was considered.

Projects in which a sufficient amount of detail was obtained for evaluating whether exposure, 

sensitivity, and adaptive capacity were individually or jointly considered and were binned based 

on the presence of those three components (Table 1), as well as on the focal resources and types

of climate-related threats identified as interests for the DOI. Inquiries were also made about the 

spatial footprint of assessments (questions 3 and 4 in Appendix B) to determine whether the VAs 

could be mapped, which would allow for identification of geographic gaps in assessment activity

and areas concerned with climate adaptation that could be prioritized.

Results and Discussion

After omitting information-gathering studies, sufficient information was obtained to 

categorize 124 of the remaining 294 projects (42.2 percent) based on the three components of 

vulnerability. A total of 161 of the 294 projects (54.8 percent) could not be categorized due to

limited or nonexistent information; these cases occurred when a project investigator could not be 

reached or when the primary contact did not have detailed information readily available. Nine

projects (3.1 percent) were removed prior to data collection because they were identified as 

duplicate submissions or as projects that had not been funded or begun by the start of the initial 
4

survey. The VAs summarized in the supplemental survey could not be mapped because in many 

cases the geospatial information was vague or incomplete. For example, many projects simply 

described the study area as “millions of acres” or did not provide quantitative units of scale. The 

inability to summarize geospatial information was partially a result of open-ended survey 

questions, which made mapping difficult. Additionally, not all project investigators had detailed 

geospatial information readily available.

Of the remaining 124 projects where adequate information allowed the three components 

of vulnerability to be evaluated, exposure was the most commonly assessed component (n = 109, 

87.9 percent). In 34 of these 109 projects (31.2 percent), exposure was the only component of 

vulnerability assessed; 34 (31.2 percent) assessed exposure in conjunction with sensitivity; and 

41 (37.6 percent) assessed exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity simultaneously (Figs. 1 

and 2). In 75 of the 85 projects that assessed sensitivity (88.2 percent), exposure or exposure and 

adaptive capacity were also assessed as part of their study design (Figs. 1 and 2). Adaptive 

capacity was assessed in the fewest studies overall, and only when both exposure and sensitivity 

were also considered (n = 41, 33.1 percent; Figs. 1 and 2).

A total of 122 out of the 124 projects identified a focal resource. Landscapes/wildlife 

habitat (72 projects) and freshwater supplies (25 projects) were the most commonly listed 

resources, while ocean health (4 projects) and native/cultural resources (1 project) were the least 

common (Table 2). There were 21 studies that identified more than one focal resource (Table 2); 

15 (71.4 percent) of those included freshwater resources and landscapes/wildlife habitat; four

(19.0 percent) included landscapes/wildlife habitat and native/cultural resources; one (4.8

percent) included landscapes/wildlife habitat and ocean health; and one (4.8 percent) included 

freshwater supplies and native/cultural resources. All of the projects related to freshwater 

supplies assessed either exposure (n = 24, 96.0 percent) or sensitivity (n = 1, 4.0 percent) 

independently. Projects addressing landscapes/wildlife habitat, native/cultural resources, ocean 

health, and multiple focal resources (n = 75, 60.5 percent) usually considered two or more 

vulnerability components, which were most often exposure and sensitivity (Table 2).

Of the 70 VA projects that identified a focal climate-related threat, sea-level rise was the 

most common (n = 47, 67.1 percent); invasive species (n = 6, 8.6 percent), wildfire risk (n = 5, 

7.1 percent), and melting ice/permafrost (n = 1, 1.4 percent) were less common. In 11 projects 

two or more focal climate-related threats were identified; four of those (36.4 percent) included 

invasive species and wildfire risk, three (27.3 percent) included invasive species and sea-level 

rise, one (9.1 percent) included sea-level rise and melting ice/permafrost, one (9.1 percent) 

included invasive species, wildfire risk, and melting ice/permafrost, and two (18.2 percent) 

included all four climate-related threats (Table 2). The majority of projects that addressed a 

climate-related focal threat also assessed multiple components of vulnerability—exposure and 

sensitivity (n = 24, 34.3 percent) and all three components simultaneously (n = 34, 

48.6 percent)—when determining vulnerability (Table 2).

The comprehensive assessment of vulnerability in the supplemental survey was greatest 

for projects addressing landscapes/wildlife habitat and sea-level rise, with the majority of 

projects assessing two (exposure and sensitivity) or all three (exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive 

capacity) vulnerability components. However, projects addressing landscapes/wildlife habitat 

were also the most commonly reported resources, and sea-level rise was the most commonly 

reported climate-related threat (Table 2). This skew in data related to the categories of the 

reported projects may explain why a larger number of comprehensive assessments existed only 

in those categories. Because projects that simultaneously assess all three vulnerability 
5

components are the most useful for understanding why a particular target is vulnerable and for 

identifying adaptation options, our findings suggest landscapes/wildlife habitat as the most 

appropriate for the DOI to focus on in initial climate adaptation planning. Additionally, the large 

number of comprehensive vulnerability assessments about sea-level rise suggests it is a climaterelated threat on which the DOI could also focus adaptation efforts.

A small number of studies addressed native/cultural resources, ocean health, invasive 

species, wildfire risk, and melting ice/permafrost (Table 2). Those resources and threats are 

under-represented in the supplemental survey because information could not be acquired for a 

large number of projects. The only exception was for ocean health and melting ice/permafrost, 

which represented <10 percent of the initial DOI survey. Therefore, if DOI is to adequately 

assess the vulnerability of ocean health and melting ice/permafrost to climate change effects, 

additional studies of vulnerability are necessary.

Many projects concerned with freshwater supplies focused only on exposure. A potential 

explanation is that many projects were not designed as vulnerability assessments and did not 

incorporate the framework used by the IPCC. For example, the Water Resource Inventory and 

Assessment program conducted by the USFWS was designed to inventory information on 

potential climate change (exposure) and assess potential needs related to water resources 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012), but is not specifically designed to assess the sensitivity or 

adaptive capacity of water resources. Other projects also exclude certain vulnerability 

components because they were conducted for research purposes and focus on the sensitivity of a 

resource. However, those efforts still collect important information that could inform VAs and 

climate adaptation planning. It is important to note that a key VA guidebook (Glick and others,

2011) was released at approximately the same time the data call was executed, so definitions of 

climate change vulnerability and vulnerability components may have been unavailable to DOI 

scientists until recently. Finally, the exclusion of adaptive capacity may have occurred because it 

is often poorly understood and can be difficult to measure, especially in the context of

evolutionary adaptation (Manel and others, 2012).

One limitation present in the study was the survey’s unstructured design, which was used 

to acquire information on vulnerability assessments. Survey questions related to each study’s 

assessment of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity were open-ended questions, as 

opposed to closed-ended questions with fixed responses. This survey approach was chosen to 

obtain insights on whether or not the vulnerability components were assessed even when 

respondents were unfamiliar with the concepts; unfortunately, this enabled the potential for bias 

and subjectivity to affect the results. Because the study design did not use a structured survey 

method, results should be viewed as preliminary. Other noteworthy limitations include concerns 

that the percentage of VA components assessed may have been underestimated due to difficulties 

in defining and gauging adaptive capacity (Adger and Vincent, 2005; Williams and others, 

2008), and geospatial coverage of VAs in this survey could not be accurately assessed. Future 

research can minimize potential limitations by using a structured survey design with fixed, welldefined responses to determine how frequently exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity are 

used in DOI vulnerability assessments. The Climate Registry on the Assessment of Vulnerability 

(CRAVe; https://nccwsc.usgs.gov/crave/) is a recent and ongoing project administered by the 

NCCWSC and EcoAdapt and was designed to capture metadata on VAs, including the three 

vulnerability components, and may provide a source for structured survey work in the future.
6

Conclusions

The results of this supplemental survey provide insights into the Nation’s progress toward 

understanding vulnerability to climate change. Because the majority of the 124 projects that 

furnished information (90.3 percent) reported a project completion date no later than the fourth 

quarter of 2014, the DOI should possess sufficient information to facilitate climate adaptation 

planning. This survey provides the DOI with information on essential resources and climaterelated threats that indicate where initial adaptation efforts can be focused, as well as information 

on resources and climate-related threats that indicate where additional assessment work could be 

beneficial prior to exercising management options.

Ongoing initiatives, such as CRAVe, can strengthen future vulnerability studies by 

showcasing new methods and techniques as they become available. Studies entered into CRAVe 

may have benefited from recently published guides on vulnerability assessment (for example, 

Glick and others, 2011) that were unavailable during the initial DOI VA data call. This project 

also incorporates studies funded by the newly established LCCs (2009–present) and the DOI 

Climate Science Centers (2010–present) that include vulnerability assessments as priorities in 

their strategic science plans and funding announcements. CRAVe can also help evaluate progress 

toward a consistent and comprehensive definition of adaptive capacity. Finally, CRAVe has 

incorporated a strategic approach for determining the spatial footprint of VA projects, which can

help identify geographic gaps alongside gaps in assessed resources.

References

Adger, W. N. and Vincent, Katharine, 2005, Uncertainty in adaptive capacity: Comptes Rendus 

Geoscience, v. 337, no. 4, p. 399–410. [Also available at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crte.2004.11.004.]

Glick, Patty, Staudt, Amanda, and Stein, B.A., 2009, A new era for conservation—Review of 

climate change adaptation literature: Washington, D.C., National Wildlife Federation, 69 p.

[Also available at 

https://www.nwf.org/pdf/Reports/NWFClimateChangeAdaptationLiteratureReview.pdf.]

Glick, Patty, 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, 168 p. [Also available at http://www.nwf.org/~/media/pdfs/globalwarming/climate-smart-conservation/nwfscanningtheconservationhorizonfinal92311.ashx.]

Manel, Stéphanie; Gugerli, Felix; Thuiller, Wilfred; Alvarez, Nadir; Legendre, Pierre; 

Holderegger, Rolf; Gielly, Ludovic; Taberlet, Pierre; and IntraBioDiv Consortium, 2012, 

Broad-scale adaptive genetic variation in alpine plants is driven by temperature and 

precipitation: Molecular Ecology, v. 21, no. 15, p. 3729–3738. [Also available at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2012.05656.x.]

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, U.K., Cambridge University Press, 976 p. [Also available at 
7

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg2_r

eport_impacts_adaptation_and_vulnerability.htm.]

Secretary of the Interior, 2009, Addressing the impacts of climate change on America's water, 

land, and other natural and cultural resources: Washington, D.C., Department of the Interior, 

order no. 3289; 4 p. [Also available at 

http://www.doi.gov/whatwedo/climate/cop15/upload/SecOrder3289.pdf.]

Staudinger, M. D., Grimm, N.B., Staudt, Amanda, Carter, S.L., Chapin, F.S., III, Kareiva, Peter,

Ruckelshaus, Mary, and Stein, B.A., 2012, Impacts of climate change on biodiversity, 

ecosystems, and ecosystem services—Technical input to the 2013 National Climate 

Assessment—Cooperative report to the 2013 National Climate Assessment: Washington, D.C., 

United States Global Change Research Program, Federal Government series report, 296 p., 

accessed November 17, 2013, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70039460.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), 2014, Reclamation—Managing water in the West—Climate 

change adaptation strategy: Washington, D.C., U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 50 p., accessed 

February 13, 2015, at 

http://www.usbr.gov/climate/docs/ClimateChangeAdaptationStrategy.pdf.

U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), 2014, Department of the Interior climate change adaptation 

plan: Washington, D.C., Department of the Interior, accessed February 13, 2015, at 

http://www.doi.gov/greening/sustainability_plan/upload/2014_DOI_Climate_Change_Adaptat

ion_Plan.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2012, Water resource inventory and assessment

(WRIA) effort—Natural Resource Program Center: National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Fact Sheet, January 2012; 2 p. [Also available at

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/NaturalResourcePC/pdfs/FY2012_NRPC_WRIA_Fact_Sheet.pdf.

Williams, S. E., Shoo, L.P., Isaac, J.L., Hoffmann, A.A., and Langham, Gary, 2008, Towards an 

integrated framework for assessing the vulnerability of species to climate change: PloS 

Biology, v. 6, no. 12, p. 2621–2626. [Also available at 

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060325.]
8

Figure 1. The frequency that each of the three vulnerability components (exposure, sensitivity, and 

adaptive capacity) were assessed by projects (n = 124) in the DOI data call.

Note: A large percentage (64.5 percent) of projects fall into 2 or more categories.

Figure 2. The total number of projects in the DOI data call (n = 124) that assessed 0 VA components

(unclassifiable), 1 VA component (either exposure (E) or sensitivity (S)), 2 VA components (E and 

S), or all 3 components (E, S, and adaptive capacity (AC)).

Note: No studies assessed only adaptive capacity, or the following combinations of two components: sensitivity and 

adaptive capacity, or exposure and adaptive capacity.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Exposure Sensitivity Adaptive capacity

Frequency

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 VA

components

1 VA

component

2 VA

components

3 VA

components

Number of projects

E, S, and AC

E and S

Sensitivity

Exposure

Unclassifiable
9

Table 1. Example responses from project investigators and how they were subsequently categorized based on the three vulnerability 

components (exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity). 

Agency and project title Exposure Sensitivity Adaptive capacity

USFWS - Water Resource Inventory 

and Assessment

Explored historical temperature, 

precipitation, and stream flow 

trends and starting to look at future 

climate projections

BLM – Radio Collaring of Canada 

Lynx

Determined whether collared lynx 

preferred areas with snow cover

USGS - Determine vulnerability of 

piping plover on Atlantic coast 

beaches

Considering a suite of sea-level rise 

scenarios and frequency of storms

Identifying nesting needs for piping 

plover

NPS/USGS - Impacts of climate 

change on Karner blue butterfly 

habitats

Incorporated downscaled climate 

projections into a suite of climate 

envelope models

Identified future habitat shifts from 

the species distribution models

Identified potential microclimates that 

may allow the species to find 

optimal habitats close by
10

Table 2. The total number of projects in the DOI data call that addressed one or more focal resources or threats and the total number that

assessed either exposure (E), sensitivity (S), exposure and sensitivity (E and S), exposure and sensitivity and adaptive capacity (E, S, and 

AC), or could not be classified (unclassified).

Note: Only a portion of the surveyed projects pertained to a focal resource or a focal threat and the sum for each category is, therefore, less than 124. 

Focal resources Focal climate-related threats

Freshwater

supplies

Landscapes/

wildlife 

habitat

Native 

and 

cultural 

resources

Ocean 

health

More 

than 1 

focal 

resource Total

Invasive 

species

Wildfire 

risk

Sealevel 

rise

Melting 

ice/permafrost

More 

than 1 

focal 

threat Total

E 24 4 0 0 6 34 1 0 7 0 1 9

S 1 5 0 0 2 8 0 1 0 0 1 2

E and S 0 26 0 1 7 34 5 0 11 1 7 24

E, S, and AC 0 34 1 2 4 41 0 4 29 0 1 34

Unclassified 0 3 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 1 1

Total 25 72 1 3 21 122 6 5 47 1 11 70
11

Appendix A. Text distributed to DOI agencies for the initial data 

call on climate change vulnerability assessments.

DATA CALL – CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS 

Definitions:

Vulnerability is the degree to which a natural or human system is susceptible to, and unable to 

cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes.

Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation 

to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity.

Vulnerability assessments are science-based activities (research, synthesis, modeling, 

monitoring) undertaken with the intent of identifying, quantifying, or evaluating the degree to 

which natural resources, cultural resources, infrastructure, or other values are likely to be 

affected by changing climatic conditions. Each vulnerability assessment minimally needs to 

address each of the following factors for one or more systems in the area being assessed:

 Sensitivity of the resources in question to climate change

 Likely exposure of the resources in question to climate change

 Adaptive capacity of the resources in question to climate change

Theses assessments should include considerations of current and future potential vulnerabilities.

The focus of a vulnerability assessment can be a specific resource or resource type (e.g., 

species, cold water fish), sector (e.g., fresh water, energy, forestry), community (e.g., city, 

ecosystem), site (town, refuge, park), region (e.g., state, southwestern deserts), or other 

assessment target. The level of detail and comprehensiveness will vary with management needs 

and consequences, available resources, and the state of knowledge. An assessment consists of a 

report evaluating resource vulnerability, or any combination of a stand-alone report, data sets, 

and/or results and analyses.

Individual vulnerability assessments may be undertaken at a range of geographic scales and 

may address individual species or ecosystem elements, or one or more systems consistent with 

the mission of the respective bureau and any non-federal partners, with the goal of identifying 

the vulnerabilities affecting the assessment target, or may be done to evaluate relative 

vulnerabilities of multiple targets across a geographic area.

Information Requested: 

Each bureau is requested to provide to ClimateHPPG@usgs.gov, for collection and “mapping” 

and comparison with LCC coverage, the following: 

1. The number of vulnerability assessments underway per each quarter in FY 2011 and 

then FY 2012 

2. The number of vulnerability assessments completed per each quarter in FY 2011 and 

then FY 2012
12

For each of the assessments identified, please provide the following information. For planning 

purposes, please assume funding levels for FY 2011 and FY 2102 that are equivalent to that 

provided in the FY 2011 President’s Budget Request to Congress.

1. Project location. Please provide adequate information to enable mapping of the 

geographic extent / area and location (especially relative to the coverage of each 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative) addressed by the project.

2. Assessment endpoints. Please describe what resources are being assessed against which 

threats for vulnerability to climate change. Where applicable, identify which of the focal 

resources are being assessed against which of the focal threats that are identified in the 

DOI HPPG. (Please note that there are no definitions of the terms for the HPPG focal 

threats and resources; please use common sense and your best judgment.)

a. DOI High Priority Performance Goal (HPPG) Focal Resources

• fresh water supplies

• landscapes, including wildlife habitat

• native and cultural resources

• ocean health 

b. DOI High Priority Performance Goal (HPPG) Focal Threats

• invasive species

• wildfire risk 

• sea-level rise 

• melting ice/permafrost

c. Other Resources and Threats

While these focal resources and threats were identified in the Priority Goal, please be sure to 

specify any other resources and threats that are part of the main purpose of the assessment under 

“other” resources or “threats” in the attached template.
13

Appendix B. Questionnaire used for the supplemental DOI 

vulnerability assessment survey.

1. What are the objectives of your Vulnerability Assessment?

2. What is your assessment target (e.g., species, habitat, ecosystem, ecosystem service)? 

3. Where is your Vulnerability Assessment located?

4. What is the size of your study area?

5. How did you go about assessing vulnerability of your target (e.g., sensitivity, exposure, and 

adaptive capacity)? 

6. Did you use downscaled climate projections? If so, can you describe briefly what you used and 

who generated them?

7. Can you briefly describe the ecological response model you used (e.g., NatureServe index, 

climate envelope model)?
14

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr201511