Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CFE agenda 091117
AGENDA Orange County Commission for the Environment September 11, 2017 7:30 p.m. Animal Services Building, 1601 Eubanks Road, Chapel Hill Time Item Title 7:30 I. Call to Order 7:32 II. Additions or Changes to Agenda 7:35 III. Approval of Draft Minutes — August 14, 2017 The CFE will consider approval of minutes from the last meeting. (Attachment 1) 7:40 IV. February 2017 Water Emergency Ed Kerwin, Executive Director of OWASA, will present information concerning the events of February 2017 which included a suspension of the production of drinking water at the Jones Ferry Road Water Treatment Plant, a water main break, and the issuance of a "Do Not Use, Do Not Drink' directive by the Orange County Health Department. (http:l/www.owasa.org /2017- water- emeraencv) 8:15 V. Lands Legacy Action Plan Update DEAR staff will present information concerning the update of the Lands Legacy Program Action Plan 2014-2017 (Attachment 2). 8:35 VI. CFE Committee Meetings Committees will meet and consider indicators for the upcoming SOE report (Attachments 3 - 8). 9:00 VII. Updates and Information Items Staff and /or CFE members will provide updates on the following items: ➢ Continuing Action Items from previous CFE meetings o SOE 2019 Planning ➢ 2018 -27 State Transportation Improvement Plan Projects in Hillsborough (Attachment 9) ➢ Is Climate Science Trustworthy? (Attachment 10) ➢ Burning Fossil Fuels Almost Ended All Life on Earth (Attachment 11) ➢ The Uninhabitable Earth (Attachment 12) ➢ Any other new information from CFE members and staff 9:15 VIII. Adjournment • Next Meeting; October 9, Whined Building, 300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough CFE Meeting Ground Rules (Adopted 9112111) 1. Keep to agenda topic under discussion 2. Share relevant information 3. One person speaks at a time after recognition by the Chair 4. Everyone is invited to participate in discussions / no one person should dominate discussions ,. Strive to reach consensus first before voting Activities the CFE expects to carry out in 2017: • Continue to write news articles on environmental issues of importance to Orange County, including climate change, energy conservation, and other important topics • Continue to explore ways to improve the County's ability to foster local sustainable energy production and energy efficiency strategies, including making Orange County an even better place for appropriately -sited solar energy generation, including developing incentives for increasing energy efficiency in new construction • Recommend ways to reduce the County's "carbon footprint" and implement the County's Environmental Responsibility Goal (BOCC Priority #10) • Continue to help with public outreach and management efforts related to hydrilla in the Eno River • Participate in a County effort to identify and preserve important landscape corridors that connect significant natural areas and open space (BOCC Priority #1) • Co- sponsor the annual DEAPR photography contest (The Nature of Orange) • Help plan for and participate in County's annual Earth Evening event Concerns or emerging issues the CFE has identified for 2017: • The CFE will continue to advocate for an expansion of the County's commercial food waste pickup and composting services to reduce food waste in the solid waste stream • The CFE remains interested in developing incentives for increasing energy efficiency in new construction • The CFE will continue to learn more about environmental justice matters and incorporate relevant information and considerations in the next State of the Environment report (2020) and its other activities • The CFE will continue to follow the Solid Waste Advisory Group's discussions of how to improve the handling and disposal of Orange County's solid waste, and will advocate for better long -term solutions • The CFE will continue to advocate for increased efforts to gather information related to water resources in Orange County and to increase public awareness and understanding of water supply sources, related concerns, and what steps can be undertaken to maintain or improve the quantity and quality of Orange County water supply resources • The CFE will continue to address, as appropriate, the critical environmental issues for Orange County as enumerated on page 3 of the 2014 State of the Environment report, which include potential adverse effects from a) invasive, non - native, plant and animal species; b) reductions in State -led collection of water resources data; c) potential drilling for natural gas in the Deep River basin; d) urban sprawl; and CFE support for e) the responsible deployment of clean and appropriately -sited renewable energy and reductions in energy use to help fight climate change IIIIIVIII'° IIII ° ° ° " "" "1111' "" Meeting Summary Orange County Commission for the Environment August 14, 2017 7:30 p.m. Whitted Building, 300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough Present: Bill Kaiser (Vice Chair), Bill Newby, Marshall Gray, Sheila Thomas - Ambat, Matt Crook, Alan Parry, Jeremy Marzuola Absent: May Becker, Peter Cada, Jeanette O'Connor, Lynne Gronback Staff: Tom Davis I. Call to Order — Kaiser called the meeting to order at 7:30. II. Additions or Changes to Agenda — No additions or changes were proposed to the agenda. III. Approval of Draft Minutes from June 12, 2017. No changes were requested. Parry made a motion to approve the draft minutes. Gray seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. IV. Discussion of CFE Member Recruitment — Kaiser led a discussion of efforts to recruit applicants for the four vacancies that currently exist, as well as additional upcoming vacancies. V. 2017 DEAPR Photography Contest Results — Davis provided a short presentation of the winning photographs from the recently completed DEAPR Photography Contest. VI. CFE Committee Meetings — Since only seven members were present, including only one member of the Land Resources Committee, individual Committees did not have breakout meetings but instead the members present discussed the upcoming State of the Environment (SOE) report. Questions regarding the format and past usage of the report were raised. Considerable discussion of indicators used in past reports, and their value, also took place. Apparent purpose of the SOE report might include trying to influence the behavior of county citizens as well as informing people of the status of certain environmental benchmarks in the county. Interest in producing a "living document or documents" instead of a single large static report exists, as well as producing a more readily accessible, usable, and "digestible" on -line document(s). Additional comments regarding condensing the report and trying to eliminate somewhat redundant indicators were expressed. Shorter more focused information, similar to newspaper articles previously created by the CFE, could be posted on the CFE Facebook page. The need to produce a two -page Executive Summary was also discussed. Some members expressed desire to include concepts of environmental justice, potential climate change impacts in the county, and possibly the planned Durham - Orange Light Rail Transit project, in addition to a prospective focus rather than strictly a retrospective document. Interest in obtaining feedback from the BOCC concerning what they might like to see included in the SOE as well as their past use of the SOE was expressed. Kaiser suggested that members review the indicators that were used in the 2014 SOE before the next meeting and think about whether some of the indicators could be eliminated, replaced or combined in the next report. He also reminded members that each Committee needs to decide which sections of the report they are going to work on. VII. Updates and Information Items — concerning the following items was provided: • Continuing Action Items from previous CFE meetings: • SOE 2019 Planning • Safe Water Editorial from The News and Observer • Lands Legacy Press Release • Cape Fear River Assembly Event • Impacts of Climate Change on Southern US • City of Durham Sustainability Report • Coop. Ext. Community Economic Profile VIII. Adjournment — Parry motioned to adjourn, and Newby seconded. Meeting adjourned at 9:10. Lands Legacy Program Action Plan 2014 -2017 (For the period July 1, 2014 — June 30, 2017) Morgan Creek headwaters near Pickards Mountain Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation P.O. Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278 www.co.orange.nc.us/deapr/index.asp u Lands Legacy Action Plan 2014 -17 FINAL 1123114 For the period July 112014 - June 30, 2017 Introduction The purpose of Orange County's Lands Legacy Program is to help protect the county's most important natural and cultural resource lands before they are damaged or lost to incompatible land -uses activities. Much has been accomplished by the County and its many partners, but there are still many special places needing some level of protection. Lands Legacy works with landowners who are interested in conserving their land. All projects are voluntary. Some properties are purchased outright to serve a specific public purpose, such as for a park or nature preserve, consistent with adopted county plans. Most properties protected through the program are accomplished with a conservation easement -- a permanent, legal agreement between the County and the landowner, whereby the land remains in private ownership. To qualify for a conservation easement the property must have special Alconservation values," the protection of which will provide meaningful and lasting public benefit (e.g., water supply watershed, prime farmland, natural heritage area, historic or cultural site). In most cases the property possesses multiple conservation values. Most projects completed through Lands Legacy are in partnership with other organizations, such as Eno River Association, Triangle Land Conservancy, Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Duke University, and other local governments. The County often uses state and federal matching grant funds to acquire land or to construct facilities. The Lands Legacy Program is guided by a three -year Action Plan that sets priorities for determining what projects to work on over the specified timeframe. The Lands Legacy Action Plan is prepared the DEAPR staff and adopted by the Board of Commissioners. Some projects are long -term efforts that span multiple action plans. The process of developing the Action Plan begins with staff identifying potential projects and asking the Board for initial guidance. Staff then meets with advisory boards for their input on development of priorities for the upcoming years. Some of that discussion with advisory boards is still ongoing through the end of November. Staff prepares a draft Plan and presents it to the Board of Commissioners for their consideration and feedback. The Action Plan is then finalized for Board approval prior to adoption of the County's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The following is the Action Plan is for the upcoming three fiscal years: 2014 -15 to 2016 -17. Like the previous action plan, this one focuses on fewer target areas. The reason for limiting the scope of projects is allow staff to complete one or more of the larger, multi -year priority projects. Staff is also adjusting to the reduced availability of state grant funds to local governments and the recent elimination of the NC Conservation Tax Credit. The scaled -back plan will continue also enable the staff to tend to its land stewardship responsibilities of properties eland- banked" for future parks and preserves. Lands Legacy Action Plan 2014 -17 FINAL 1123114 The Action Plan includes current goals and a priority list of land conservation projects for the coming three years, followed by a summary of advisory board comments, and specific acquisition objectives. Also attached is a brief summary of the projects completed through Lands Legacy over its first 12 years (2000 -2012) 1. Previously- Approved Projects; Complete projects that were approved by the Board of Commissioners during the previous planning period, but have not yet closed. These include acquisitions that received final Board approval and other projects that are still being negotiated but have not received final approval for close out. 2. Site Stewardship: Make sure all properties have boundaries marked in accordance with the Department's land management policy. Complete management plans for all properties eland banked" for future public parks and preserves. 3. Natural Heritage Areas: Protect high - priority natural heritage areas contiguous with existing conservation lands, allowing low- impact recreation where suitable. 4. Joint Town /County Open Space: Continue collaborating with the towns and other entities in acquiring land for establishing or expanding public trails or greenways identified in town plans that tie together important county -wide open spaces. 5. Grant Funds: Continue to pursue state and federal grants to leverage existing County funds authorized for land acquisition, site stewardship, or park development. The following areas are considered as higher priority locations for completing conservation projects through the Lands Legacy Program. Details for each project are provided in the table below (Pages 3 -4). DEAPR staff recognizes, once again, all of these projects cannot be completed during the three -year timeframe for this Action Plan. Nevertheless, all are priorities and progress can be made in moving each of these projects forward. Completion of active projects and stewardship of existing properties remain overarching priorities. 1. Future Bingham Township Park 2. Upper Eno Preserve /Mountains -to -Sea Trail (Hillsborough to Seven -Mile Creek segment) 2. Farmland Easements 3. Jordan Lake Headwaters Preserve 5. Historic Landmarks (and historic easements) N ti J Z ti O N 0 V Q V N J rz J cl onU)_d CA 0 � U C'j U 0 cl to O 'C U U) N Cl �U C° iri. U Cd cl 0 o cl m U a� � O � U � CIJ o a cl c o +� • Cd ° N C'j O O U 0 cl to CA C'j z ° cl ° Cli ° rIA N U N •U O U a to �. O cl ° to U U O v +� N O +4 O QUA j � O ti FA :� cl I • O Q ,� 0 U Cd v 5 41 bp'cl 4-. i--� U � � 0 U ' S•. `+--� �, Ste. Ste. �.' 'a ' y_, rn„, vUi U U" rn +� cl '' o o cl onU)_d CA 0 � U C'j U 0 cl to O 'C U U) N Cl �U C° iri. U Cd cl 0 o cl m U a� � O � U � U cl s. a� W ' -�:: Cl sue. m o cl p U 14-, C V] CA 0 W 0 U cn O cl p 4 Clj CIJ o � (41 , O cl c o U � • Cd ° N C'j O O U 0 cl to CA C'j z +C- � +' � 0 Cli O 0 U N U cl s. a� W ' -�:: Cl sue. m o cl p U 14-, C V] CA 0 W 0 U cn O cl p 4 Clj CIJ cl � (41 , O Cl c o cl cl cl cl O U U 0 cl to CA C'j z �-0 � +' � 0 cl ` " O 0 U N •U O U a to �. O cl ° to U U O v +� O +4 O �.C4 j O w 0 o U cl s. a� W ' -�:: Cl sue. m o cl p U 14-, C V] CA 0 W 0 U cn O cl p 4 Clj CIJ cl � (41 , O Cl cl +� w s' o cn C'j v, w Q cl O U U 0 U 0 C� to W �-0 � +' � cl cl ` " O 0 cl •U O U a to �. O cl ° to U U O v to j O w 0 o O CIJ cl � (41 , O Cl Cl cn C'j cl 0 +� V •r C, of +� bA U 0 3 'C W �-0 M 0, 141 cl O > U +� W S cl -'4 cl M N �. clj cl •7�:4,Z� o o Cl °pax O C C'j ¢ O -0 w E to to U cl +' on on ; o U � 0 cl Cd cl ow0 C'J cl O p N U cl cz ti W 0 o w �°- Lut, ti J Z N �h O N rz O V Q V J J � O cl � O U O cl yx �" cl cl OU 'C" �• _ - 0 cli N x(4C'lj° zC U s•. O � 00 U cl O 0 4° --o n R p cl . U 0 cl 0. p cl cl cl U U to +' U Cf? U x U S O O cl cl O • 'C 41 CJ � � •s.. O U U U" S bq � cl O bo to N . O cl claC-0) z 0 cn via O cn cl -'C � Cd 't �. CC O b�A Cj cl O U to ,�" "C O � s•. to to U cd � Lands Legacy Action Plan 2014 -17 DRAFT 1123114 A. Commission for the Environment (CFE) Continue efforts to protect significant natural heritage areas within the Seven Mile Creek area (e.g., Sevenmile Creek Sugar Maple Bottoms) and Jordan Lake headwaters (e.g., Mason Farm Oak- Hickory Forest); also along the upper reaches of the Eno River, New Hope Creek and Bolin Creek. All county parks and recreation facilities, including the planned Mountains -to -Sea Trail, should be designed to avoid sensitive natural areas and be constructed using environmentally friendly and sustainable methods. B. Agricultural Preservation Board (APB) Continue working with farms interested in protecting prime /active farmland with permanent agricultural conservation easements. Pursue state and federal grant funds to match County funds available for easement purchases. C. Parks and Recreation Council (PRC) Complete the acquisition of land for a future park in Bingham Township as recommended in the Master Recreation & Parks Plan. Acquire land and trail easements for an Orange County segment of the NC Mountains -to -Sea Trail, with priority for linking Hillsborough Riverwalk to the Seven Mile Creek component of the Upper Eno Preserve. D. Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Continue efforts to acquire conservation easements to protect important cultural and /or archaeological resources, including the Sevenmile Creek basin (road network, associated structures), and the Hillsborough Academy. Consider allocating funds to support applications from high - priority candidates for Local Historic Landmark designation. Establish an "archaeology emergency fund" for unanticipated costs for surveying /protecting historic roadbeds and archaeological sites. Lands Legacy Action Plan 2014 -17 DRAFT 1123114 The following are more specific acquisition objectives developed from existing plans, BOCC feedback /direction, County staff knowledge, and discussions with other conservation partners; in some cases expanding upon or refining advisory board recommendations. These are not listed in priority order. A. Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat • Work with the Botanical Garden Foundation and other partners to conserve key areas and establish a Jordan Lake Headwaters Preserve, including Mason Farm Oak - Hickory Forest (natural heritage area of state significance) • Work with the Eno River Association and others to conserve critical land for the Seven Mile Creek component of the Upper Eno Preserve, including Sevenmile Creek Sugar Maple Bottoms (natural heritage area of state significance) • Work with the Eno River Association, the Town of Hillsborough and others to conserve priority riparian and upland habitats in the Upper Eno River critical area • Work with Triangle Land Conservancy and others to conserve priority riparian lands and prime forest lands located in the Upper New Hope Creek watershed • Work with the Town of Carrboro, University of NC and the Friends of Bolin Creek to identify priority lands for conserving the Upper Bolin Creek corridor ➢ See #2 and #4 on the Priority Table (Pages 3 -4) B. Farmland Preservation Continue working with the Orange NRCS /Soil and Water Conservation District to identify and prioritize willing sellers and donors of conservation easements on prime farmland in priority watersheds Continue working with the Orange NRCS /Soil and Water Conservation District to apply for grants from the NC Agricultural Development & Farmland Preservation Trust Fund and federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program for the purchase of agricultural conservation easements ➢ See #3 on the Priority Table (Pages 3 -4) C. Parklands and Open Space • Acquire land for a future district park in the White Cross area (Bingham Township) consistent with the County's Master Recreation and Parks Plan • Acquire key parcels needed for a public pedestrian trail and wildlife corridor that would connect Hillsborough Riverwalk to the Haw River for the planned NC Mountains -to -Sea Trail— focusing in short -term on the link between Occoneechee Mountain and the Seven Mile Creek component of the Upper Eno Preserve • In all acquisitions, be cognizant of the potential for meeting other objectives of protecting riparian buffers, natural areas and historic /archaeological sites ➢ See #1 and #2 on the Priority Table (Pages 3 -4) Lands Legacy Action Plan 2014 -17 DRAFT 1123114 D. Cultural and Archaeological Sites • Continue working with landowners in the Faucette's Mill and Hall's Mill areas to protect the combination of historic and natural features in those communities • Work with the owners of the former Hillsborough Academy property to protect the remains of historic and archaeological resources associated with that site • Conduct archaeological surveys of county properties acquired for future parks and nature preserves (e.g., McGowan Creek Preserve, Seven Mile Creek Preserve, Millhouse Road Park, and Northeast Park) • Continue to stabilize, maintain and renovate existing structures on County -owned properties acquired for future parks (e.g., Millhouse Road park site) • Work with the HPC to pursue applications from high - priority candidates for local historic landmark designation ➢ See #5 on the Priority Table (Pages 3 -4) E. Watershed Riparian Buffers • Protect riparian corridors in the Upper Eno River protected watershed; partner with the Eno River Association and others; pursue grant funds from the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund and Upper Neuse Clean Water Initiative • Identify and protect priority areas in Upper New Hope Creek corridor; work with New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee and Triangle Land Conservancy • Identify priority areas for protection in the Bolin Creek corridor; collaborate with Friends of Bolin Creek, the Town of Carrboro, the University of NC, and others • Preserve riparian buffers in other water supply watersheds through parkland acquisitions and agricultural conservation easement projects ➢ See #2 and #4 on the Priority Table (Pages 3 -4) The first 12 years of the Lands Legacy Program saw tremendous strides in the protection of priority resource lands, with 3,077 acres permanently protected (as of December 2013) and several more projects in the works. The FY 2014 -17 Action Plan builds on projects from previous years, and includes projects in each of the Lands Legacy priority areas (natural areas, parkland, cultural /historic resources, prime farmland and riparian buffers and public water supply watersheds). This Action Plan will continue the use of 2001 Parks and Open Space bonds funds to leverage grant funds from state and federal sources for protecting high priority natural and cultural resource lands. C"' C"' O TMI O N L- 0 U) M (1) U) m Q O Q Q c Q E c O L W Q O Q cn r O N O N L O ci Q Q �.. Y � v� O Q CU U CU O Q 4- O O O ry+ � o Q U U_ -0 E Q O Q O c6 U �_0 - O O U U N CU CU > 0 a) O � CU � CU 0 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) > O > O O > O > O > O > O > O CU CU o X U L N — D >O > — Cn Cn N 7 70 O (n O 70 N 70 70 70 70 70 L L L L L O O O O L O N (� LPL LPL LPL LPL PL L C� C� C� C� PL L C� 7 (V (V 70 : -P C6 > (6 ~ � i J Z Q U) C� ^O n (1) • O C> 70 70 D C W E (6 CU M O N CU CU L O a o fn O U U 0 >, aOO U U N U w 4-- U 75 O V N Q O m D U) O o O X w U w 0- 0 O 0- 0 O > O O E O o CU o) . to . (D to (D 00 > >, E CU N N - �Q N N 0 N S E U) U W Lu C/) O D U W 0 0- Q Q 2 0 0 0 0- C/5 Q 3: 0� Cl. O U 70 O N (1) O U C/) (6 N Cn Cl. U z O O J N U � N O _0 U � O1 O O N U N — Cn L z V O O L OW,�, OW,�, Q /O /0 LL U U- O d 0 0 (6 UN a O O E _ L L _ O O _0 ar (6 () 3: (1) Q U -0 -0 U N U L U O U _0 N >� 0 C/) Q O � O (1) U C/) z O J U � N _0 U O U N Cn L z V Q U U- O d 0 0 (6 UN O E _ O O _0 (6 N U O O U _0 N 0 � (6 _0 U _ O (6 U (6 - � Q O N LU -0 U •� U O O i N N (U U) U N Q E O O _0 U E Q U O CI. L O U (6 U O O O 0 N 0 w � O O U O N (6 O 4-- U L U N O U O U D OU N O U (6 Cl. L Q U N (6 O N (6 (6 O -0 Q C`. O E O O O 'L p (_ � O c D O Q U U O (6 U (6 O Q U O U O m U CI. Z3 U. -0 U O L fA L O E C` O 70� O Q U U O Q '0 O E (6 N U 0 O V U O V Q (6 U O -0 E 0 U 0 0) U V O D U U O N 0 Z3 g (1) (1) D U O O N O O D O O N 6 O 0 U U O U U 0 E N 0 O 0 5 O C) U mL U. °a0 a o (1) (1) � (1) � O a 0) U o U 0- =� D O J0� S0-1 2 w01- a 2 0< 0 m z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The climate of the Southeast is uniquely warm and wet, with mild winters and high humidity, compared with the rest of the continental United States. The average annual temperature of the Southeast did not change significantly over the past century as a whole. Since 1970, however, annual average temperature has risen about 2 °F, with the greatest seasonal increase in tempera- ture occurring during the winter months. The number of freezing days in the Southeast has declined by four to seven days per year for most of the region since the mid- 1970s. Average autumn precipitation has increased by 30 percent for the region since 1901. The decline in fall precipitation in South Florida contrasts strongly with the regional average. There has been an increase in heavy downpours in many parts of the region,"o,ssi while the percentage of the region experiencing moder- ate to severe drought increased over the past three decades. The area of moderate to severe spring and summer drought has increased by 12 percent and 14 percent, respectively, since the mid - 1970s. Even in the fall months, when precipitation tended to increase in most of the region, the extent of drought increased by 9 percent. Climate models project continued warming in all seasons across the Southeast and an increase in the rate of warming through the end of this cen- tury. The projected rates of warming are more than double those experienced in the Southeast since 1975, with the greatest tempera- ture increases projected to occur in the summer months. The number of very hot days is projected to rise at a greater rate than the av- erage temperature. Under a lower emissions scenario,91 40, ,4 -10 •25 ,,,20 05 00 , -5 0 5 90 $5 20 25 30 35 -4 Pol,reM Mange, N�DAA/NICIDC 382 average temperatures in the region are projected to rise by about 4.5 °F by the 2080s, while a higher emissions scenario 91 yields about 9 °F of average warming (with about a 10.5 °F increase in summer, and a much higher heat index). Spring and sum- mer rainfall is projected to decline in South Florida during this century. Except for indications that the amount of rainfall from individual hurricanes will increase '61 climate models provide divergent Observed temperature and precipitation changes in the Southeast are summarized above for two different period S.313 Southeast average temperature declined from 1901 to 1970 and then increased strongly since 1970. 01 Temperature Change in °F Precipitation change in 1901 -2008 1970 -2008 1901 -2008 1970 -2008 Annual 0.3 1.6 Annual 6.0 -7.7 Winter 0.2 2.7 Winter 1.2 -9.6 Spring 0.4 1.2 Spring 1.7 -29.2 Summer 0.4 1.6 Summer -4.0 3.6 Fall 0.2 1.1 Fall 27.4 0.1 Observed temperature and precipitation changes in the Southeast are summarized above for two different period S.313 Southeast average temperature declined from 1901 to 1970 and then increased strongly since 1970. 01 US. C:;IIo ba l CI °Harm^ esear,::[° IPirogirarn 112 Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States 15 30 45 60 75 910 105 120 135, 150 165 IBO >180 Number ff Days per Year 117 results for future precipitation for the remainder of the Southeast. Models project that Gulf Coast states will tend to have less rainfall in winter and spring, compared with the more northern states in the region (see map on page 31 in the National Climate Change section). Because higher temperatures lead to more evaporation of moisture from soils and water loss ` from plants, the frequency, duration, and intensity of droughts are likely to continue to increase. The destructive potential of Atlantic hurricanes has p IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII r increased since 1970, correlated with an increase in sea surface temperature. A similar relationship with the frequency of landfallin hurricanes has not been q Y g established9s,314 -117 (see National Climate Change sec - tion for a discussion of past trends and future projec- tions). An increase in average summer wave heights Number ofDays � � along the U.S. Atlantic coastline since 1975 has been attributed to a progressive increase in hurricane 2 2 1 .10 . � '�,�,; power.112 ,311 The intensity of Atlantic hurricanes is N'OAA iN'e. f ae. likely to increase during this century with higher I- 1970s, the number of days per year in which the peak wind speeds, rainfall intensity, and storm surge Its below freezing has declined by four to seven Mays over 91,112 �utheast. Some areas, such as western Louisiana, have height and strength. Even with no increase in ore than 24 fewer freezing days. Climate models project hurricane intensity, coastal inundation and shoreline ming across the region, with the greatest increases in retreat would increase as sea -level rise accelerates, xpected in summer, and the number of very hot days greater rate than the average temperature. which is one of the most certain and most costly con - sequences of a warming climate .164 Projected increases in air and at temperatures will au, heat-related stresses for people, plants, and animall The warming projected for the Southeast during the next 50 to 100 years will create heat - related stress for people, agricultural crops, livestock, trees, transportation and other infrastructure, fish, and wildlife. The average temperature change is not as important for all of these sectors and natu- ral systems as the projected increase in maximum and minimum temperatures. Examples of potential impacts include: • Increased illness and death due to greater summer heat stress, unless effective adaptation measures are implemented .164 • Decline in forest growth and agricultural crop production due to the combined effects of ther- mal stress and declining soil moisture.39' • Increased buckling of pavement and railways. 217,222 • Decline in dissolved oxygen in stream, lakes, and shallow aquatic habitats leading to fish kills and loss of aquatic species diversity. • Decline in production of cattle and other rangeland livestock.391 Significant impacts on beef cattle occur at continuous temperatures in the 90 to 100 °F range, increasing in danger as the humidity level increases (see Agricul- ture sector).391 Poultry and swine are primarily raised in indoor operations, so warming would increase energy requirements 193 A reduction in very cold days is likely to reduce the loss of human life due to cold - related stress, while heat stress and related deaths in the sum- mer months are likely to increase. The reduction in cold - related deaths is not expected to offset the increase in heat - related deaths (see Human Health sector). Other effects of the projected increases in temperature include more frequent outbreaks of shellfish -borne diseases in coastal waters, altered distribution of native plants and animals, local loss of many threatened and endangered species, displacement of native species by invasive species, and more frequent and intense wildfires. somm Decreased a availability affect likely to economy as well a s its natural Decreased water availability due to increased temperature and longer periods of time between rainfall events, coupled with an increase in societal demand is very likely to affect many sectors of the Southeast's economy. The amount and timing of water available to natural systems is also affected by climate change, as well as by human response strategies such as increasing storage capacity (dams)142 and increasing acreage of irrigated crop- 192 The 2007 water shortage in the Atlanta re- gion created serious conflicts between three states, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (which operates the dam at Lake Lanier), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is charged with protecting endangered species. As humans seek to adapt to climate change by manipulating water resources, streamflow and biological diversity are likely to be reduced .142 During droughts, recharge of ground- water will decline as the temperature and spacing between rainfall events increase. Responding by increasing groundwater pumping will further stress or deplete aquifers and place increasing strain on surface water resources. Increasing evaporation and plant water loss rates alter the balance of runoff and groundwater recharge, which is likely to lead to saltwater intrusion into shallow aquifers in many parts of the Southeast. 142 In Atlanta and Athens, Georgia, 2007 was the second driest year on record. Among the numerous effects of the rainfall shortage were restrictions on water use in some cities and lowwater levels in area lakes. In the photo, a dock lies on dry land near Aqualand Marina on Lake Lanier (located northeast of Atlanta) in December 2007. 113 US. GIoball CI °Harm^ wean,::[° IPirogirarrr 114 Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States Sea-level rise and the likely increase in hurricane and associated storm, surge will b among consequences of climate fi„ An increase in average sea level of up to 2 feet or more and the likelihood of increased hurricane intensity and associated storm surge are likely to be among the most costly consequences of cli- mate change for this region (see National Climate Change section). As sea level rises, coastal shore- lines will retreat. Wetlands will be inundated and eroded away, and low -lying areas including some communities will be inundated more frequently — some permanently — by the advancing sea. Current buildings and infrastructure were not designed to withstand the intensity of the projected storm surge, which would cause catastrophic damage. As temperature increases and rainfall patterns change, Miles u.JSGS:,v, soil moisture and runoff to the coast are likely to be more variable. The salinity of estuaries, coastal wetlands, and tidal rivers is likely to increase in the southeastern coastal zone, thereby altering coastal ecosystems and displacing them farther inland if no barriers exist. More frequent storm surge flooding and permanent inundation of coastal ecosystems and communities is likely in some low -lying areas, particularly along the central Gulf Coast where the land surface is sinking."',39' Rapid acceleration in the rate of increase in sea -level rise could threaten a large portion of the Southeast coastal zone. The likelihood of a catastrophic increase in the rate of sea -level rise is dependent upon ice sheet response to warming, which is the subject of much scientific uncertainty (see Global Climate Change section)." Such rapid rise in sea level is likely to result in the destruction of barrier islands and wetlands. 257,390 Compared to the present coastal situation, for which vulnerability is quite high, an increase in hurricane intensity will further affect low -lying coastal ecosystems and coastal communi- ties along the Gulf and South Atlantic coastal margin. An increase in intensity is very likely to increase inland and coastal flooding, coastal erosion rates, wind damage to coastal forests, and wetland loss. Major hurricanes also pose LL a severe risk to people, personal property, and public infrastructure in the Southeast, and this risk is likely to be exacerbated........ Hurricanes have their greatest impact at the coastal mar- gin where they make landfall, causing storm surge, severe beach erosion, inland flooding, and wind - related casualties for both cultural and natural resources. Some of these impacts extend farther inland, affecting larger areas. Recent examples of societal vulnerability to severe hurricanes include Katrina and Rita in 2005, which were responsible for the loss of more than 1,800 lives and the net loss of 217 square miles of low -lying coastal marshes and barrier islands in southern Louisiana.390,396 somm fW Q 1910 11WO *30 1 O 1950 V960 1970 IM 1990, 2000 210 Year rd OA A/ NIC. DC.3 r7 major throughout the region, causing to ecosystems r to the benefits they provide to people. I Ecological systems provide numerous important services that have high economic and cultural value in the Southeast. Ecological effects cascade among both living and physical systems, as illustrated in the following examples of ecologi- cal disturbances that result in abrupt responses, as opposed to gradual and proportional responses to warming: • The sudden loss of coastal landforms that serve as a storm - surge barrier for natural resources and as a homeland for coastal communities (such as in a major hurricane). 154,390 • An increase in sea level can have no apparent effect until an elevation is reached that allows widespread, rapid salt- water intrusion into coastal forests and freshwater aqui- fers. 398 • Lower soil moisture and higher temperatures leading to in- tense wildfires or pest outbreaks (such as the southern pine beetle) in southeastern forests;399 intense droughts leading to the drying of lakes, ponds, and wetlands; and the local or global extinction of riparian and aquatic specie S.141 Flooding damage in Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina up 115 US. GIoball CI °Harm^ wean,::[° IPirogirarrr • A precipitous decline of wetland- dependent coastal fish and shellfish populations due to the rapid loss of coastal marsh."' Quality of life will be affected by increasing heat stress, water scarcity, severe weather events, and availability of insura i at-risk Over the past century, the southeastern "sunbelt" has attracted people, industry, and investment. The Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States population of Florida more than doubled during the past three decades, and growth rates in most other southeastern states were in the range of 45 to 75 percent (see population map, page 55). Future population growth and the quality of life for exist- ing residents is likely to be affected by the many challenges associated with climate change, such as reduced insurance availability, increased insurance cost, and increases in water scarcity, sea -level rise, extreme weather events, and heat stress. Some of these problems, such as increasing heat and declin- ing air quality, will be especially acute in cities. 116 Water Resouir °ceem Changes in the water cycle, which are consistent with the warming observed over the past several decades, include: • changes in precipitation patterns and intensity • changes in the incidence of drought • widespread melting of snow and ice • increasing atmospheric water vapor • increasing evaporation • increasing water temperatures • reductions in lake and river ice • changes in soil moisture and runoff For the future, marked regional differences are projected, with increases in annual precipitation, runoff, and soil moisture in much of the Midwest and Northeast, and declines in much of the West, especially the Southwest. Skagit River and surrounding mountains in the Northwest The impacts of climate change include too little wa- ter in some places, too much water in other places, and degraded water quality. Some locations are ex- pected to be subject to all of these conditions during different times of the year. Water cycle changes are expected to continue and to adversely affect energy production and use, human health, transportation, agriculture, and ecosystems (see table on page 50).14' (� °� :Illiiiiinau�t(: � r�:Iiiau unuilp'c� IIii au� a u�Illrr(M�(J a u�Illt(:�ir(NJ, airuid ii III III r::ouiriit;iiiuuriiuurr to aulllt;(rur, t;llu aut;(rur c r::lie, fftr ::t;iiiouruul„ lmr, irrr wlmiri, auuriid how ui''nuuclr aut;rrur is au auiiilllauJll Iii 16ur aullllll guerre. Substantial changes to the water cycle are expected as the planet warms because the movement of water in the atmosphere and oceans is one of the primary mechanisms for the redistribution of heat around the world. Evidence is mounting that human - induced climate change is already altering many of the exist- ing patterns of precipitation in the United States, including when, where, how much, and what kind of precipitation falls .61,14' A warmer climate increases evaporation of water from land and sea, and allows more moisture to be held in the atmosphere. For ev- ery PF rise in temperature, the water holding capac- ity of the atmosphere increases by about 4 percent .49 41 V; US. GIoball CI °Harm^ esear,::[° IPirogirarn Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States Projected Changes in the Water Cycle W MI rilr1r'ii rr ( .:rwr rflfid ric Hnto,ri nr % focet), 14ntfinrlkAP ffiit f""r nrlIf'dio,inrz MP nnir The water cycle exhibits many changes as the Earth warms. Wet and dry areas respond differently. NIC)AA /Nc::r.X: In addition, changes in atmospheric circulation will tend to move storm tracks northward with the result that dry areas will become drier and wet areas wetter. Hence, the and Southwest is projected to experience longer and more severe droughts from the combination of increased evaporation and reductions in precipitation.' 42 Changes in Snowfall Contributions to Wintertime Precipitation 1949 to 2005 Less snow',,,'', .. More snow Trends in winter snow -to -total precipitation ratio from 1949 to 2005. Red circles indicate less snow, while blue squares indicate more snow. Large circles and squares indicate the most significant trend S.'4' Areas south of 37 °N latitude were excluded from the analysis because most of that area receives little snowfall. White areas above that line have inadequate data for this analysis. The additional atmospheric moisture contributes to more overall precipita- tion in some areas, especially in much of the Northeast, Midwest, and Alas- ka. Over the past 50 years, precipita- tion and streamflow have increased in much of the Northeast and Midwest, with a reduction in drought duration and severity. Much of the South- east and West has had reductions in precipitation and increases in drought severity and duration, especially in the Southwest. In most areas of the country, the frac- tion of precipitation falling as rain versus snow has increased during the last 50 years. Despite this general shift from snow to rain, snowfalls ater° II'' �esouir °ceem Observed Drought Trends 1958 to 2007 lIn r a ing drought Decreasing r ught �O44 YS4Vrc4pti� rc4yi�r�� Trends in end -of- summer drought as measured by the Palmer Drought Severity Index from 1958 to 2007 in each of 344 U.S. climate divisions.14' Hatching indicates significant trends. 43 v � alp alp uuiu' ,�: mi n 111 '0111 11, 11111 ' One to four week earlier peak streamflow due to earlier warming- driven snowmelt Earlier West and Northeast Proportion of precipitation falling as snow Decreasing West and Northeast Duration and extent of snow cover Decreasing Most of the United States Mountain snow water equivalent Decreasing West Annual precipitation Increasing Most of the United States Annual precipitation Decreasing Southwest Frequency of heavy precipitation events Increasing Most of the United States Colorado and Columbia River Runoff and streamflow Decreasing Basins Streamflow Increasing Most of East Amount of ice in mountain glaciers Decreasing U.S. western mountains, Alaska Water temperature of lakes and streams Increasing Most of the United States Ice cover on lakes and rivers Decreasing Great Lakes and Northeast Periods of drought Increasing Parts of West and East Salinization of surface waters Increasing Florida, Louisiana Widespread thawing of permafrost Increasing Alaska Observed Drought Trends 1958 to 2007 lIn r a ing drought Decreasing r ught �O44 YS4Vrc4pti� rc4yi�r�� Trends in end -of- summer drought as measured by the Palmer Drought Severity Index from 1958 to 2007 in each of 344 U.S. climate divisions.14' Hatching indicates significant trends. 43 US. GIoball CI °Harm^ eseairm::[° IPirogirarn 44 along the downwind coasts of the Great Lakes have increased. Factors contributing to this increase include reduced ice cover due to warming, which lengthens the period of open water. In addition, cold air moving over rela- tively warm, open lake water induces strong evaporation, often causing heavy lake - effect snow. Heavy snowfall and snowstorm fre- quency have increased in many northern parts of the United States. In the South however, where temperatures are already marginal for heavy snowfall, climate warming has led to a reduction in heavy snowfall and snowstorm frequency. These trends suggest a northward shift in snowstorm occurrence .61 Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States Increases in the Number of Days with Very Heavy Precipitation (1958 to 2007) iinurea,ses in Annual Number of Day III °�IIIoo(1111 II�II�1111 ( "111111ro��111�'llhit� �u�llr(n Illlillllr���nlll to �I coIllmrm Illmrmo11 coII "mrmlllmrmollrll airld1 Illmrmo11 0 10% 11-20% 21-30% 31 .40,x, 41 - %)'% 51-60% firlt(:NIIIS(r 'as rf ^Ir)('IIIoIIII "III�1 airld crasoirlai U..)lsclatecl furorrr Guroir.•,rrrari e�t crl,. 1''' rll�'fIkrf���llll '� Ilit�� �t��lll�� IIII "III att(l�Ilrlllrlll (�:111allll"III)((� , �Illrllld" The map shows the percentage increases in the average number r�lllllll "III'��� fP��rf���l��IIP " "rifP��r IIP " "ri��IlrfP��r f���l��IIII "Illf���lf�P��rllll "III ���IIr����f�P��rr "a of days with very heavy precipitation (defined as the heaviest I percent of all events) from 1958 to 2007 for each region. There IIIII"IIIto I'7iitlr tlr tlNrlllt IIItlii loIllrlll)('t'rlr, are clear trends toward more days with very heavy precipitation l'fott(PNlr fair p(PNlrlllor "ally IIIIIII "Ill (PA (PNPNlll"Ill ). for the nation as a whole, and particularly in the Northeast and Midwest. While it sounds counterintuitive, a warmer world produces both wetter and drier conditions. Even though total global precipitation increases, the regional and seasonal distribution of precipitation changes, and more precipitation comes in heavier rains (which can cause flooding) rather than light events. In the past century, averaged over the United States, total precipitation has increased by about 7 percent, while the heaviest 1 percent of rain events increased by nearly 20 percent.68 This has been especially noteworthy in the Northeast, where the annual number of days with very heavy precipi- tation has increased most in the past 50 years, as shown in the adjacent figure. Flooding often occurs when heavy precipitation persists for weeks to months in large river basins. Such extended periods of heavy precipitation have also been increasing over the past century, most notably in the past two to three decades in the United States .112 Observations also show that over the past several decades, extended dry periods have become more frequent in parts of the United States, especially the Southwest and the eastern United States .146,147 Longer periods between rainfalls, combined with higher air temperatures, dry out soils and vegeta- tion, causing drought. For the future, precipitation intensity is projected to increase everywhere, with the largest increases occurring in areas in which average precipitation increases the most. For example, the Midwest and Northeast, where total precipitation is expected to increase the most, would also experience the largest increases in heavy precipitation events. The number of dry days between precipitation events is also projected to increase, especially in the more and areas. Mid - continental areas and the Southwest are particularly threatened by future drought. The magnitude of the projected changes in extremes is expected to be greater than changes in averages, and hence detectable sooner .49,61,90,142,148 ur rr';uiiilll''riiit;autaii�auuiu auuiriid1 uruuuiriioff airv� liiil1ccdII to iii ourulc rr(:M� (:� iii uurul t;llh�r (:� III oirt;llh�r (m t; �uunuld C kl (� t; iii uurul iii ourult;(Nrr a irul d IIp uri uruig, airuld d1k:�curvm� (� iiiuurul t;llhmr c% t�", (''r llp(''rcivaullllll t;llmr „ o ut;llhr (r t;, iuuurui IIp uri uruig a iruld tru ur. ur. rNir. Runoff, which accumulates as streamflow, is the amount of precipitation that is not evaporated, stored as snowpack or soil moisture, or filtered down to groundwater. The proportion of precipitation that runs off is determined by a variety of factors includ- ing temperature, wind speed, humidity, solar intensity at the ground, vegetation, and soil moisture. While runoff generally tracks precipitation, increases and decreases in precipitation do not necessarily lead to equal increases and decreases in runoff. For ex- Water II'' tesouir °ceem Projected Changes in Annual Runoff -20, ..rub - 2 5 11D �0 40 Percent Milly et 01 . Projected changes in median runoff for 2041 -2060, relative to a 1901 -1970 baseline, are mapped by water - resource region. Colors indicate percentage changes in runoff. Hatched areas indicate greater confidence due to strong agreement among model projections. White areas indicate divergence among model projections. Results are based on emissions in between the lower and higher emissions scenarios 91 ample, droughts cause soil moisture reduc- tions that can reduce expected runoff until soil moisture is replenished. Conversely, water -sat- urated soils can generate floods with only moderate additional precipitation. During the last century, consistent increases in precipitation have been found in the Midwest and Northeast along with increased runoff. 149,110 Climate models consistently project that the East will experience increased run- off, while there will be substantial declines in the interior West, especially the Southwest. Projections for runoff in California and other parts of the West also show reductions, although less than in the interior West. In short, wet areas are projected to get wetter and dry areas drier. Climate models also consistently project heat - related summer soil moisture reductions in the middle of the continent' 11,142,146,149 lurid au�ur(� as wli(:Nir(:�r sirio pacic (91110 ur. iii ounulau�t;(� s, t; Ilhm� t;iii ur. iii uurull ' ��at' ur� ru uu�ul��aft' III coirultaii uurul uu(� to slflft to (M�urlll iiie ur iii uurul t;llh�mr IIp uri uruig airi(Jflows will Ill rr Ilya rr ir iii uunui Ilautrr truue°rlmiin(rr. Large portions of the West and some ar- eas in the Northeast rely on snowpack as a natural reservoir to hold winter precipita- tion until it later runs off as streamflow in spring, summer, and fall. Over the last 50 �ry a rie years, there have been widespread temperature - related reductions in snowpack in the West, with the largest reductions occurring in lower elevation mountains in the Northwest and California where snowfall occurs at temperatures close to the freez- ing point .142,"' The Northeast has also experienced snowpack reductions during a similar period. Observations indicate a transition to more rain and less snow in both the West and Northeast in the last 50 years. 143,154-156 Runoff in snowmelt- dominated areas is occurring up to 20 days earlier in the West, and up to 14 days earlier in the Northeast 151,151 Fu- ture projections for most snowmelt- dominated ba- sins in the West consistently indicate earlier spring Simulated Changes in Annual Runoff Pattern Jaur't Feb kiair Afar 1 ,,i.yi Jl,uir JLA Aug Sep Oct dery Dec 5 �w'ft';am'tl1; % "ti C::Fiu ist�aris�tri et aI,. General schematic of changes in the annual pattern of runoff for snowmelt - dominated streams. Compared to the historical pattern, runoff peak is projected to shift to earlier in the spring and late summer flows are expected to be lower. The above example is forthe Green River, which is part of the Colorado River watershed. 45 US. Globall Change e wear,::[° IPirogirarr 46 Trends in Peak Streamflow Timing Observed Tr nds 1948 to 202 q x&200 saw 0 1,0,46d Wboo -100 ealft, - 20d alt fid 00" 20" 240' 260, Projected Trends by 2080, to 2099 200, 220` 240" 260" Stewart et al 157 Top map shows changes in runoff timing in snowmelt- driven streams from 1948 to 2002 with red circles indicating earlier runoff, and blue circles indicating later runoff. Bottom map shows projected changes in snowmelt- driven streams by 2080 -2099, compared to 1951 -1980, under a higher emissions scenario 91 runoff, in some cases up to 60 days earlier. 157,159 For the Northeast, projections indicate spring runoff will advance by up to 14 days .151 Earlier runoff produces lower late - summer streamflows, which stress human and environmental systems through less water availability and higher water tempera - tures.145 Scientific analyses to determine the causes of recent changes in snowpack, runoff timing, and increased winter temperatures have attributed these changes to human - caused climate change .14,160,161 Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States Srwurlauu: aut;rwur qua1ity auuriur°1111 giirwarwuuuiur °1111 aut;rwur qtjiaiinutity wflli Ill rw afft�ct( :NJ111 by au r: ulliauuriilgiiiuuriug r:n111iiiinaut;r . Changes in water quality Increased air temperatures lead to higher water temperatures, which have already been detected in many streams, especially during low -flow periods. In lakes and reservoirs, higher water temperatures lead to longer periods of summer stratification (when surface and bottom waters do not mix). Dissolved oxygen is reduced in lakes, reservoirs, and rivers at higher temperatures. Oxygen is an essential resource for many living things, and its availability is reduced at higher temperatures both because the amount that can be dissolved in water is lower and because respiration rates of living things are higher. Low oxygen stresses aquatic animals such as coldwater fish and the insects and crustaceans on which they feed .14' Lower oxygen levels also decrease the self - purification capabili- ties of rivers. The negative effects of water pollution, includ- ing sediments, nitrogen from agriculture, disease pathogens, pesticides, herbicides, salt, and ther- mal pollution, will be amplified by observed and projected increases in precipitation intensity and longer periods when streamflows are 10w.146 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency expects the number of waterways considered "impaired" by water pollution to increase .16' Heavy downpours lead to increased sediment in runoff and outbreaks of waterborne diseases .161,164 Increases in pollution carried to lakes, estuaries, and the coastal ocean, especially when coupled with increased tempera- ture, can result in blooms of harmful algae and bacteria. However, pollution has the potential of being diluted in regions that experience increased streamflow. Water - quality changes during the last century were probably due to causes other than climate change, primarily changes in pollutants .149 Changes in groundwater Many parts of the United States are heavily de- pendent on groundwater for drinking, residential, and agricultural water supplies .164 How climate change will affect groundwater is not well known, -, 6N r� o rye, 36O eadial, 101 1 5d1 War . 01 2,545d eaMw 16 $5,25d�iww y 40 tD 154FA0 oaft, 0 25,45dIWIN h °D G � 1, 200, 220` 240" 260" Stewart et al 157 Top map shows changes in runoff timing in snowmelt- driven streams from 1948 to 2002 with red circles indicating earlier runoff, and blue circles indicating later runoff. Bottom map shows projected changes in snowmelt- driven streams by 2080 -2099, compared to 1951 -1980, under a higher emissions scenario 91 runoff, in some cases up to 60 days earlier. 157,159 For the Northeast, projections indicate spring runoff will advance by up to 14 days .151 Earlier runoff produces lower late - summer streamflows, which stress human and environmental systems through less water availability and higher water tempera - tures.145 Scientific analyses to determine the causes of recent changes in snowpack, runoff timing, and increased winter temperatures have attributed these changes to human - caused climate change .14,160,161 Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States Srwurlauu: aut;rwur qua1ity auuriur°1111 giirwarwuuuiur °1111 aut;rwur qtjiaiinutity wflli Ill rw afft�ct( :NJ111 by au r: ulliauuriilgiiiuuriug r:n111iiiinaut;r . Changes in water quality Increased air temperatures lead to higher water temperatures, which have already been detected in many streams, especially during low -flow periods. In lakes and reservoirs, higher water temperatures lead to longer periods of summer stratification (when surface and bottom waters do not mix). Dissolved oxygen is reduced in lakes, reservoirs, and rivers at higher temperatures. Oxygen is an essential resource for many living things, and its availability is reduced at higher temperatures both because the amount that can be dissolved in water is lower and because respiration rates of living things are higher. Low oxygen stresses aquatic animals such as coldwater fish and the insects and crustaceans on which they feed .14' Lower oxygen levels also decrease the self - purification capabili- ties of rivers. The negative effects of water pollution, includ- ing sediments, nitrogen from agriculture, disease pathogens, pesticides, herbicides, salt, and ther- mal pollution, will be amplified by observed and projected increases in precipitation intensity and longer periods when streamflows are 10w.146 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency expects the number of waterways considered "impaired" by water pollution to increase .16' Heavy downpours lead to increased sediment in runoff and outbreaks of waterborne diseases .161,164 Increases in pollution carried to lakes, estuaries, and the coastal ocean, especially when coupled with increased tempera- ture, can result in blooms of harmful algae and bacteria. However, pollution has the potential of being diluted in regions that experience increased streamflow. Water - quality changes during the last century were probably due to causes other than climate change, primarily changes in pollutants .149 Changes in groundwater Many parts of the United States are heavily de- pendent on groundwater for drinking, residential, and agricultural water supplies .164 How climate change will affect groundwater is not well known, Heavy rain can cause sediments to become suspended in water, reducing its quality, as seen in the brown swath above in New York City's Ashokan reservoir following Hurricane Floyd in September 1999. but increased water demands by society in regions that already rely on groundwater will clearly stress this resource, which is often drawn down faster than it can be recharged.164 In many locations, groundwater is closely connected to surface water and thus trends in surface water supplies over time affect groundwater. Changes in the water cycle that reduce precipitation or increase evaporation and runoff would reduce the amount of water avail- able for recharge. Changes in vegetation and soils that occur as temperature changes or due to fire or pest outbreaks are also likely to affect recharge by altering evaporation and infiltration rates. More frequent and larger floods are likely to increase groundwater recharge in semi -arid and and areas, Water II'' tesouir °ceem where most recharge occurs through dry stream - beds after heavy rainfalls and floods 141 Sea -level rise is expected to increase saltwater intrusion into coastal freshwater aquifers, making some unusable without desalination 146 Increased evaporation or reduced recharge into coastal aquifers exacerbates saltwater intrusion. Shallow groundwater aquifers that exchange water with streams are likely to be the most sensitive part of the groundwater system to climate change. Small reductions in groundwater levels can lead to large reductions in streamflow and increases in ground- water levels can increase streamflow.165 Further, the interface between streams and groundwater is an important site for pollution removal by microor- ganisms. Their activity will change in response to increased temperature and increased or decreased streamflow as climate changes, and this will affect water quality. Like water quality, research on the impacts of climate change on groundwater has been minimal 149 t° ° :Illiiiinaut:(r (:Iii aiinqg iii III III IIpIiac(r a udkliiit;ioiriiaulll uuurd1k::Nru� oiru� au�Illur(� au�(l t:ur(� ss( :NJ1 aut:(rrr t:(rins. In many places, the nation's water systems are al- ready taxed due to aging infrastructure, population increases, and competition among water needs for Lake Superior Summer Air and Water Temperatures 1979 to 2006 I 918O 1985 19910 11199 5 201010 2005 Year Austin and C:o1rnan166 The recent large jump in summer water temperature is related to the recent large reduction in ice cover (see Midwest region). farming, municipalities, hydropower, recre- ation, and ecosystems .167-169 Climate change will add another factor to existing water management challenges, thus increasing vulnerability.170 The U.S. Bureau of Recla- mation has identified many areas in the West that are already at risk for serious conflict over water, even in the absence of climate change 171 (see figure next page). Adapting to gradual changes, such as changes in average amounts of precipitation, is less difficult than adapting to changes in extremes. Where extreme events, such as droughts or floods, become more intense or more frequent with climate change, the eco- nomic and social costs of these events will increase. 172 Water systems have life spans of many years and are designed with spare 47 US. Globall Change e esean,::[° IPirogirarn 48 Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States capacity. These systems are thus able to cope with small changes in average conditions.17' Water resource planning today considers a broad range of stresses and hence adaptation to climate change will be one factor among many in deciding what actions will be taken to minimize vulnerability .172 -1.4 Damage to the city water system in Asheville, North Carolina, due to heavy rain in 2004. Potential Water Supply Conflicts by 2025 +Conffirp, PoenglaI rHighly L&Wy L)SI.. fR171 The map shows regions in the West where water supply conflicts are likely to occur by 2025 based on a combination of factors including population trends and potential endangered species' needs for water. The red zones are where the conflicts are most likely to occur. This analysis does not factor in the effects of climate change, which is expected to exacerbate many of these already- identified issues. "' Existing, water disputes across the country Many locations in the United States are already undergoing water stress. The Great Lakes states are establishing an interstate compact to protect against reductions in lake levels and potential water exports. Georgia, Alabama, and Florida are in a dispute over water for drinking, recreation, farming, environmental purposes, and hydropower in the Apalachicola— Chatta- hoochee —Flint River system.l'," The State Water Project in California is facing a variety of problems in the Sacra- mento Delta, including endangered species, saltwater intrusion, and potential loss of islands due to flood- or earthquake- caused levee failure S.111-112 A dispute over endan- gered fish in the Rio Grande has been on- going for many years 183 The Klamath River in Oregon and California has been the location of a multi -year disagreement over native fish, hydropower, and farming lsa,ls. The Colorado River has been the site of numerous interstate quarrels over the last century.l16,117 Large, unquantified Native American water rights challenge existing uses in the West (see Southwest region)."' By changing the existing patterns of precipitation and runoff, climate change will add another stress to existing problems. Changing, water detriands Water demands are expected to change with in- creased temperatures. Evaporation is projected to increase over most of the United States as tempera- tures rise. Higher temperatures and longer dry peri- ods are expected to lead to increased water demand for irrigation. This may be partially offset by more efficient use of water by plants due to rising atmo- spheric carbon dioxide. Higher temperatures are projected to increase cooling water withdrawals by electrical generating stations. In addition, greater cooling requirements in summer will increase elec- tricity use, which in turn will require more cooling water for power plants. Industrial and municipal demands are expected to increase slightly. 146 II ° ° °Ilhm� IIpast c(Ninn tuiiry is no II loiru�g(Nir urv�au� oirui,au�lll ik� )gui iii dk� to autc,ir uin,a ini, in(: :ruriut. Water planning and management have been based on historical fluctuations in records of stream flows, lake levels, precipitation, temperature, and water demands. All aspects of water management including reservoir sizing, reservoir flood operations, maximum urban stormwater runoff amounts, and projected water demands have been based on these records. Water managers have proven adept at balancing supplies and demand through the significant climate variability of the past century. 14' Because climate change will significantly modify many aspects of the water cycle, the assumption of an unchanging climate is no longer appropriate for many aspects of water planning. Past assumptions derived from the historical record about supply and demand will need to be revisited for existing and proposed water projects. 142,151,174 Drought studies that consider the past 1,200 years indicate that in the West, the last Water II'' �esrluir °ceem century was significantly wetter than most other centuries. Multi - decade "megadroughts" in the years 900 to 1300 were substantially worse than the worst droughts of the last century, including the Dust Bowl era. The causes of these events are only partially known; if they were to reoccur, they would clearly stress water management, even in the absence of climate change (see figure below). 97,149,189 The intersection of substantial changes in the water cycle with multiple stresses such as population growth and competition for water supplies means that water planning will be doubly challenging. The ability to modify operational rules and water allocations is likely to be critical for the protection of infrastructure, for public safety, to ensure reli- ability of water delivery, and to protect the environ- ment. There are, however, many institutional and legal barriers to such changes in both the short and long term.190 Four examples: • The allocation of the water in many interstate rivers is governed by compacts, international treaties, federal laws, court decrees, and other agreements that are difficult to modify. Reservoir operations are governed by "rule curves" that require a certain amount of space to be saved in a reservoir at certain times of Long Term Aridity Changes in the West S a 4 VOY I 0 $00 91 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1600 1600 7700 7300 1 0O 2 Year Cook et € l 189 The black line shows the percentage of the area affected by drought (Palmer Drought Severity Index less than —1) in the West over the past 1,200 years. The red line indicates the average drought area in the years 900 to 1300. The blue horizontal line in the yellow box indicates the average during the period from 1900 to 2000, illustrating that the most recent period, during which population and water infrastructure grew rapidly in the West, was wetter than the long -term average (thin horizontal black line).189 Droughts shown in the period 1100 -1300 significantly exceed those that have occurred over the past 100 years. 49 U.S. GIoball CI °Harm^ Resean,::h lPirogirarn 50 year to capture apotential flood. Devel- oped by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers based on historical flood data, many of these rule curves have never been modified, and modifications might require Environmental Impact Statements .151 Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States In most parts of the West, water is allocated based on a "first in time means first in right" system, and because agriculture was developed before cities were established, large volumes of water typically are allocated to agriculture. Transferring agricultural rights to municipali- ties, even for short periods during drought, can involve substantial expense and time IMand can be socially divisive. Heavy downpours increase incidence of waterborne dis- Human Health ease and floods, resulting in potential hazards to human life and health.1 ' Hydropower production is reduced due to low flows in Energy Supply some regions. Power generation is reduced in fossil fuel and Use and nuclear plants due to increased water temperatures and reduced cooling water availability.191 Floods and droughts disrupt transportation. Heavy down - Transportation pours affect harbor infrastructure and inland waterways. Declining Great Lakes levels reduce freight capacity.1' Agriculture and Intense precipitation can delay spring planting and damage Forests crops. Earlier spring snowmelt leads to increased number of forest fires.1 ' Ecosystems Coldwater fish threatened by rising water temperatures Some warmwater fish will expand ranges. Conserving water does not neces- sarily lead to a right to that saved water, thus creating a disincentive for conservation. Total U.S. water diversions peaked in the 1980s, which implies that expand- ing supplies in many areas to meet new needs are unlikely to be a viable option, especially in and areas likely to experi- ence less precipitation. However, over the last 30 years, per capita water use has decreased significantly (due, for example, to more efficient technologies such as drip irrigation) and it is antici- pated that per capita use will continue to decrease, thus easing stress .149 of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Irinking water and wastewater treatment, is beginning to altei e effects of climate change — sea -level rise, higher temperatur changing precipitation patterns — on the city's water systems DEP is evaluating climate change projections, impacts, indica !eies. begun to address these issues by defining risks using probabilistic tential adaptations that relate to operations /management, infrasti is examining the feasibility of relocating critical control systems t< or to higher ground, building flood walls, and modifying design cr processes. Is of the overall effort include updating the existing !ctions and identifying additional monitoring station system for reporting the impacts of extreme weath the immediate future, DEP will eval control plants that are scheduled ,f Matching photographs taken 18 months apart during the most serious period of recent drought show a significant decrease in Lake Powell. Water II'' �esouir °ceem The Colorado River system supplies water to over 30 million people in the Southwest including Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Denver. Reservoirs in the system, including the giant lakes Mead and Powell, were nearly full in 1999, with almost four times the annual flow of the river stored. By 2007, the system had lost approximately half of that storage after enduring -' the worst drought in 100 years of record f keeping.29 Runoff was reduced due to low winter precipitation, and warm, dry, and windy spring seasons that substantially reduced snowpack. Numerous studies over the last 30 years have indicated that the river is likely to experience reductions in runoff due to climate change. In addition, diversions from the river to meet the needs of cities and agriculture are approaching its average flow. Under current conditions, even without climate change, large year -to -year fluctuations in reservoir storage are possible. 112 If reductions in flow projected to accompany global climate change occur, water managers will be challenged to satisfy all existing demands, let alone the increasing demands of a rapidly growing population.16'.'9s Efforts are underway to address these challenges. In 2005, the Department of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation began a process to formalize operating rules for lakes Mead and Powell during times of low flows and to apportion limited water among the states.' 96 Change in Water Volume of Lakes Mead and Powell 1935 1940 1145 1 10 119135! 1,9W 190 1970 1976 IM) 1985 1990 °I!' 5 2(K 2t)(M wOoRyN L)SI... rR171 The filling of Lake Mead (green) was initiated in 1935, and that of Lake Powell (blue) in 1963. In 1999, the lakes were nearly full, but by 2007, the lakes had lost nearly half of their storage water after the worst drought in 100 years. 51 US. GIoball CI °Harm^ esear,::h lPirogirarn Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States Water and energy are tightly interconnected; water systems use large amounts of energy, and energy systems use large amounts of water. Both are expected to be under increasing pressure in the future and both will be affected by a changing climate. In the energy sector, i water is used directly for hydropower, and cooling water is critical for ;ice nearly all other forms of electrical power generation. Withdrawals , �an, of freshwater used to cool power plants that use heat to generate electricity are very large, nearly equaling the water withdrawn for - AiKr, v irrigation. Water consumption by power plants is about 20 percent of Oa all non - agricultural uses, or half that of all domestic use.' 97 In the water sector, two very unusual attributes of water, significant weight due to its relatively high density, and high heat capacity, make water use energy intensive. Large amounts of energy are needed for pumping, heating, and treating drinking water and wastewater. Water supply and treatment consumes roughly 4 percent of the nation's power supply, and electricity accounts for about 75 percent of the cost of municipal water processing and transport. In California, 30 percent of all non -power plant natural gas is used for water - related activities.198,'99 The energy required to provide water depends on its source (groundwater, surface water, desalinated water, treated wastewater, or recycled water), the distance the water is conveyed, the amount of water moved, and the local topography. Surface water often requires more treatment than groundwater. Desalination requires large amounts of energy to produce freshwater. Treated wastewater and recycled water (used primarily for agriculture and industry) require energy for treatment, but little energy for supply and conveyance. Conserving water has the dual benefit of conserving energy and potentially reducing greenhouse gas emissions if fossil fuels are the predominant source of that energy. Water and energy are intimately connected. Water is used by the power generation sector for cooling, and energy is used by the water sector for pumping, drinking water treatment, and wastewater treatment. Without energy, there would be limited water distribution, and without water, there would be limited energy production. 52 Recent US Climate Change and Hydrology Literature Applicable to US Army Corps of Engineers Missions USACE o ul CLIMATE PREPAREDNESS ® AND RESILIENCE REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGiE porm Approved I OMB No, 0104-01,88 ho publit reporfinig burden for'Viis wiguclior of oroiwmjitiori is, Lo,;jrvioiiwj io avakra( ,)e I lianir pw' resporn;e,, indulng tho Umo for fieviowirig mllrrwvli� ri5. Smarchirrg exiVirly daLa soishum gaUvrinU wW rnovilhailung Ox, ckft ne"Amd, and compipUng "i rcoyut%,knq the mli*01on of 1pfarinaflon. &9nd rommehis Gg'w*r1q1his burden e5flirrate of, ally Wber asix!"t ryflhi,3 coileown including sijigge-tinns fair redveing tilin burden, W the., DepaAment of Defensr•, EMMILANO Finvdic( Directurata (0704-01k8) RepanklrniJs 9hpuld bia a,varn lhn8 of law, ne, poisinin skizilt be subjuc.11 tuariy panuffy lrx F.Airig to compi4y wiffi audWrAorl durftirialrun N It dous nul chsWay ii cumunity valid OMB,.x3n1rul number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION. 1, REPORT DATE (00 MM-YYYY) 2, REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From To) 09-,01-2015 CivilWorks Tedinilcal Series 1 2014-21015 4, TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a., CONTRACT NUMBER Ric,wit US Chtwo, < 'h'ange and Hydrology Litcrati.irc Applicabliv to I JS A lny Corjl� (it" W91 2HQ-I 0-D-00(4 Engincel" Nlissions - South AllanfiC-(julf Rcgjon 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6, AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER - Kathleen D. Whae, Phl), PE, Insninite let, Watu, Resources - US, ktlTly COt:ps of "TASK' -,licifi-cy R. Arnivid, PhD, lnstkuw bor Walcr Rcsomices - USAriny Cofps of Fug�nccrs 5e. NUMBER - Support ftom CDNI Sjuith 147 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERPORMING ORGANIZATION NAli AND ADORFSS(F-S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Dii ectoi afte (if 0vill Works REPORT NUMBER t..JS Arrny(''oijis ofF 'niginecrs Waqlfington, DC CWTS-20,15-03 9, SPONSORINGIMONITORING AGENCY NAli AND ADDRESS(F5) 10. SPONSORIMONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) Institute for Water Resources 7701 Tickgr-aph Road (Casicy Building) Alcxandda, Vugpirmi 22315 11. SPONSORIMONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12, DISTRIBUTIONIAVAIIILABILITYSTATEMF-NT AvaillaMc through National Techrtucal rnformation Service, Operafions Division 52,45 Port, Royal Road Springfield, VA 221,61 13, SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14, ABSTRACT TO help the US Jinn Corps of Lngineers, (t USA staff in m,eefing the requireNnems of die 2W 1 and 20 4 policy Matements on c1hrilate charigg adaptafion by the Assistant Secretary of the Artiny fim, Civd Works,, the USACE Clin-tate Cliange Adiaptation Mans, and agency policy and guidance, INS report Iwegolts con 6,q(; and of the current chn,wte change scwnve with specific attention to USA( 1"inissions wid ropoll, rocused on flic pcgion, is paricxNt scrics ofIwcnlyow (211rcgional clivnizitic synilicsesprepariud by flic USACH utlider flic leactership Of the RIUSP011SC 1.0 ChlllatC Change PrOgrall] M the SCMC Of 2-digit l lydR ologic Unk,Code (I IUC) Water Resourccs Regmis, across the continental United States, Alaska, Ilawkid,and Puerto Rico. Each of these regional reports sutuniarize ob%erved and projected cl i1nareand hydrotogicall patwrns, cited all tv'j"niaAflio pvcr-I'vVie" Qd literawre aild auihoritatiive nakional and i,qioiial repoos, mid cbaraocrixv climate thReats to, USACE btfsin ," linus. 15. SUBJECT TERMS Sowfi Aii (m If Rvgion 0,11surwitt fly'drology Business 1"irw wuler Rewulces Rcgimf 0.1 Pifojccfcd (716nate Ckmane Vuhwrabihty 0h.wrved Chmate Ilrci,ecled I lydrotogy, Regional Chniate Syrathesils 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF; 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 18. NUMBER OF 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON a., REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE PAGES. ......... "I'l""I'll""I'llll,",-""""""",'ll""I'll""I'll",,'ll""I'll,'ll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll",'ll""II-111-11,111,111,111,1111,'ll""I U I'll U 1) 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER fin0vii C0<109 Standard Form zue lRev, am) Fru9cribed by ANSI Std 739,18 Adobe Pinfieg9minai 7.0 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf CLIMATE CHANGE AND HYDROLOGY LITERATURE SYNTHESIS FOR THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MISSIONS IN THE UNITED STATES SOUTH ATLANTIC -GULF REGION 03 January 9, 2015 CDM Smith Contract 4 W912HQ -10 -D -0004, Task Order 147 Edited by: Kathleen D. White PhD, PE, Institute for Water Resources - US Army Corps of Engineers Jeffrey R. Arnold, PhD, Institute for Water Resources - US Army Corps of Engineers Prepared by: Chris Kurtz, PE, CDM Smith Tim Cox, PhD, PE, CDM Smith Frannie Bui, PE, CDM Smith Lauren Klonsky, PE, CDM Smith Lauren Miller, CDM Smith Rebecca Jablon, AICP, LEED AP, CDM Smith Quentin Smith, CDM Smith Tim Feather, PhD, CDM Smith Mark Dunning, PhD, CDM Smith David Spector, CDM Smith VIEWS, OPINIONS, AND /OR FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS AN OFFICIAL DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY POSITION, POLICY, OR DECISION UNLESS SO DESIGNATED BY OTHER OFFICIAL DOCUMENTATION. Suggested Citation: USACE (2015). Recent US Climate Change and Hydrology Literature Applicable to US Army Corps of Engineers Missions — South Atlantic -Gulf Region 03. Civil Works Technical Report, CWTS 2015 -03, USAGE, Washington, DC USACE Institute for Water Resources 1 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 Table of Contents South Atlantic -Gulf Water Resources Region 03: South Atlantic - Gulf .............. ..............................3 1. Introduction ........................................................................................ ............................... 3 1.1 A Note on the 2 -digit HUC Scale .................................................. ............................... 6 2. Observed Climate Trends ................................................................. ............................... 6 2.1. Temperature .................................................................................... ..............................7 2.2. Precipitation ................................................................................... .............................11 2.3. Hydrology .................................................................................... ............................... 18 2.4. Summary of Observed Climate Findings .................................... ............................... 19 3. Projected Climate Trends ............................................................... ............................... 20 3.1. Temperature ................................................................................... .............................20 3.2. Precipitation ................................................................................... .............................25 3.3. Hydrology ...................................................................................... .............................30 3.4. Summary of Future Climate Projection Findings ........................ ............................... 35 4. Business Line Vulnerabilities .......................................................... ............................... 37 Appendix A: References Climate /Hydrology Summary Table ........... ............................... 39 AppendixB: Reference List .................................................................... ............................... 40 USACE Institute for Water Resources 2 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf Water Resources Region 03: South Atlantic -Gulf Region 1. Introduction U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) staff are increasingly considering potential climate change impacts when undertaking long -term planning, setting priorities, and making decisions that affect resources, programs, policies, and operations, consistent with the 2011 and 2014 policy statements on climate change adaptation by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the USACE Climate Change Adaptation Plans, and agency policy and guidance. USACE is undertaking its climate change preparedness and resilience planning and implementation in consultation with internal and external experts using the best available — and actionable — climate science and climate change information. This report represents one component of actionable science, in the form of concise and broadly- accessible summaries of the current science with specific attention to USACE missions and operations. This report is part of a series of twenty one (21) regional climate syntheses prepared by the USACE under the leadership of the Response to Climate Change Program at the scale of 2 -digit U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) across the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The twenty one Water Resources Regions included in this series of reports is shown in Figure 1.1 along with USACE division boundaries. Each of these regional reports summarizes observed and projected climate and hydrological patterns cited in reputable peer- reviewed literature and authoritative national and regional reports, and characterizes climate threats to USACE business lines. They also provide context and linkage to other agency resources for climate resilience planning, such as sea level change calculation and coastal risk reduction resources, downscaled climate data for subregions, and watershed vulnerability assessment tools. This report focuses on Water Resources Region 03, the South Atlantic -Gulf, the boundaries for which are shown in Figure 1.2. The Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville, Atlanta, and Mobile USACE districts and a relatively small section of the Mississippi Valley Division are within the region. USACE Institute for Water Resources 3 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf Figure I.I. 2 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code Boundaries for the Continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. USACE Institute for Water Resources 4 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf Figure 1.2. Water Resources Region 03: South Atlantic -Gulf Region Boundary. USACE Institute for Water Resources 5 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf 1.1 A Note on the Water Resources Region Scale USACE and other resource management agencies require reliable, science -based methods for incorporating climate change information into the assessments that support water resources decisions and actions. Such planning assessments must quantify projections of future climate and hydrology. One common practice is to begin by developing relationships between the currently observed climate and the projected future possible climate over the assessment region. However, the numerical models producing these multiple projections of future possible climate were not designed to support these assessments for local -to- regional scale operations. This means that intervening steps have to be taken to correct obvious biases in the models' outputs and to make the outputs relevant at the scales where hydrologic resource assessments can take place. The commonly used name for these post - processing steps is "downscaling" because one step is using one or another method to spatially (and temporally) disaggregate or interpolate (or other) the results produced at the numerical climate models' native scale to the scale of the water resources assessment. The current generation of climate models, which includes the models used to generate some of the inputs described in this work, have a native scale on the order of one to two hundred kilometers on each side of the grids used to simulate climate for Earth, substantially too coarse for the watershed assessments needed to inform resource assessment questions and decisions. On the other hand, these questions and decisions should not be addressed with model inputs at scales so fine that they impart false precision to the assessment. False precision would appear by suggesting that the driving climate model information can usefully be downscaled, by any method, to individual river reaches and particular project locations, for example. The approach at USACE is to consider the questions in need of climate change information at the geospatial scale where the driving climate models retain the climate change signal. At present, USACE judges that the regional, sub - continental climate signals projected by the driving climate models are coherent and useful at the scale of the 2 -digit USGS HUC (Water Resources Region), and that confidence in the driving climate model outputs declines below the level of a reasonable trade -off between precision and accuracy for areas smaller than the scale of the 4 -digit HUC (Water Resources Subregion). Hence, these summaries group information at the Water Resources Region scale both to be guides into the climate change literature and to support the informational analyses USACE is conducting at the Water Resources Subregion scale. For Water Resources Region 03, both the 2 -digit and 4 -digit HUC boundaries are shown in Figure 1.2. 2. Observed Climate Trends Observed climate trends within the Water Resources Region 03 are presented in this section to generally characterize current, or past, climate in the study region. While the primary cause for global warming is attributed by the scientific community to human - induced increases in atmosphere levels of heat - trapping gases (Walsh et al., 2014) this section is not focused on attribution or cause (either natural or unnatural). Rather, it is specifically focused on the identification and detection of climate trends in the recent historical record. The interrelationships of Earth's climate system are complex and influenced by multiple natural and USACE Institute for Water Resources 6 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf unnatural (i.e., anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions) forcings. When additional detail is needed the reader is referred to the specific references cited, including the third National Climate Assessment (NCA), which includes not only regional assessments, but also foundational resources related to climate science literacy. The climate trends presented in this section are based on peer- reviewed literature on the subject of observed climate. To the extent possible, studies specific to the South Atlantic -Gulf Region or its sub - watersheds were relied upon. A focus is placed on identified primary variables including: • mean temperature • extreme temperatures • average precipitation • extreme precipitation events • mean streamflow In addition to primary variables, peer- reviewed literature addressing climate change within the geographic region or inclusive of the Water Resources Region revealed additional, secondary, climatic variables that have been studied such as the spring index (SI), drought indices, and soil moisture. The results presented below indicate a mild upward trending in temperature and a mild downward trending in streamflow in the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, particularly since the 1970s. However, clear consensus does not exist for either. Studies on precipitation show mixed results but with more findings showing an upward, rather than downward, pattern over the past 50 to 100 years. 2.1. Temperature A number of studies focusing on observed trends in historical temperatures were reviewed for this report. These include both national scale studies inclusive of results relevant to Water Resources Region 03 and regional studies focusing more specifically and exclusively on the area. Results from both types of studies are discussed below. A 2009 study by Wang et al. examined historical climate trends across the continental United States. Gridded (0.5 degrees x 0.5 degrees) mean monthly climate data for the period 1950 — 2000 were used. The focus of this work was on the link between observed seasonality and regionality of trends and sea surface temperature variability. The authors identified positive statistically significant trends in recent observed mean air temperature for most of the U.S. (Figure 2.1). For the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, mixed results are presented. A positive, but mild, warming trend is identified for most of the area in the spring and summer. For the fall months, the southern portion of the area is shown to be warming while mild cooling is shown in the northern portion of the area. For the winter months, the divide appears to be more east -west, with warming in the east and cooling in the western portion of the area. A later study by Westby et al. (2013), using data from the period 1949 — 2011, moderately contradicted these findings, presenting a general winter cooling trend for the entire region for this time period. The third NCA report (Carter et al., 2014) presents historical annual average temperatures for the southeast region. Their southeast study region is larger than, but inclusive of the South Atlantic -Gulf USACE Institute for Water Resources 7 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf Region. For this area, historical data generally shows mild warming of average annual temperatures in the early part of the 201' century, followed by a few decades of cooling, and is now showing indications of warming. However, though a seasonal breakdown is not presented, the NCA report cites an overall lack of trend in mean annual temperature in the region for the past century. Details on statistical significance are not provided. sa rP� Figure 2.1. Linear trends in surface air temperature (a) and precipitation (b) over the United States, 1950 — 2000. The South Atlantic -Gulf Region is within the black oval (Wang et al., 2009). Grundstein and Dowd (2011) investigated trends in one -day extreme maximum and minimum temperatures across the continental U.S. The study was based on daily temperature data compiled by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) for 187 stations across the country for the period 1949 — 2010. For the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, they found a statistically significant increasing trend in the number of one -day extreme minimum temperatures. However, only in the southern portion of the region (Florida) were significant trends in the number of one -day extreme maximum temperatures identified. This appears to generally agree with the findings of Wang et al. (2009), two years earlier and described above, which indicated a mix of warming versus cooling trends in recent historical temperature data for the region. Schwartz et al. (2013) investigated changes in spring onset for the continental U.S. Their particular focus was on changes in the seasonality of plant growth as dictated by changing temperature regimes. The authors used historical data from over 22,000 stations across the United States, obtained from the NCDC with periods of record extending through 2010. Their findings indicate that for most of the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, spring onset is occurring at USACE Institute for Water Resources 8 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf least a few days later for the current period (2001 — 20 10) compared to an earlier baseline reference decade (1951 — 1960) (Figure 2.2). This is particularly evident for the north and west portions of the area. In other words, an apparent small shift in seasons has been identified for most of the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, with spring warming occurring later than in the past. �* If 'r * * * 0 ",l 4 Figure 2.2. Change in spring onset (first leaf date), in days for 2001 — 2010 compared to 1951 — 1960. The South Atlantic -Gulf Region is within the red oval (Schwartz et al., 2013). A 2011 study by Obeysekera et al. focused on identifying climate (temperature and precipitation) trends for South Florida using historical data. This study examined a number of climate metrics with data extending back to the 1890s. For all of the metrics, including average and maximum daily temperatures, number of hot days, and extreme temperature events, no discernible trends were found for their study region. While some climate stations showed an increasing trend, just as many displayed a decreasing trend, and even more showed no trend at all. Two years later, many of these same authors conducted a similar study of climate stations distributed across the entire state of Florida (Irizarry -Ortiz et al., 2013). They found similar results, although focused on slightly different metrics. Based on the same historical observation period as the 2011 study, no consistent, discernible trend in daily average temperature was found. However, the authors present evidence of increasing trends in the number of extreme heat days and in daily minimum temperature, with many stations exhibiting statistically significant increasing trends in one or both of these metrics. A 2012 study by Patterson et al. focused exclusively on historical climate and streamflow trends in the South Atlantic region. Monthly and annual trends were analyzed for a number of stations distributed throughout the South Atlantic -Gulf Region for the period 1934 — 2005. Results (Figure 2.3) identified a largely cooling trend for the first half of the historical period and the period as a whole. However, the second half of the study period (1970 — 2005) exhibits a clear warming trend with nearly half of the stations showing statistically significant warming over the period (average increase of 0.7 °C). The circa 1970 "transition" point for climate and streamflow in the U.S. has been noted elsewhere, including Carter et al. (2014). Trends in overnight minimum temperatures (Turin) and daily maximum (TmaX) temperatures for the southeast U.S. were the subject of a study by Misra et al. (2012). Their study region encompasses nearly the full extent of the South Atlantic -Gulf Region and used data from 1948 to 2010. Results of this study show increasing trends in both Tmin and TmaX throughout most of the study region. The authors attribute at least a portion of these changes to the impacts of urbanization and irrigation. USACE Institute for Water Resources 9 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf ` Figure 2.3. Historical annual temperature trends for the South Atlantic Region, 1934 — 2005. Triangles point in the direction of the trend, size reflects the magnitude of the change. Blue indicates a decreasing temperature trend. Red indicates an increasing temperature trend (Patterson et al., 2012). Laseter et al. (2012) present a continuous historical climate data set for the Coweeta Laboratory in North Carolina (northern portion of the region). This data shows significant warming since the late 1970s (Figure 2.4) in terms of annual average, maximum, and minimum air temperatures. They report that 1999 was the hottest year on record for their study site. Similar results are presented by Dai et al. (2011) for a climate station in South Carolina (Santee Experimental Forest). They quantified a statistically significant increasing trend in annual average air temperature (at a rate of 0.19 °C per year) going back to 1946. USACE Institute for Water Resources 10 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf Figure 2.4. Annual maximum, average, and minimum historical air temperatures, 1940 — 2010, Coweeta Laboratory, North Carolina. (Laseter et al., 2012). Key point: 1'her e hers been an apparent war thing in the region since the 1970,5. 1'he overall trend since the early 1900s, however, is unclean. 2.2. Precipitation Palecki et al. (2005) examined historical precipitation data from across the continental United States. They quantified trends in precipitation for the period 1972 — 2002 using NCDC 15- minute rainfall data. For the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, statistically significant increases in winter storm intensity (mm per hour) and fall storm totals were identified for the southernmost portion of South Atlantic -Gulf Region. Additionally, a statistically significant decrease in summer storm intensity was identified for the northern portion of the area. Multiple authors have identified significant increasing trends in total annual precipitation in recent historical records for the study region. Grundstein (2009) presented little evidence of significant trends (1895 — 2006) in either annual precipitation or soil moisture for the majority of the area (Figure 2.5), except for Alabama. Soil moisture is a function of both supply (precipitation) and demand (evapo- transpiration [ET]), and therefore is an effective proxy for both precipitation and ET. A number of sites in Alabama (southwest portion of the HUC) exhibit significant increasing trends in both annual precipitation and soil moisture over the past century. USACE Institute for Water Resources 11 January 9, 2015 s a Flu x ili ;'? 119,%:1 ('101** 113�WllKSi „r,01 9 South Atlantic -Gulf Figure 2.4. Annual maximum, average, and minimum historical air temperatures, 1940 — 2010, Coweeta Laboratory, North Carolina. (Laseter et al., 2012). Key point: 1'her e hers been an apparent war thing in the region since the 1970,5. 1'he overall trend since the early 1900s, however, is unclean. 2.2. Precipitation Palecki et al. (2005) examined historical precipitation data from across the continental United States. They quantified trends in precipitation for the period 1972 — 2002 using NCDC 15- minute rainfall data. For the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, statistically significant increases in winter storm intensity (mm per hour) and fall storm totals were identified for the southernmost portion of South Atlantic -Gulf Region. Additionally, a statistically significant decrease in summer storm intensity was identified for the northern portion of the area. Multiple authors have identified significant increasing trends in total annual precipitation in recent historical records for the study region. Grundstein (2009) presented little evidence of significant trends (1895 — 2006) in either annual precipitation or soil moisture for the majority of the area (Figure 2.5), except for Alabama. Soil moisture is a function of both supply (precipitation) and demand (evapo- transpiration [ET]), and therefore is an effective proxy for both precipitation and ET. A number of sites in Alabama (southwest portion of the HUC) exhibit significant increasing trends in both annual precipitation and soil moisture over the past century. USACE Institute for Water Resources 11 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf Figure 2.5. Statistically significant linear trends in (a) soil moisture index (unitless) and (b) annual precipitation (cm) for the continental U.S., 1895 — 2006. The South Atlantic -Gulf Region is within the red oval (Grundstein, 2009). As described in Section 2. 1, a similar study by Wang et al. (2009) also focused on historical climate trends across the continental U.S. using gridded climate data and a shorter period of record (1950 — 2000). The authors identified generally positive significant trends in annual precipitation for most of the U.S. For the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, the authors identified a mild increasing trend in winter precipitation for most of the area (Figure 2.1). Results were mixed for the other seasons, with some areas showing increasing precipitation and others showing decreasing precipitation. A 2011 study by McRoberts and Nielsen- Gammon used a new continuous and homogenous data set to perform precipitation trend analyses for sub - basins across the United States. The extended data period used for the analysis was 1895 — 2009. Linear positive trends in annual precipitation were identified for most of the U.S (Figure 2.6). For the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, results were mixed with some areas showing mild decreases in precipitation and others showing mild increases. No clear trend for the area is evident from these results. USACE Institute for Water Resources 12 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf Figure 2.6. Linear trends in annual precipitation, 1895 — 2009, percent change per century. The South Atlantic -Gulf Region is within the red oval (McRoberts and Nielsen- Gammon, 2011). Changes in extreme precipitation events observed in recent historical data have been the focus of a number of studies. Studies of extreme events have focused on intensity, frequency, and /or duration of such events. Wang and Zhang (2008) used recent historical data and downscaled Global Climate Models (GCMs) to investigate changes in extreme precipitation across North America. They focused specifically on the changes in the frequency of the 20 -year maximum daily precipitation event. The authors looked at both historical trends in observed data and trends in future projections. Statistically significant increases in the frequency of the 20 -year storm event were quantified across the southern and central U.S., in both the recent historical data and the long -term future projections (described below). For the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, significant changes in the recurrence of this storm were identified for the period 1977 — 1999 compared to the period 1949 — 1976. An increase in frequency of approximately 25 to 50% was quantified. Pryor et al. (2009) performed statistical analyses on 201' century rainfall data to investigate for trends across a range of precipitation metrics. They used data from 643 stations scattered across the continental U.S. For the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, the analysis showed generally increasing, and statistically significant, trends in the number of precipitation days per year (Figure 2.7 d). However, no clear trends for the region were evident for total annual precipitation, extreme high precipitation events (901' percentile daily), or precipitation intensity (Figure 2.7 a — c). The authors note that the trends identified are not necessarily linear, with an apparent increase in the rate of change in the latter part of the century for most of the trends. USACE Institute for Water Resources 13 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 a) Annual precipitation b) 901' percentile daily precipitation c) Precipitation intensity (annual total / number of precipitation days) d) Number of precipitation days per year 30 5 .,a 27 23 uhf 1 South Atlantic -Gulf 4 3 2; 1 51 4F S �r 73 5, 47 4; '35' 27 1 L wovriigtWe F, 1) Figure 2.7. Historical precipitation trends in the 201' century. a.) annual totals, b.) 901' percentile daily, c.) precipitation intensity (annual total /number of precipitation days), and d.) number of precipitation days per year. Note that blue dots indicate positive trend, red circles indicate negative trend, and symbol sizes are scaled to 3% change per decade. The South Atlantic -Gulf Region is within the red oval (Pryor et al., 2009). Brommer et al. (2007) investigated changes in long duration precipitation events over the past century. This study found no significant changes for the South Atlantic -Gulf Region during the 201' century, despite such changes quantified for many other areas in the U.S. A number of recent studies have focused more specifically on the southeast region of the U.S., including the South Atlantic -Gulf Region. As above, regional investigations have targeted trends, or changes, in annual precipitation and the occurrence of extreme events. The work of Small et al. (2006) included analysis of the South Atlantic -Gulf Region specifically. These authors investigated for significant trends in various precipitation and flow metrics based on USGS Hydroclimatologic Data Network (HCDN) climate data from 1948 to 1997. Statistically USACE Institute for Water Resources 14 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf significant increasing trends were identified for the region in annual and fall precipitation for multiple locations in the area (Figure 2.8). There were even more locations within the HUC, however, where no statistically significant trends in precipitation were identified. u �F°tr'11nc b b )Yo o A,NlOR t � IIIIIIIII Ajni%Ilo' 11 oAioo6uA t,,)4ko p� q A�nnm i P & b;d u'Il ru"ny"1a Figure 2.8. Historical trends in precipitation (P) and streamflow (Q), 1948 — 1997. The South Atlantic -Gulf Region is within the red oval (Small et al., 2006). Li et al. (2011) investigated the occurrence of anomalous summer precipitation in the southeast U.S., including the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, as defined by deviation from the mean. They attribute apparent trends in anomalies to changes in the North Atlantic Subtropical High (NASH), which in turn is attributed to climate change. As above, results indicate a general increase in the frequency and magnitude of anomalous summer precipitation (Figure 2.9). These results are generally supported by the findings of Villarini et al. (2013). These authors identified statistically significant (p < 0.05) increasing trends in the frequency of occurrence of heavy rainfall in a region inclusive of the western edge of the South Atlantic -Gulf Region (Mississippi and Alabama) for multiple climate stations with at least 50 years of historical record. While significant trends were identified for a number of stations in the region, an even greater number of stations in the South Atlantic -Gulf Region exhibited no significant trends. USACE Institute for Water Resources 15 January 9, 2015 � ; IIIIIIIIII ei NJ e aP 1111111 Ilool� IIII �.,Ip u �F°tr'11nc b b )Yo o A,NlOR t � IIIIIIIII Ajni%Ilo' 11 oAioo6uA t,,)4ko p� q A�nnm i P & b;d u'Il ru"ny"1a Figure 2.8. Historical trends in precipitation (P) and streamflow (Q), 1948 — 1997. The South Atlantic -Gulf Region is within the red oval (Small et al., 2006). Li et al. (2011) investigated the occurrence of anomalous summer precipitation in the southeast U.S., including the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, as defined by deviation from the mean. They attribute apparent trends in anomalies to changes in the North Atlantic Subtropical High (NASH), which in turn is attributed to climate change. As above, results indicate a general increase in the frequency and magnitude of anomalous summer precipitation (Figure 2.9). These results are generally supported by the findings of Villarini et al. (2013). These authors identified statistically significant (p < 0.05) increasing trends in the frequency of occurrence of heavy rainfall in a region inclusive of the western edge of the South Atlantic -Gulf Region (Mississippi and Alabama) for multiple climate stations with at least 50 years of historical record. While significant trends were identified for a number of stations in the region, an even greater number of stations in the South Atlantic -Gulf Region exhibited no significant trends. USACE Institute for Water Resources 15 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf Yo., Figure 2.9. Summer precipitation anomalies, southeast USA, 1900 — 2000. (Li et al., 2011). Wang and Killick (2013) also investigated both high and low extreme precipitation anomalies, as well as non- stationarity in historical monthly data. These authors targeted 56 watersheds in the southeast U.S., nearly all of which are located in the South Atlantic -Gulf Region. Quantile regression analysis was applied to detect trends in different quartiles of monthly historical precipitation data (1900 — 2009). For the 101' quantile (low precipitation), the vast majority of sites showed no trend at all, while a small number exhibited a negative (decreasing) trend in monthly precipitation (Figure 2.10). For high precipitation months (90'h quantile), approximately 20% of the sites showed a significant increasing trend. These results point toward an increasing frequency of extreme storm events. It is also worth noting that non- stationarity in monthly precipitation totals for the same period of record was detected in 8 of the 56 study watersheds. Figure 2.10. Trends in 10" (a) and 90" (b) quantile monthly precipitation, 1900 — 2009. The South Atlantic -Gulf Region is within the red oval. (Wang et al., 2013a). USACE Institute for Water Resources 16 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf A 2011 study by Obeysekera et al. focused on identifying climate (temperature and precipitation) trends for South Florida using historical data. This study examined a number of climate metrics with data extending back to the 1890s. For all of the metrics, including total annual precipitation and the occurrence of temperature extremes, no discernible trends were found for their study region. Two years later, Irizarry -Ortiz et al. (2013) quantified an overall decreasing trend in wet season (most evident in the month ofMay) precipitation for the state of Florida using an extended data set (1892 — 2008). In contrast, they also found evidence of an increase in the number of dry season (November — January) precipitation days in Florida. In North Carolina (at the Coweeta Laboratory), changes in precipitation variability have been observed (Laseter et al., 2012) (Figure 2.11). These changes include wetter wet years and dryer dry years compared to the middle of the 201' century. As an example, the wettest year on record occurred in 2009 at Coweeta, and only two years earlier (2007) the driest year on record was observed. This pattern of change is supported by the NCA report (Carter et al., 2014), which states that, "summers have been either increasingly dry or extremely wet" in the southeast region. This assessment is based on analysis of data dating back to the turn of the 201' century. a) 2600 2200 2000 180 1,600 0 1400 1200 1,, 4° 00 Annual Ora .. 6b I'D ors u 00 19,40 1950 NO) 1970 1980 1990 2000 21110 Figure 2.11. Total annual precipitation at Coweeta Laboratory (North Carolina). Lines show modeled 101' and 90'h quartiles as a function of time, 1940 — 2010. (Laseter et al., 2012). A study by Dai et al. (2011), for a climate station in South Carolina (at the Santee Experimental Forest), identified a generally increasing, but not statistically significant, pattern in the number of extreme storm events over the past 60 years. Similarly, they demonstrate a generally increasing trend in total annual precipitation at their study site, but without statistical significance. A 2012 study by Patterson et al. focused exclusively on the South Atlantic Region, investigating historical climate and streamflow trends. Monthly and annual trends were analyzed for a number of stations distributed throughout the South Atlantic -Gul Region for the period 1934 — 2005. Results identified little, if any, patterns of precipitation change in the area over this period. Some sites showed increasing trends, others showed decreasing trends. Overall, and for the full period of record, more sites exhibited mild increases in precipitation than decreases. USACE Institute for Water Resources 17 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf Trends in the frequency and severity of droughts in the Southeast U.S. were the subject of studies by Chen et al. (2012) and Cook et al. (2014). In the first study, historical data (1895 — 2007) for the southern USA, including the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, were used to identify trends in drought, as defined by the standard precipitation index (SPI). The SPI is a metric of precipitation only and neglects the impacts of ET on droughts (Chen et al., 2012). The authors were not able to identify significant trends in either the frequency or intensity of droughts in the study region. The second set of authors used tree ring data to assess the frequency and severity of droughts over the past millennium (1000 — 2005), across the U.S. For the southeast region, which includes the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, the authors identified a statistically significant decline in drought frequency (droughts per century) over the past 1,000 years and a general increase in soil moisture, as defined by the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), over the same period (Figure 2.12). ;, ,R SIN C NW Nw sr Meet* POSI 09,, OR r CAOIN qID Vft yW)q 0OW ,WO f"ft 1,V46 Iroft 11901p 0X% 11i1W u61111N Weir fM" 00h, O 11"K irk rr1010m HIO'i , Figure 2.12. Drought frequency and severity for southeast USA (light green), based on Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), 1000s — 1900s. (Cook et al., 2014). Ivey point: A Indd upward trend in precipitation in the study region, in ter lns of both annual totals and occurrence of stor In events, hers been identified by multiple authors but a clear consensus is lacking. evidence hers also been presented indicating an increase in the year -to- year variability in precipitation. 2.3. Hydrology Studies of trends and non- stationarity in streamflow data collected over the past century have been performed throughout the continental U.S., some of which include the South Atlantic -Gulf Region. In 2013, Xu et al. investigated trends for multiple stream gages in the South Atlantic - Gulf Region. This study used the Model Parameter Estimation Experiment ( MOPEX) data set for the period 1950 — 2000. Additional information on the MOPEX can be found in Duan et al. (2006). Statistically significant negative trends in both annual streamflow and baseflow were identified for two stations in Florida. The vast majority of stations, distributed throughout the HUC, show no significant trend in streamflow in either direction. In contrast to the findings described above, Kalra et al. (2008) found statistically significant negative trends in annual and seasonal streamflow for a large number of stream gages in the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, analyzed in aggregate, for the historical period 1952 — 2001. This study also identified a statistically significant stepwise change occurring in the mid- 1970s, USACE Institute for Water Resources 18 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf concurrent with the warming climate "transition" period previously noted in Section 2.1, Temperature. These findings are supported by a regional study by Small et al. (2006). This study, using HCDN data for the period 1948 — 1997, identified statistically significant negative trends in annual low flow for multiple stations distributed throughout the South Atlantic -Gulf Region (but even more stations exhibited no significant trend at all). The Patterson et al. (2012) study also observed a "transition" period occurring around 1970, as well as identified significant decreasing trends in streamflow in the South Atlantic -Gulf Region for the period 1970 — 2005 (Figure 2.13). Results were mixed for an earlier time period (1934 — 1969), with some decreasing and some increasing trends. These results again highlight the noted transition period of the 1970s. Figure 2.13. Observed changes in annual streamflow, South Atlantic Region, 1934 — 2005. Triangles point in the direction of the trend, size reflects the magnitude of the change. Blue indicates a decreasing streamflow trend. Red indicates and increasing streamflow trend. (Patterson et al., 2012). Ivey point: A naild downward trend in Inean str eatttflow in the study region, particularly since the 1970s, hers been identified by naulliple authors. 2.4. Summary of Observed Climate Findings The general consensus in the recent literature points toward mild increases in annual temperature in the South Atlantic -Gulf Region over the past century, particularly over the past 40 years. While much of the area is located within the so- called "warming hole" identified by various researchers (including Carter et al., 2014), recent studies have demonstrated significant warming for other parts of the area (particularly northern portions) since the 1970s. USACE Institute for Water Resources 19 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf Annual precipitation totals have become more variable in recent years compared to earlier in the 201h century. Evidence has also been presented, but with limited consensus, of mildly increasing trends in the magnitude of annual and seasonal precipitation for parts of the study area. These results are seemingly contradicted by a number of studies that have shown decreasing trends in streamflow throughout the area, particularly since the 1970s. This paradox is discussed by Small et al. (2006), who attribute it largely to seasonal differences in the timing of the changes in precipitation vs. streamflow. The study authors evaluated watersheds that experienced minimal water withdrawals and /or transfers. Results presented here also suggest that increasing temperatures may also play a role in decreasing streamflows, despite the lack of corresponding precipitation decline. 3. Projected Climate Trends While historical data is essential to understanding current and future climate, non- stationarity in the data (i.e., a changing climate) dictates the use of supplemental information in long -term planning studies. In other words, the past may no longer be a good predictor of the future (Milly et al., 2008). Consequently, the scientific and engineering communities are actively using computer models of the Earth's atmosphere and associated thermodynamics to project future climate trends for use in water resources planning efforts. Although significant uncertainties are inherent in these model projections, the models, termed global climate models (GCMs), are widely accepted as representing the best available science on the subject, and have proven highly useful in planning as a supplement to historical data. A wealth of literature now exists on the use of GCMs across the globe. This section summarizes projected climate trends, as projected by GCMs, within the South Atlantic -Gulf Region identified in a review of recent peer- reviewed literature. The information presented should be considered an overview and, similar to Section 2 on observed climate trends, does not focus on attribution or causation of the projected climate trends or the causal relationships between climate variables. These relationships are complex and influenced by multiple natural and unnatural (i.e., anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions) forcings that influence the Earth's climate system. Typical of projected climate studies, often specific (and sometimes multiple) greenhouse gas emission scenarios (or representative concentration pathways) are modeled by a single GCM (or ensemble of GCMs). The spectrum of scenarios offer a wide range of "climate futures" so each study's assumed emission scenario(s) are noted. When additional detail is needed, the reader is referred to the specific references cited, including the third NCA, which includes not only regional assessments, but also foundational resources related to climate science literacy, GCMs, and emission scenarios. Results of this review indicate a strong consensus in the scientific literature that air temperatures will trend sharply upward over the next century in the South Atlantic -Gulf Region. There is much less consensus on the future trending, or lack thereof, in precipitation and streamflow in the region. 3.1. Temperature GCMs have been used extensively to project future climate conditions across the country. At a national scale, model projections generally show a significant warming trend throughout the 21" USACE Institute for Water Resources 20 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf century, with a high level of consensus across models and modeling assumptions. There is much less consensus on future patterns of precipitation. Results of studies inclusive of the South Atlantic -Gulf Region typically fall in line with both of these generalizations. Maximum air temperature projections were investigated by Liu et al. (2013) using a single GCM and assuming an A2 greenhouse gas emissions scenario (worst case). The results of their study, specific to the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, show a projected increase in winter and spring maximum air temperature of about 2 °C for a 2055 planning horizon compared to a baseline period of 1971 — 2000 (Figure 3.1). They show projected increases of up to 3.5 °C for summer and fall temperatures. rM M MW Figure 3.1. Projected changes in seasonal maximum air temperature, °C, 2041 - 2070 vs. 1971 - 2000. The South Atlantic -Gulf Region is within the red oval (Liu et al., 2013). Similar results are presented by Scherer and Diffenbaugh (2014). These authors apply a multi- member ensemble GCM, assuming an A I B (middle of the road) emissions scenario, to the continental U.S. For the southeast portion of the country, including the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, model projections indicate steadily increasing air temperatures throughout the 21st century for both summer and winter seasons (Figure 3.2). By 2090, projections show an increase of 3.9 °C in the summer and 3.2 °C in the winter, compared to a 1980 — 2009 baseline period. These results agree well with those described previously for Liu et al., (2013). USACE Institute for Water Resources 21 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf r ornal 001-09, 1019 anumminlldinsf, '0-29 llwsn't)'wfw av 30-3' /i „ice ////6 40-4 50-59 ..... 60-6'9 moHNIi wimii uum uoo 70-79 910 -99 Figure 3.2. Probability distributions of GCM Projections of daily maximum temperatures for Years 2000 — 2100 by decade, southeast region (a. summer months: Jun — Aug, b. winter months: Dec — Feb). (Scherer and Diffenbaugh, 2014). Elguindi and Grundstein (2013) present results of regional climate modeling of the U.S. focused on the Thornthwaite climate type — a measure of the combination of relative temperature and precipitation projections. For the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, results show a shift from primarily warm wet or warm moist climate type in the latter decades of the 201' century to a much larger proportion of hot moist or hot dry climate type areas by the period 2041 — 2070 (Figure 3.3). a) Historical observed (1971 — 2000) b) GCM projections (2041 — 2070) ;_: M f Figure 3.3. Revised Thornthwaite climate types projected by regional climate models. The South Atlantic -Gulf Region is within the red oval (Elguindi and Grundstein, 2013). Projections of changes in temperature extremes have been the subject of many recent studies performed at a national scale. A 2006 study by Tebaldi et al. applied nine GCMs at a global scale USACE Institute for Water Resources 22 January 9, 2015 a) b) 4 19 dop C 3.2 dell C sowheasl 1 0 d 0 4 a 1 -4 0 4 6 12 16 r ornal 001-09, 1019 anumminlldinsf, '0-29 llwsn't)'wfw av 30-3' /i „ice ////6 40-4 50-59 ..... 60-6'9 moHNIi wimii uum uoo 70-79 910 -99 Figure 3.2. Probability distributions of GCM Projections of daily maximum temperatures for Years 2000 — 2100 by decade, southeast region (a. summer months: Jun — Aug, b. winter months: Dec — Feb). (Scherer and Diffenbaugh, 2014). Elguindi and Grundstein (2013) present results of regional climate modeling of the U.S. focused on the Thornthwaite climate type — a measure of the combination of relative temperature and precipitation projections. For the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, results show a shift from primarily warm wet or warm moist climate type in the latter decades of the 201' century to a much larger proportion of hot moist or hot dry climate type areas by the period 2041 — 2070 (Figure 3.3). a) Historical observed (1971 — 2000) b) GCM projections (2041 — 2070) ;_: M f Figure 3.3. Revised Thornthwaite climate types projected by regional climate models. The South Atlantic -Gulf Region is within the red oval (Elguindi and Grundstein, 2013). Projections of changes in temperature extremes have been the subject of many recent studies performed at a national scale. A 2006 study by Tebaldi et al. applied nine GCMs at a global scale USACE Institute for Water Resources 22 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf focused on extreme precipitation and temperature projections. Model projections of climate at the end of the century (2080 — 2099) were compared to historical data for the period 1980 — 1999. For the general southeastern U.S., inclusive of the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, the authors identified small increases in the projected extreme temperature range (annual high minus annual low temperature), a moderate increase in a heat wave duration index (increase of 3 to 4 days per year that temperatures continuously exceeds the historical norm by at least 5 °C), and a moderate increase in the number of warm nights (6 to 7% increase in the percentage of times in the year when minimum temperature is above the 901' percentile of the climatological distribution for the given calendar year), compared to the baseline period. Similar results are presented by Kunkel et al. (2010). In this study, two different downscaled GCMs were applied to the continental U.S., assuming high greenhouse gas emissions scenarios (A2 and AIF), with a focus on summer heat wave occurrence and intensity. For the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, projections indicate a 3 to 5 °C increase in three -day heat wave temperatures and a 50 to 80 day increase in the annual number of heat wave days for a 2090 planning horizon compared to a recent historical baseline. At a regional scale, Qi et al. (2009) used two GCMs (CGC1 and HadCMSul2) in combination with hydrologic modeling to project streamflow changes in the Trent River (North Carolina). Temperature projections from these two climate models (Figure 3.4) show increases of approximately 2 to 4 °C by the end of the 21" century for their study area. �r Jj3 �_�e,._ __mw�W._.�..._... _naa a._.� �. _.��_n__ ��..w. _.�... �. _..a.. -.. fonts ..:.,. aG,, A, 'I 'T ;'I "k „m �1:Wfp. ,,.n0 2"'.13t aP0ry0 p'Y;;Y,P. w 1r,d ✓Cdr o Pe,0 fJ . wd,j"'1 . :,%T:ry 2C'TJ.{ nib, w: "Mrzf.'s 11 10 w'�' " Figure 3.4. Figure 3.4. Projected annual average air temperature, Trent River basin, North Carolina, 1995 — 2100. (Qi et al., 2009). As part of a water quality study of the Upper Pearl River watershed in Mississippi, Jayakody et al. (2013) applied a single GCM, across three different emissions scenarios (A2, B1, and AIB), to project future climate and potential impacts on water quality. The Upper Pearl watershed is located at the western edge of the South Atlantic -Gulf Region. Climate projections presented in this study show an increase in maximum and minimum annual air temperature in the watershed of c. 2 to 3 °C for their 2050 and 2075 planning horizons. Projections also point toward an extended summer peak temperature period (moving from July — August to June — September). USACE Institute for Water Resources 23 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf Gao et al. (2012) focus on future extreme climate events in the eastern U.S., as forecast by GCMs. They applied a single GCM downscaled to a high resolution grid (4 km x 4 km) that included the entire South Atlantic -Gulf Region and a single planning horizon centered on 2058. A single representative concentration pathway was simulated, representative of intensive future fossil fuel use and high greenhouse gas emissions. Results (Figure 3.5) show projected increases in heat wave intensity, duration, and frequency for the study region. Extreme heat wave temperatures are projected to increase by up to 4 °C in the South Atlantic -Gulf Region and the frequency of heat waves is projected to increase by 2 to 7 days per year, compared to the baseline period (2001 — 2004). Heat wave durations are also predicted to increase for most of the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, by up to 4 days per event. a) Intensity ( °C) b) Duration (days /event) c) Frequency (events /year) A 4 A Figure 3.5. GCM Projections of heat wave patterns in eastern USA (intensity, duration, frequency) for a 2058 planning horizon (compared to 2002 baseline); first column = baseline, second column = future, third column = difference between the two. The South Atlantic -Gulf Region is within the black oval (Gao et al., 2012). The third NCA report (Carter et al., 2014) generally supports the findings presented above. Climate model projections for the southeast region of the U.S. presented in this report indicate a sharp, and statistically significant, increase in both annual average temperature and the number of extreme heat days over the next century (Figure 3.6). Additionally, projections are presented showing a decrease in the number of nights below freezing (Figure 3.7). USACE Institute for Water Resources 24 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 a) Annual average temperature 76 P!I Miu a °t') 191W RIM, NOW 117 r, 1 f '0aei6U71p' South Atlantic -Gulf b) Extreme heat days Projected Chan worriber d Dales Over 95T P170O W HWOO( s ("'Wu; K'Awjp m Pdrawwwmm°t* O"'t, 0 way 213 '30, 90, k' sta1PPo°hi4"dO MAWOO if M71 0001, ft'nowoo POP* 77 Irb P 46 '.OIP M Figure 3.6. GCM projections of temperature change in the southeast USA. The South Atlantic -Gulf Region is within the black oval (Carter et al., 2014). Projected Cl,wrige in Nurnber of Niglits Belo 32" ra t o [Moron [Moronce rron,i Hiss ud o f Ortiato 40 Ml 12 0 Figure 3.7. GCM projections of change in overnight minimum temperatures in the southeast USA. The South Atlantic -Gulf Region is within the black oval (Carter et al., 2014). Ivey point: Strong consensus exiA5 in the literature that projected temperature in the study region show a sharp increasing trend over the next century. 3.2. Precipitation In line with projections for the rest of the country, projections of future changes in precipitation in the South Atlantic -Gulf Region are variable and generally lacking in consensus among studies or across models. The Liu et al. study (2013), described above, quantified significant increases in winter and spring precipitation associated with a 2055 planning horizon, relative to a recent historical baseline (1971 — 2000, centered around 1985), for the South Atlantic Region (Figure USACE Institute for Water Resources 25 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf 3.8). Smaller increases, or even slight decreases, are projected for the other seasons. However, the authors also project increases in the severity of future droughts for the region, as projected temperature and ET impacts outweigh the increases in precipitation. The study by Jayakody et al. (2013) on the Upper Pearl River watershed (Mississippi) revealed a low consensus on precipitation change projections for their three GCMs and more focused study region. There was, however, general consensus across their three sets of GCM projections of overall dryer summers for their future planning horizons, compared to historical baseline. These results appear to mildly disagree with those presented by Liu et al. (2013). M M M M Figure 3.8. Projected changes in seasonal precipitation, 2055 vs. 1985, mm. The South Atlantic -Gulf Region is within the yellow oval (Liu et al., 2013). More regionally, Wang et al. (2013b) present a study focused on the Wolf Bay watershed in southern Alabama. Results from this study highlight the uncertainty in climate model precipitation projections (Figure 3.9). Projected changes in annual precipitation (2016 — 2040), compared to historical baseline (1984 — 2008), range from an approximate 5% decrease to a 10% increase, across an ensemble of four GCMs applied for different assumed greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Seasonally, results show an increase in fall precipitation for nearly all scenarios, while results are mixed for other seasons. Model uncertainty is also apparent in the results presented by Bastola (2013). For grid cells located primarily in Florida and Georgia, projected changes in seasonal precipitation in the 2070s, compared to historical baseline, range from a 50% increase to a 50% decrease across a large range of GCMs and emissions and concentration pathway scenarios. The median projected changes appear to be in the -10% to +10% range. Similarly, Qi et al. (2009) present two differing GCM projections for their coastal North Carolina watershed (Figure 3.10). One projects an approximate 15% increase in precipitation by the end of the 21" century, while the other projects an approximate 20% decrease. USACE Institute for Water Resources 26 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 �t 0,0 �01�11�Ap � w !� uu A9, air. Tlr JJV � ,�, �✓ %r aryl iNm „� "" "J d;�' r i / hvMl 'ID'pw , M!f "% rr;N TArypk'.R^, m Ara Diu N"""Aft mi W'N Dam di ➢AA'M WADra[Jamf rAM ""Ot �rM4,s YX South Atlantic -Gulf Figure 3.9. Projected changes in seasonal and annual precipitation in Alabama, baseline period, 1988 — 2008 and future period, 2016 — 2040. (Wang et al., 2013b) Figure 3.10. Projected changes in annual precipitation, North Carolina, 1995 — 2100. (Qi et al., 2009). Future projections of extreme events, including storm events and droughts, are the subject of studies by Tebaldi et al. (2006), Wang and Zhang (2008), Gao et al. (2012), and Wang et al. (2013a). The first authors, as part of a global study, compared an ensemble of GCM projections for the southeast U.S. and a 2090 planning horizon with historical baseline data (1980 — 1999). They report small increases in the number of high (> 10 mm) precipitation days for the region, the number of storm events greater than the 95I' percentile of the historical record, and the daily precipitation intensity index (annual total precipitation divided by number of wet days). In other USACE Institute for Water Resources 27 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf words, the projections forecast small increases in the occurrence and intensity of storm events by the end of the 21" century for the general study region. In addition to the historical data trend analyses by Wang and Zhang (2008) described above, these authors also used downscaled GCMs to look at potential future changes in precipitation events across North America. They used an ensemble of GCMs and a single high emissions scenario (A2) to quantify a significant increase (c. 30 to 50 %) in the recurrence of the current 20 -year 24 -hour storm event for their future planning horizon (2075) and the general South Atlantic -Gulf Region (Figure 3.11). The projected increases in storm frequency presented by Wang and Zhang appear to be more significant than those projected by Tebaldi et al. (2006), but there is agreement on the general trend. Figure 3.11. Projected risk of current 20 -year 24 -hour precipitation event occurring in 2070 compared to historical (1974). A value of 2 indicates this storm will be twice as likely in the future compared to the past. Black dots show the locations of stations. The South Atlantic - Gulf Region is within the red oval (Wang and Zhang, 2008). The GCM applied in the Gao et al. (2012) study for the eastern U.S. generally projects increases in the magnitude of annual total (up to 200 mm yr 1) and daily (up to 20 mm day-') extreme (951' percentile) storm events and in the frequency of storm events (up to 5 days yr 1), for their 2058 planning horizon compared to current conditions (2001 — 2004) (Figure 3.12). The authors use a downscaled GCM to reproduce extreme weather events including hurricanes. Changes in the frequency and intensity of storm events were also the focus of a study by Wang et al. (2013a). These authors applied two GCMs to project future (2046 — 2069) design storm characteristics for the Florida panhandle. Results, in agreement with Gao et al. (2012), show a general shift upward of intensity- duration - frequency (IDF) curves, compared to historical baseline, for their three study sites (Figure 3.13). In other words, storm events are projected to be more intense and more frequent in the future compared to the past in northern Florida. USACE Institute for Water Resources 28 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 a) Annual total of extreme events (mm /yr) b) Daily extreme storms (mm /day) c) Frequency of storm events (days /yr) South Atlantic -Gulf Figure 3.12. GCM projections of future precipitation patterns in eastern USA (annual extreme totals, daily extremes, frequency of events) for a 2057 - 2059 planning horizon (compared to 2002 baseline); first column = baseline, second column = future, third column = difference between the two. The South Atlantic -Gulf Region is within the red oval (Gao et al., 2012). USACE Institute for Water Resources 29 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 I(� I +D" T19 Rofisfrt New wr9 4Ya rw7aa;9Yla!wmYwrrr 40, r,, rnr fw %' Yry' Ik +Vw w u r �nawwn�w �? YJ � r 92,7, to, 3 i V ar+ rt��ouwa�N�� 1 Rw(fuvru ' wZ� M,,wwiN xw Mppmymw 0"6 P21awwUicNwan � �a�,wmadtl �;�o'� YFru9wk`rOw1 AaryfRllW a s,wx 3f�1 f7wa: �re Y yy nV r South Atlantic -Gulf W��aw4iiww2n 14�uww�Ymrh lgvull D a nV "frArpm4o w 41 �$ r" G��r9rio2w. �n�wwurxv9f (f9w;i Figure 3.13. Projected changes in storm intensity and frequency, Florida Panhandle. The top row is the 3 -hour storm. The bottom row is the 24 -hour storm. The columns correspond to three different locations in the study area. Blue lines are future GCM projections. Red lines are the historical baseline (1970 — 1999). (Wang et al., 2013a). Key point: Reasonable consensus exiA5 in the literature that the intensity crud frequency of extrenae storm events will zncrea5e in the future fors the South Adantzc- Gudf'Regzon. Low consensus exiA5 with respect to projected changes in total annual precipitation fors the region. 3.3. Hydrology A number of global and national scale studies have attempted to project future changes in hydrology, relying primarily on a combination of GCMs and macro -scale hydrologic models. These studies include projections of potential hydrologic changes in the South Atlantic -Gulf Region. Thomson et al. (2005) applied two GCMs, across a range of varying input assumptions, in combination with the macro -scale Hydrologic Unit Model to quantify potential changes in water yield across the United States. Results are presented for both continuous spatial profiles across the country (Figure 3.14) and for individual HUCs. For the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, contradictory results are generated by the two GCMs. For the same set of input assumptions, one model predicts significant decreases in water yield, the other projects significant increases in water yield. USACE Institute for Water Resources 30 January 9, 2015 I NU.www.Vry IpWfwf (W r n Jxw �rrr sdl Y� u iur u N �I(w IC CJI; I(� I +D" T19 Rofisfrt New wr9 4Ya rw7aa;9Yla!wmYwrrr 40, r,, rnr fw %' Yry' Ik +Vw w u r �nawwn�w �? YJ � r 92,7, to, 3 i V ar+ rt��ouwa�N�� 1 Rw(fuvru ' wZ� M,,wwiN xw Mppmymw 0"6 P21awwUicNwan � �a�,wmadtl �;�o'� YFru9wk`rOw1 AaryfRllW a s,wx 3f�1 f7wa: �re Y yy nV r South Atlantic -Gulf W��aw4iiww2n 14�uww�Ymrh lgvull D a nV "frArpm4o w 41 �$ r" G��r9rio2w. �n�wwurxv9f (f9w;i Figure 3.13. Projected changes in storm intensity and frequency, Florida Panhandle. The top row is the 3 -hour storm. The bottom row is the 24 -hour storm. The columns correspond to three different locations in the study area. Blue lines are future GCM projections. Red lines are the historical baseline (1970 — 1999). (Wang et al., 2013a). Key point: Reasonable consensus exiA5 in the literature that the intensity crud frequency of extrenae storm events will zncrea5e in the future fors the South Adantzc- Gudf'Regzon. Low consensus exiA5 with respect to projected changes in total annual precipitation fors the region. 3.3. Hydrology A number of global and national scale studies have attempted to project future changes in hydrology, relying primarily on a combination of GCMs and macro -scale hydrologic models. These studies include projections of potential hydrologic changes in the South Atlantic -Gulf Region. Thomson et al. (2005) applied two GCMs, across a range of varying input assumptions, in combination with the macro -scale Hydrologic Unit Model to quantify potential changes in water yield across the United States. Results are presented for both continuous spatial profiles across the country (Figure 3.14) and for individual HUCs. For the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, contradictory results are generated by the two GCMs. For the same set of input assumptions, one model predicts significant decreases in water yield, the other projects significant increases in water yield. USACE Institute for Water Resources 30 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf w,r T ,: ) (All 26 366 5 C): GMT .;..2..5 C;;`02 560 BNORC l.alUC wa'wr N kekJ 4 Vault s 4VVIIM I'll M1 Figure 3.14. Projected change in water yield (from historical baseline), under various climate change scenarios based on 2 GCM projections. The South Atlantic -Gulf Region is within the red oval (Thomson et al., 2005). The results presented by Thomson et al. (2005), described above, highlight the significant uncertainties associated with global climate modeling, particularly with respect to hydrologic parameters. Additional uncertainty is generated when these climate models are combined with hydrologic models that carry their own uncertainty. This comparison and quantification of uncertainty is the subject of a 2013 study by Hagemann et al. In this study, the authors apply three GCMs, across two emission scenarios to seed eight different hydrologic models for projecting precipitation, ET, and runoff on a global scale. Their findings, in agreement with CDM Smith (2012), indicate that the uncertainty associated with macro -scale hydrologic modeling is as great, or greater, than that associated with the selection of climate models. Study projections from Hagemann et al. (2013) for the general South Atlantic -Gulf Region show an overall decrease in runoff by approximately 200 mm per year for their future planning horizon (2071 — 2100) compared to the recent historical baseline (1971 — 2000) (Figure 3.15), assuming an A2 emissions scenario. USACE Institute for Water Resources 31 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf Runoff change ttomi GCMs & 81 6 tMs, W71-2, 100 vs. 197 1 -2001 15 "'WJZW 'W M ' K 12A* VWK AN `µ We Or 60*N W. WIN , " H 1' "''W 1201 ' M "+fin ,1V Y E `K 1 f E IN 1W, _2W -161 - -120 40 -40 Q 401 so Iii, 16+11 20) Figure 3.15. Ensemble mean runoff projections (mm /year) for A2 greenhouse gas emissions scenario, changes in annual runoff, 2085 vs. 1985. The South Atlantic -Gulf Region is within the red oval (Hagemann et al., 2013). One method for addressing uncertainty in climate change projections is to use probabilistic modeling approaches (CDM, 2011). Such studies are described by Wang et al. (2013a) and Wu et al. (2014). In the first study, the authors apply four GCMs across three greenhouse gas emission scenarios, in combination with a mechanistic hydrologic model, to quantify future changes in streamflow as a result of climate change. Results are presented in the form of a cumulative distribution function (Figure 3.16) and show a high likelihood of higher flows in the future compared to the past, particularly for the wetter projection scenarios. The driest scenarios, however, show a nearly equal likelihood of decreasing flows as increasing flows. In the Wu et al. (2014) study, the full suite of CMIP3 GCM projections were used, in combination with a lumped rainfall- runoff model, within a probabilistic framework to project future changes in streamflow for a watershed in North Carolina (Coweeta Laboratory). They compared future (2070 — 2099) projections with historical (1961 — 1990) data. Probabilistic results (Figure 3.17) suggest a likely increase in winter streamflow (up to c. 30 %) across a range of assumed greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Results are mixed for the other seasons. Summer flows are projected to likely decrease under the A2 (worst case) scenario but likely increase (slightly) under the B1 (best case) scenario. Spring flows appear just as likely to be lower as higher for the A2 and A I B scenarios but more likely to be higher under the B1 scenario. The value of probabilistic approaches is evident when comparing this study with a deterministic study by Qi et al. (2009), also focused on North Carolina streamflow changes. The Qi et al. study presented projections from only two GCMs and a single hydrologic model. One set of results predicts a small and gradual increase in streamflow through the 21" century, while the other predicts a small decrease in streamflow for the same time period. USACE Institute for Water Resources 32 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 Z0 I ID 5 ID d "IDS . .............. w,................_....... ............................... ................ . .............e................� South Atlantic -Gulf Figure 3.16. Projected changes in streamflow, Southern Alabama: 2016 — 2040 vs. 1984 — 2008. (Wang et al., 2013b). USACE Institute for Water Resources 33 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 A2 scegwio • 0 �10 0 10 20 Percent chanipe of stteamflow Al s esiar'tnn, inn e^� rM;r u�r i w 0 -21D 10 0 W 2 a ^r„ rpd han"ngc d str am fl,,xve n enarso MN inn u a r Percent chainge of strewnrbw 2 South Atlantic -Gulf Figure 3.17. Projected changes in streamflow, Coweeta Laboratory (North Carolina): 2070 — 2099 vs. 1961 — 1990. Winter = thick black line, spring = thin black line, summer = dotted line, fall = dashed line. (Wu et al., 2014). Stronger consensus is seen in the results presented by Bastola (2013) for the southeast region (primarily Georgia and Florida), based on the latest climate model projections (CMIP5). These results (Figure 3.18) show a clear majority of the utilized GCM simulations projecting small increases in average spring and summer streamflow (on the order of 1 — 10 %) across a range of models and representative concentration pathways (RCPs). Uncertainty is still evident, however, as a number of projections indicate decreased flows in the future. USACE Institute for Water Resources 34 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 0 lip �a S 0 M 0 E XX rt U x'. r: .. x x a°:- e� c.� tin ra ca ra ers r�r �v ;°w ? r� ez n rr cx r rt°s rw r rw r_'w 15, (d) ep: n s ua 0 ;. South Atlantic -Gulf Figure 3.18. Projected change in streamflow, southeast USA (Georgia and Florida): 2061 — 2080 vs. 1960 — 1990. (Bastola, 2013). Lastly, the third NCA (Carter et al., 2014) presents projections of a mild decrease in water availability for the southeast region of the country through the next century in agreement with only some of the study results presented above. Key point: No clear consensus was found in projected str eal'ttflow changes in the South Adantzc- df Region. Swolne studies point toward nazld increases inflow, others point toward nazld dccr eases inflow. 3.4. Summary of Future Climate Projection Findings There is strong consensus in the literature that air temperatures will increase in the study area, and throughout the country, over the next century. The studies reviewed here generally agree on an increase in mean annual air temperature of approximately 2 to 4 °C by the latter half of the 21" century for the South Atlantic -Gulf Region. The largest increases are projected for the summer months. Reasonable consensus is also seen in the literature with respect to projected increases in extreme temperature events, including more frequent, longer, and more intense summer heat waves in the long term future compared to the recent past. Projections of precipitation in the study area are less certain than those associated with air temperature. Results of the studies reviewed here are roughly evenly split with respect to projected increases vs. decreases in future annual precipitation. This is not unexpected as, according to the recently released NCA (Carter et al., 2014); the southeast region of the country (inclusive of the South Atlantic -Gulf Region) appears to be located in a "transition zone" between the projected wetter conditions to the north and dryer conditions to the west. There is, however, moderate consensus among the reviewed studies that future storm events in the region will be more intense and more frequent compared to the recent past. Similarly, clear consensus is lacking in the hydrologic projection literature. Projections generated by coupling GCMs with macro -scale hydrologic models in some cases indicate a reduction in future streamflows but in other cases indicate a potential increase in streamflows in the study region. Of the limited number of studies reviewed here, results are approximately evenly split between the two. A number of studies reviewed here employed probabilistic modeling methods to capture and quantify some of this projection uncertainty, resulting from both climate and runoff modeling USACE Institute for Water Resources 35 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic-Gulf steps. These methods frame output in the form of probability distributions that can be viewed as characterizations of likelihood of occurrence (risk) or levels of consensus among modeling scenarios. The trends and literary consensus of observed and projected primary variables noted above are summarized for reference and comparison in Figure 3.19. lik ydrok' Y/ TREND SCALE A* 1M= Large Iki creasp *=�inaHliixrejse im % INo 0 I 1*11Z_IUrq(,!DP,(re,ase #v-,5"mUDe(rew1 O=wuqeratiare LITERATURE CONSENSUS SCALE LOW ODIMMSUS No peef _re Mewd 10eraitute availaMe tof review (n) n: nij Tsber of relevant flbrature Midies re ed Figure 3.19. Summary matrix of observed and projected climate trends and literary consensus. USACE Institute for Water Resources 36 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf 4. Business Line Vulnerabilities The South Atlantic -Gulf Region encompasses a vast area in the south /southeastern region of the United States, including the coasts from Southern Virginia to Mississippi. The projected changes in climate conditions within the entire South Atlantic -Gulf Region Region may influence future USACE planning, engineering and operational activities as well as those of other users of lands and waters within these river basins. Unlike other HUCs, the inland waterways begin and end within the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, making the climatic conditions beyond this HUC less important. USACE recognizes the potential impacts of future climate considering the exposure and dependency of many of its projects on the natural environment. To assess the potential vulnerabilities that climate change may pose on USACE's missions, a set of primary USACE business lines were identified. They include: • Navigation • Flood Risk Management • Water Supply • Ecosystem Restoration • Hydropower • Recreation • Emergency Management • Regulatory • Military Programs Navigation is one of the primary missions of USACE in the South Atlantic -Gulf Region and the 25 major harbors and 6,300 miles of inland waterways and ports are essential for the regional and national economy. These waterways are not influenced by tides, thus rely on dredging efforts to maintain appropriate depths. The expected increases in air temperatures, especially in the summer, may impede USACE's ability to maintain the approved navigation depths on these waterways. Flood risk management projects in the region include structural projects which regulate the flows in many of the river basins to avoid flooding. Uncertainty exists with regard to impacts of climate change on flood -risk management needs due to the lack of consensus for future precipitation patterns. However, flood risk management projects may be very important for reducing the residual flooding impacts due to extreme storm events, which are predicted to be more frequent and intense. USACE also maintains and operates several fresh water supplies for aquifer replenishment for agricultural uses. Managing competing water needs can be a challenge, especially when water demand is high and water supply is low. While this report does not highlight the impacts of sea level change, changes in coastal conditions can have impacts which penetrate to inland water bodies. Sea levels along the southeastern coastline of the United States are projected to increase and may exacerbate salt water intrusion into freshwater water supply. Tools and information related to sea level change can be found on the USACE Responses to Climate Change website (USAGE, 2014). Water supplies may also be strained due to increased temperatures and heat waves in the summer months. These conditions lead to increase ET, lowering surface water and groundwater supplies. Maintaining necessary flows for competing sources such as hydropower USACE Institute for Water Resources 37 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf generation, navigation and ecosystem management, may present some significant, additional challenges to an already complex water resource system. USACE implements several ecosystem restoration projects in the South Atlantic -Gulf Region, such as examining existing ecosystems, developing watershed management plans, performing restoration feasibility studies, executing comprehensive river restoration, and preserving and maintaining natural habitats. Increased air temperatures, particularly in the summer months, will result in increased water temperatures. This may lead to water quality concerns, particularly for the dissolved oxygen levels, which are an important water quality parameter for aquatic life. Increased air temperatures are associated with the growth of nuisance algal blooms and influence wildlife and supporting food supplies. The hydropower facilities in the South Atlantic -Gulf Region provide over five billion kilowatt - hours of electricity, mainly as "peaking power" to supplement fossil fuel plants. Uncertainty exists with regard to impacts of climate change on potential hydropower output, due to the lack of consensus for future precipitation patterns. However, increased air temperatures may cause seasonal drought situations, especially in the summer, and may reduce the amount of power that may be generated by the hydropower plants. Recreational facilities in the region offer several benefits to visitors as well as positive economic impacts. Increases in air temperature along extended heat waves in the summer months and the increased frequency of extreme storm events have the potential to decrease the number of visitors to USACE's recreational facilities. Periods of extreme high heat poses human health concerns and higher water temperatures can result in algal blooms and other water quality issues which may cause health risks for those involved in aquatic activities. Increased extreme storm events may make recreational activity difficult, dangerous, or impossible. USACE has extraordinary capabilities to respond to natural disasters and other emergency situations throughout the country, and it is a top priority. There are designated emergency managers and assigned staff in each region and subregion that are able to quickly mobilize. Extreme storm events are capable of creating emergency situations in which USACE would be needed to provide assistance in the South Atlantic -Gulf Region. These types of storms are capable of intense precipitation, winds, and storm surge in coastal areas. Since these may occur more frequently, USACE can expect an increased need for their assistance in disaster response and recovery. USACE's regulatory mission has a serious commitment to protecting aquatic resources while allowing reasonable development. The climate projections may have indirect implications for permitting in the region, and may result from modifications in federal laws and guidance. This may spur stricter regulation or increase the permitting breadth and depth. While most of the permitting processes may not change, the volume and frequency of the permitting requirements may increase — thus increasing the permitting costs for projects. In addition, USACE provides engineering, construction, real estate, environmental management, disaster response, and other support or consulting services for the Army, Air Force, other assigned U.S. Government agencies, and foreign governments. Environmental management services include rehabilitation of active and inactive military bases, formerly used defense sites, or areas that house excess munitions. Expected changes in climate may necessitate adjustments USACE Institute for Water Resources 38 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf in rehabilitation approaches, engineering design parameters, and potential types of military construction /infrastructure projects that USACE may be asked to support. USACE projects are varied, complex, and at times, encompass multiple business lines. The relationships among these business lines, with respect to impacts from climate change, are complicated with cascading effects. Such interrelationships must be recognized as an essential component of future planning efforts when considering the best methods or strategies to adapt. Figure 4.1 summarizes the projected climate trends and impacts on each of the USACE business lines. LI MATE VAMA BLE VULKEIRAMLITY 31rltstr "ISM fl rrf ,fy7a',,Tfv.yr rrtPfto%,QNv, f' U fQf "Tu[Y'if 'J'„y✓1)'" , (?rYtsf PfY 61)OwNl""rU 0 fri ,arir 1 / „f,.;ch �,,s,5ltfffrlu��d'r.l,t, t �r�rf” Nr,u� fir "j I!, ti IRIrr Gqf'I or, t ni7,, w tI , °r?rt , r A l''er a,t- rIr°'!I° rt,JW"' /)r/ S'O'T uI' / "t CIf,fu" apt'J "w k d,r, "l C,I"r T a t' fis °, III T : I ,t rrI rr , fYI ,f,'JIt ,i rar 1f' f of, lwrFel"; 7 ytaI1'0 a h, 'K If, ro P,"t ,- rI 1 =k ctrl ,ar I'P I, , N, a.r : rr. A r r i r I T I f if f tk,ee"' t",r"' r 1 l;:f('7 T" i, 9 <<)f ff I r f = I" Ir "I'J1'v" r ,,tI, "IC,uA t I A .IT f�.If,: "'o' au t("')e �f� ^Iltµea rak?t,f9f�, Pr�ri�P-F�gf.l ���,lir'9 lo, ,r. *,,Ir'f 4trr ,f °f,,�,oa P, ;J, f 1v"Il,J h IftY',I t.A lI(Jfry",foq d .r,q ,PF,c, an ir If 'vv,/ w"x I f4 vvfld'II f "'["J 1 „';'fm+fffI r'; *etiu�l�- "n't'rrt�f,J "'l`tr'sy a I'n,1P,kfX1/,.,''tf'I Cyr,. vTf, ll�fr rjAr II t - pfi",; ,I °F >v�,�,r;,e ,, fT",Ibfz..4r%!rrT rY;PX,�fprt �.,,rrrkr'rfa�rl >,14af(,1`,rf.,rr,r01"o ��arrf, fi .rrferFtr,,,r.',H ^J',,OYI'I,",,f ,Its n- 'r"IT "If) BLMINESS LINES MPACTED'.' AW 10 #; .14, AW Krarbtpjtgw Fparood Risk UVgerwfq ° Mrta*Nd° J[rqur R rw „ntwitr 11 ' llydropmi kq �4�rwt'rw hm' Suppt [nvqPncvMa(TjqmwPM Figure 4.1. Summary of projected climate trends and impacts on USACE business lines USACE Institute for Water Resources 39 January 9, 2015 Au N °Y,npt " "r <7 t.;I f,8d "vx, fJll,r'1, 5.f ff Y I It 4 f.af f, 1a,,f T t If A" f4 )tiX i e t"ItGY ,es ,I rt 94e ;rorr,t 1'i r•I rrf( l+dt`, 11'ww"" d'; y?p'r /",1 '%� r,Jt "Y .aPh ➢, �I rt "'`kA riff,f;hr ;g VII fA ill , ^'r fJ]l�P'ti4d ff,���„ �i �'ir ufJf N�( Yt l�Elj:h ' rI :YIrvre.,j,'fk /"," , 1) It„) faG"I, rr6r! f�7G!' f,ir„' izo;! Mrr, f""vr" if., kk'o11ckrAil'l',I„rN!�>* „fv,°.; yr[ fLrff k, L)r rakrtxf,. y,: f. rr' f. &Lr� f( u»,. 1ftl,ll!,1 Ifl.;' 1 fkt/ r ,,urxr,r?��r�rkr,r",evUr,YFtf., iii, /.��ea;tilY"f a��r1 .� "Pt, ""f ah t }ts„ ; * 1At,, lrr , It 4,r.,afrfI ll,f. fU.. %! A A"' �GP "N:;'I PXlrir✓Jk; "f ff s�J G6 t�f fe') / °I L "'Af" kVael a "k7y'1(A lr4 "' u o- wt fa lf1,& I'�q'rtfe,,q -, rl,r,rqvrf y I iga t�'M I IIIM I IUNIE IMPACTED a� i� ,,_rrYJi rY/ `z 9f.IUV f °`f ..2,:sP fifiP�4r %.fy fJ, YI aJ/ 4 f, 6,Y;;,F ,hr V /.i ,Y/,;'.�pf ,,�y t'S Lr^Y PI y, ,f „�iaFU.1'td'Cl rf w "dYU /. gl "vo f:���I, °'itt *<f,f'aD,fhrw,`r .aa t�,lltfrrl% fad- w�,, of .;I��VrV.ilfftle',rrrflnr�,litf �- ,4r,PIa ",Irl Itl,, Ir<,�.��}rfr' �" If,�'>fif ec l� ,ita: ",�I'.k rlmfr ik -. N'ff rkxa�if.f fju � "Ar7 p(1 ;.I.Stf;, k�f;tfcmv ll ff�7 �3rclt, urr .,f [w°. ,Sc ,f, fmlt'le,l aF�4I °t,�p 1 '/t's "J” ra,;,7P1 IC,',I IAr 'e,Ip I T t I a T �' '(v PI1� I t J l r4 AhfVI I,fi "'q T, p vb,7i6tP „„)V'I e Mid I 6Ia 'I 2._Sl� ( p u In,, v ;N' H ✓•,(( rt rf� PV,1 /Y� `rf,c� r f, l .fi ���' �,)k ��i ,&; ab�,� (Af +I I/ f"^ 1 P . rt Nf fP N r'�.t "'Mi Y P'(,,D� H J ,31 ,:r�'s7 f, / I t ?Y'f" . f,. ; i' ,'p31I"I Yti� . a Ir(,,n •r "w '+,,v f f s,, n"", r -,affp"','ff "f fLJIIIr,,,PfM1{ Vtfrt 1p (,'4,V 6' tom, I f "I I I OFf r;.'ry T aIf I n ( r t,o,I r Pf 4Cfitr: Vy'ftp r 6'?: 7 1, fr l ri f+t;" „f1 " "v4 011 41A { yf ., l e. e, l ry f.,,, 1< , c,a qr, 1 7 [ Ji ➢t Fr. y, Pf P o %vi T, l 4 rIYP r ! <J,f {'1 1 Ui t, a p;l I e Up 1 ll BUSINESS 11NES IMPACTED', AW Krarbtpjtgw Fparood Risk UVgerwfq ° Mrta*Nd° J[rqur R rw „ntwitr 11 ' llydropmi kq �4�rwt'rw hm' Suppt [nvqPncvMa(TjqmwPM Figure 4.1. Summary of projected climate trends and impacts on USACE business lines USACE Institute for Water Resources 39 January 9, 2015 r� V U cl O CA C� C� 0 0 i.w x� A� W V i.w 0 Z O uoi;eoi jisselj a;eu. xapul;asuo Sul am;sio W saoipul jgSm sawaJ;x3 uoi ;e;KI uoi ;e;idi swnwixeW am;ejad swnwiuiW am;ejad am;ejadwal u 0 m P. ro 0 o v ti w b 0 Nlw 0 0 N d W o 0. -o" v? m x 0 x� P. cv � � d O " � ro U U U C�cJcJx ti�4 a4 owwwa���AH 3333333 O N C.' ti M a� O i-. N W U W, Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 Appendix B: Reference List South Atlantic -Gulf Bastola, S. (2013) Hydrologic impacts of future climate change on Southeast US watersheds. Regional Environmental Change 13, 131 -139. Brommer, D.M., Cerveny, R.S., Balling Jr, R.C. (2007) Characteristics of long- duration precipitation events across the United States. Geophysical Research Letters 34. Carter, L.M., J W. Jones, L. Berry, V. Burkett, J. F. Murley, J. Obeysekera, P. J. Schramm, and D. Wear, 2014: Ch. 17: Southeast and the Caribbean. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 396 -417. doi:10.7930 /JONP22CB. CDM, (2011) Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning. CDM Smith, (2012) Incorporating Climate Change into Water Supply Planning and Yield Studies: A Demonstration and Comparison of Practical Methods Chen G., Tian H., Zhang C., Liu M., Ren W., Zhu W., Chappelka A.H., Prior S.A., Lockaby G.B. (2012) Drought in the Southern United States over the 20th century: Variability and its impacts on terrestrial ecosystem productivity and carbon storage. Climatic Change 114:379 -397. Cook B.I., Smerdon J.E., Seager R., Cook E.R. (2014) Pan - Continental Droughts in North America over the Last Millennium. Journal of Climate 27:383 -397. Dai, Z., Amatya, D.M., Sun, G., Trettin, C.C., Li, C., Li, H. (2011) Climate variability and its impact on forest hydrology on South Carolina coastal plain, USA. Atmosphere 2, 330 -357. Duan Q, Schaake J, Andreassian V, Franks S, Goteti G, Gupta HV, Gusev YM, Habets F, Hall A, Hay L, Hogue T, Huang M, Leavesley G, Liang X, Nasonova ON, Noilhan J, Oudin L, Sorooshian S,Wagener T, Wood EF (2006) Model parameter estimation experiment (MOPEX): an overview of science strategy and major results from the second and third workshops. J Hydrol 320:3 -17 Elguindi N, Grundstein A (2013) An integrated approach to assessing 21st century climate change over the contiguous U.S. using the NARCCAP RCM output. Climatic Change 117:809- 827. Gao, Y., J. S. Fu, J. B. Drake, Y. Liu and J. F. Lamarque (2012). "Projected changes of extreme weather events in the eastern United States based on a high resolution climate modeling system. Environmental Research Letters 7(4). Grundstein A (2009) Evaluation of climate change over the continental United States using a moisture index. Climatic Change 93:103 -115. USACE Institute for Water Resources 40 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf Grundstein A, Dowd J (2011) Trends in extreme apparent temperatures over the United States, 1949 -2010. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 50:1650 -1653. Hagemann, S., C. Chen, D. B. Clark, S. Folwell, S. N. Gosling, L Haddeland, N. Hanasaki, J. Heinke, F. Ludwig, F. Voss and A. J. Wiltshire (2013). "Climate change impact on available water resources obtained using multiple global climate and hydrology models." Earth System Dynamics 4(1): 129 -144. Irizarry- Ortiz, M.M., Obeysekera, J., Park, J., Trimble, P., Barnes, J., Park -Said, W., Gadzinski, E. (2013) Historical trends in Florida temperature and precipitation. Hydrological Processes 27, 2225 -2246. Jayakody P, Parajuli PB, Cathcart TP (2013) Impacts of climate variability on water quality with best management practices in sub - tropical climate of USA. Hydrological Processes. Kalra, A., T. C. Piechota, R. Davies and G. A. Tootle (2008). "Changes in U.S. streamflow and Western U.S. snowpack." Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 13(3): 156 -163. Kunkel KE, Liang X -Z, Zhu J (20 10) Regional climate model projections and uncertainties of U.S. summer heat waves. Journal of Climate 23:4447 -4458. Laseter, S.H., Ford, C.R., Vose, J.M., Swift, L.W. (2012) Long -term temperature and precipitation trends at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, Otto, North Carolina, USA. Hydrology Research 43, 890 -901. Li W, Li L, Fu R, Deng Y, Wang H (2011) Changes to the North Atlantic subtropical high and its role in the intensification of summer rainfall variability in the southeastern United States. Journal of Climate 24:1499 -1506. Liu Y, Goodrick SL, Stanturf JA (2013) Future U.S. wildfire potential trends projected using a dynamically downscaled climate change scenario. Forest Ecology and Management 294:120- 135. McRoberts DB, Nielsen- Gammon JW (2011) A new homogenized climate division precipitation dataset for analysis of climate variability and climate change. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 50:1187 -1199. Misra, V., Michael, J.P., Boyles, R., Chassignet, E.P., Griffin, M., O'Brien, J.J. (2012) Reconciling the spatial distribution of the surface temperature trends in the Southeastern United States. Journal of Climate 25, 3610 -3618. Obeysekera, J., Irizarry, M., Park, J., Barnes, J., Dessalegne, T. (2011) Climate change and its implications for water resources management in south Florida. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 25, 495 -516. Palecki MA, Angel JR, Hollinger SE (2005) Storm precipitation in the United States. Part L Meteorological characteristics. Journal of Applied Meteorology 44:933 -946. USACE Institute for Water Resources 41 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf Patterson, L.A., Lutz, B., Doyle, M.W. (2012) Streamflow Changes in the South Atlantic, United States During the Mid- and Late 20th Century. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 48, 1126 -1138. Pryor SC, Howe JA, Kunkel KE (2009) How spatially coherent and statistically robust are temporal changes in extreme precipitation in the contiguous USA? International Journal of Climatology 29:31 -45. Qi, S., Sun, G., Wang, Y., McNulty, S.G., Myers, J.A.M. (2009) Streamflow response to climate and landuse changes in a coastal watershed in North Carolina. Transactions of the ASABE 52, 739 -749. Scherer M, Diffenbaugh N (2014) Transient twenty -first century changes in daily -scale temperature extremes in the United States. Climate Dynamics 42:1383 -1404. Schwartz MD, Ault TR, Betancourt JL (2013) Spring onset variations and trends in the continental United States: Past and regional assessment using temperature -based indices. International Journal of Climatology 33:2917 -2922. Small D, Islam S, Vogel RM (2006) Trends in precipitation and streamflow in the eastern U.S.: Paradox or perception? Geophysical Research Letters 33. Tebaldi C (2006) Going To The Extremes: An Intercomparison of Model- Simulated Historical and Future Changes in Extreme Events. Climate Change 79:185 -211. Thomson AM, Brown RA, Rosenberg NJ, Srinivasan R, Izaurralde RC (2005) Climate change impacts for the conterminous USA: An integrated assessment: Part 4: Water resources. Climatic Change 69:67 -88. US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) (2014). Responses to Climate Change. Website. Accessed July 24, 2014: https:Hcorpsclimate.us /. Villarini G, Smith HA, Vecchi GA (2013). Changing Frequency of Heavy Rainfall over the Central United States. Journal of Climate 26:351 -357. Walsh J, Wuebbles D, Hayhoe K, Kossin J, Kunkel KE, Stephens G, Thorne P, Vose RS, Wehner MF, Willis J, Anderson D, Kharin V, Knutson T, Landerer F, Lenton T, Kennedy J, Somerville R (2014) Appendix 3: Climate Science Supplement. in Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW (eds.) Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, pp. 735 -789. Wang, D., Hagen, S.C., Alizad, K. (2013a) Climate change impact and uncertainty analysis of extreme rainfall events in the Apalachicola River basin, Florida. Journal of Hydrology 480, 125- 135. USACE Institute for Water Resources 42 January 9, 2015 Climate Change Assessment for Water Resources Region 03 South Atlantic -Gulf Wang, R., Kalin, L., Kuang, W., Tian, H. (2013b) Individual and combined effects of land use /cover and climate change on Wolf Bay watershed streamflow in southern Alabama. Hydrological Processes, in press. Wang H, Killick R, Fu X (2013) Distributional change of monthly precipitation due to climate change: Comprehensive examination of dataset in southeastern United States. Hydrological Processes, in press. Wang H, Schubert S, Suarez M, Chen J, Hoerling M, Kumar A, Pegion P (2009) Attribution of the seasonality and regionality in climate trends over the United States during 1950 -2000. Journal of Climate 22:2571 -2590. Wang J, Zhang X (2008) Downscaling and projection of winter extreme daily precipitation over North America. Journal of Climate 21:923 -937. Westby, R.M., Lee, Y. -Y., Black, R.X. (2013) Anomalous temperature regimes during the cool season: Long -term trends, low- frequency mode modulation, and representation in CMIP5 simulations. Journal of Climate 26, 9061 -9076. Wu, W., Clark, J.S., Vose, J.M. (2014) Response of hydrology to climate change in the southern Appalachian Mountains using Bayesian inference. Hydrological Processes 28, 1616 -1626. Xu, X., Liu, W., Rafique, R., Wang, K. (2013) Revisiting Continental U.S. Hydrologic Change in the Latter Half of the 20th Century. Water resources management 27, 4337 -4348. USACE Institute for Water Resources 43 January 9, 2015 r / e r i/ .....iwrsyV «N , of m, vU io D � /J➢D 4 w lI� ; owl of 4 v /�Y /a «a rk�y�aiyr a , r r %/ (� �, L mio�nla�r'IVF( (��' /� �� /f�% ��% �r Giy✓ °�3� / /��r �y �hr /� fpli �u ,Y rr r ...............� a "�r m %�(( � ` ➢�d gin, � n h ud Prepared by: CDM Smith® www.cdmsmith.com cd cd \\ cj cd cd 110, �� \ \ 2 14, \ } \ }\ \ \\ 8 blh \ \�� \\ 14, \ } \ }\ \ \\ ".'r Ss 04 v 1 r r h C vt I � 1"''l a, Nk'�' i I if , R C�, C, �� Lv ll "'� ( mcvul g rl,Nnn h k, ]n 20135. llrc Noink Calq�:llk'la Cowm6shn (WRQ emmPkId ks AM smoqg: we N40h cammma %viEffife Actiotn Plail r,,:NC indl&Apy. aevidemic., rakd MY) parm,r rdmus to OW �ly I l" � kf"C CC& d) S W'i E dc-n"Anuml, 1"N h M": WIA, P wi I[ [K uQwd Lu Wta rWIN ehlMonpes, aad OPVKWnUW as alr, cmyyou',rvalirin c4u'warpo% Chmare Mpe iga "Ivnvo o1 lllmrjj' dvld '�'6"Uhlf'v "'Icluls 11"'llu rmiaml' I It, Ix"', Ihis OWN, COOPCM W's hvgr�"v ro W 111fify 1"Irr f"bl slniv *ildIA ago�,cies in tW� skislavin I'vollra,"l mmjrix% L.11WIL"T wjpmMbW NwwuMzWp Mmoradi AkM, and Firm fin" ronv Mobw blodwq die WRC 0 am no aml MWRA own Me 1"r 1,' LA , f�,MN, gum f'e"Hifft"'me, a holge, Thow wmllrwrs incArivpm n MW 0 mvMp uahkt CI inufle Ctarge W NO& CMMMMWS WWI IS JUNOM Pbny' Given dx." Corfq,"I'k %'ity 1319m I 11n""*'Jr" hi of t"Ivv eNnana Mhowe and Megkfaj mount COAMM bmw q�l can be WOrwiRg lo War"uml homw cumnae Wage MAY ARS, Off LlHAShX.J DEVAHMI hlfl N Wg�' i am %mom mcw w, �,,T�meva dii-A rupen i, drat has boer 1�qrqx,,,'avd Ise. (k, fmvd',,, r s kor (hc WRK"� h'Irpwri of(:'hdnafe C`h'wk v oa As"00 o"Or w° P, N"W6, flflv6m' "n& Mpp" Yvas dewlrq.�ord o'kfi ti,m'o du.,ATR C WAPIRf"o, ivvionf P[Mr�u Wrxrl,':�Onqp, (Annurkme, and Sonva as an hqM00 OOR'l or'v"'(" lxvva: WiUlUk:., 11p, lrik.-oow clinvok", ellmulp's kq- 11 fk"h a"lul Wi Idlift" rvvle'mnlg jxx2r'lfil u'a' sp.'.&ic4 and�' in Ncolh Canplir-ol, MA NamOrg qMMS ro wher, Ihx NH""" WAl" As rim" Not d, 01� tliraale C[ianp Ow mm, wn hqx US repon, voRA serve g : a vd4i,'*,k Pjr w; kom nwye Awal UP '&Ad,ve'is LAtis sip"ifienO S "Mal 'y , 26 kikt,,m, %,term F's, E)hfig, ka .I' '&tlfl sevu�'zlt C mo - R& lgjll' hl(""' 'x'l I[ l'Oh,rd- run M VA 'p X7 OVII(v P, h1v Vil"'m pffi(Wa10 r( ireff lle r Si atireff ILiIn iit4n e haireov �ui11(ll I�r4n �J Cis o n W11ff 11.11it1�, 1.1 Climate Models and Emissions Scenarios .......... ..............................1 1.1.1 Downscaling climate models for use at the regional scale ...................... 5 1.2 Overview of Impacts of Climate Change on Species and Habitats .................... 7 1.2.1 Climate Change Impacts on Community Composition ..................... 7 1.2.2 Climate Change Impacts on Phenology and Biotic Interactions .............. 10 1.2.3 Species and Ecosystem Vulnerability .... ............................... 14 :�' l.� will u� lll� "n���uiGl�ll�� 111"nip,1" l's clin 'Spe i s lhobi t,,jts 23 2.1 Projected Temperature Changes in the Southeast . ............................... 23 2.1.1 Understanding the Potential Impacts of Temperature Shifts on Species and Habitats ................ ............................... 25 2.2 Projected Precipitation Changes in the Southeast . ............................... 29 2.2.1 Storms and Severe Weather Events ...... ............................... 32 2.2.2 Hydrology ........................ ............................... 33 2.2.3 Additional Considerations for Aquatic Systems ........................... 39 2.2.4 Understanding the Potential Impacts of Precipitation and Hydrologic Shifts on Species and Habitats .............. ............................... 40 2.3 Sea Level Rise .............................. ............................... 41 2.3.1 Future Global Projections ............ ............................... 42 2.3.2 Understanding the Potential Impacts of Sea Level Rise on Species and Habitats ................ ............................... 42 3 Pirojjea,red hn1llao "s of("Ifliirmllie( "Jharrgov irni 5 3.1 Temperature Change Projections for North Carolina ............................. 53 3.1.1 Potential Impacts of Temperature Shifts on Species and Habitats in NorthCarolina .................... ............................... 56 3.2 Precipitation Change Projections for North Carolina ............................. 60 3.2.1 Potential Impacts of Precipitation and Hydrology Shifts on Species and Habitats in North Carolina ........... ............................... 63 3.3 Sea Level Rise Projections for North Carolina .... ............................... 65 3.3.1 Potential Impacts of Sea Level Rise on Species and Habitats in NorthCarolina .................... ............................... 69 �u., �� yt rr���� ;rrs¢rc Thrre4',r�:s ¢� ���,',TC res �,ion �;r 4.1 Land Use Change .......................... ............................... 87 4.1.1 Applying Land Cover /Land Use Data at the State and Local Scale ............. 90 4.1.2 Potential Impacts of Land Use Change on Species and Habitats .............. 99 4.2 Renewable Energy Development ............. ............................... 102 4.2.1 Renewable Energy Policy ............ ............................... 102 4.2.2 Wind Energy Development .......... ............................... 104 4.2.3 Biofuel Development ............... ............................... 104 4.3 Invasive Species ........................... ............................... 124 ..... . f � 5.1 'Ite,Conservation Planning Process ............................... . r�������� "' "" . ....... 135 5.2 Important�Cnsiderations in Conservation Planning for Climate Change Adapta, n ... ............................... T� 143 5.2.1 Engaging D1 e g crQsS����������������������� ' '�" A $oundaries ............. 144 ��� Partners and Coordinatin i e "" Spatial Scales ................... 144 5.2.2 Recognition of Ap ro'px„ d T 5.2.3 Incorporating Vulnerabilir a n ' to S ati e ty �s srry is ............................... 144 5.2.4 Addressing Uncertain "" :„ .............................. 145 5.4 Management actions 147 g fo„ „ „ climate change adaptation ...... .................. 147 Adaptation Strategies Ins ................... „............ 151 g n tional Adaptive Capacity... . 5.5 Building I t ",., 6 Current federal and State Adaptation Efforts ....................... ..: . . .... 152 5 Curr 5.6.1 Federal Climate Chan g e Efforts... . ... 152 5.6.2 State Agency Updates to the State Wildlife Action Plans .....................156 ire "; i(41 / II IG� ire 11 itx II "A a s ��� ��� a s a s a a s a s �������, r( C�'' A II j Ilij e ire f 1 it x a s a, a a a s a s 183 /II IIJj irelirx III as as as . as as „1-4. as .q 196 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . u acved due to Puna suze lhrnr ilahon III Yro.�' `, r !.!, �,. ...... wa °� "1 limate change is proceeding at a rate at which there will be unavoidable impacts to humans, wildlife, and habitat. Given current levels of heat - trapping greenhouse gas emis- sions, we are expected to experience substantial shifts in local, regional, and national climate patterns. These shifts have the potential to disrupt natural processes, and in some areas may cause significant degradation to ecosystems that provide services such as clean and abundant water, protection from flooding, and sustainable natural resources of timber products or game species. Mitigation strategies, or policy and management actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming, are and will continue to be an important part of any plan to reduce the impacts of climate change. These strategies include actions at the individual level, such as reducing your carbon footprint by driving less often, as well as strat- egies at a regional or national level to curb harm- ful greenhouse gas emissions from factories or other pollution sources. Despite the growing knowledge about and interest in climate change, greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, exceeding even the "business as usual" trajectory that scientists warn will lead to dire consequences. Consequently, even if the most rigorous mitigation strategies were implement- ed today at the local, regional, and national level, we will continue to experience the effects of climate change for many years to come. Because of these lasting effects, it will be critical for fish and wildlife agencies to play a significant role in developing strat- egies to safeguard wildlife, fish, and their supporting ecosystems from the impacts of climate change. Climate change adaptation refers to the adjustment in natural and human systems in response to expect- ed climate change impacts that we cannot prevent. W Adaptation is critical because we know that climate change is already happening, and that its effects on human and natural communities are already appar- ent in many regions across the globe. What's more, some additional warming is unavoidable. Because carbon persists for a long time in the atmosphere, there will be an inevitable lag between when we reduce emissions and when we start to see the results in the climate system and the natural world. For fish, wildlife, and habitats, adapting to climate change will be a long -term, iterative process, and will be particularly challenging given existing threats such as habitat loss and fragmentation from development, introduction of invasive species, water pollution, and wildlife diseases. Shifts in local climate, such as temperature and precipitation, may further exac- erbate these existing threats, putting some species at even more risk. Thus, climate change adaptation might best be seen as a new and permanent element of conservation planning and wildlife management, rather than a separate activity or a one -time planning process. The southeastern United States contains some of the highest biological diversity, and some of the most endangered ecosystems, found anywhere else in the world. The State of North Carolina contributes to the Southeast's unique floral and faunal diversity, from supporting the nation's highest number of amphib- ian species to a rich portfolio of unique ecosystems such as spruce -fir and southern forested wetlands. In 2005, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ( NCWRC) developed the State Wild- life Action Plan (NC WAP) to build on existing conservation efforts and develop a comprehensive blueprint for the conservation of fish and wildlife. In preparation of the NC WAP, the NCWRC and their partners identified over 350 species in greatest conservation need and provided a detailed array of management opportunities and approaches for part- ner- based, strategic conservation. In recognition of the potential impacts of climate change on important North Carolina wildlife species and habitats, the NCWRC is preparing for a revi- sion of the NC WAP. This revision is intended to highlight the special conservation issues associated with projected regional climatic shifts, and provide a critical first step towards safeguarding wildlife and habitats from climate change. However, given the complexity of climate change science, the breadth and depth of stakeholder groups who have been involved in the NC WAP, and the diversity of academics, NGOs, as well as state and federal agen- cies who are currently working on climate change issues in the region and state, the NCWRC identi- fied a clear need for a review of the state of climate change science and potential impacts on species and habitats specific to North Carolina. This report provides a comprehensive and up -to -date review of climate change science relevant to the state of North Carolina, the potential vulnerability of wild- life and their habitats, and the options for response through conservation planning, adaptive manage- ment, strategies, and actions. Although decreasing greenhouse gas mission will be critical for reducing the severity of climate change impacts, this report focuses on adaptation rather than mitigation, in an effort to provide guidance for updating the NC WAP. As each chapter provides a standalone component of specific elements of climate change in the state, read- ers may benefit from reading the report from start to finish or individually by chapter depending on their current level of understanding and potential applica- tion of the available science. Collectively, this report provides a general overview of available climate science (how do we know what we know), as well as a synthesis of the fundamental process for projected shifts in temperature, precipitation, hydrology, and sea level rise. In addition, we provide maps and a review of the fundamental ecological principles that underlie potential climate change impacts on natural systems. We then use that analysis to identify poten- tial impacts of projected shifts on species and habitats in the southeast and North Carolina. The potential impacts of climate change on species and habitats are also reviewed through the lens of synergistic threats such as alternative energy development and land use change. Finally, we outline a template for effective conservation planning, adaptive management, and adaptive management considerations in the face of climate change. Each of these topics is covered in 5 chapters and appendices described below: In Chapter 1, we provide a review of the fundamen- tal components of climate change science, such as climate modeling, functional and physical impacts on wildlife and habitat, and vulnerability. This review can serve as a baseline for understanding the latest climate science as well as provide a framework for thinking about how wildlife species and habitats may respond to climatic shifts. In Chapter 2, we describe some of the projections of temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise in the southeast under climate change, and highlight the available research on potential impacts to terrestrial and aquatic species. In Chapter 3, we apply climate modeling scenarios to map state - specific projected temperature and precip- itation changes, and use this information to identify a broad subset of species and habitats in North Caro- lina that may be particularly susceptible to climate change impacts in the state. UT In Chapter 4, we examine several synergistic threats to species and habitats, including land use change, demand for land intensive alternative energy sources, and spread of invasive species, as well as how climate change may amplify the impact of these stressors on wildlife in North Carolina. In Chapter 5, we describe the conservation plan- ning process, as well as important considerations for implementation, with specific reference to adaptive management. We also identify climate change adap- tation strategies, actions for wildlife and habitat, and discuss the importance of social and institutional adaptive capacity for developing and implementing actions. Finally, we provide information on what other states are currently doing and identify emerg- ing federal programs and partnerships, which may be critical for regionally coordinated climate change adaptation. In the Appendices, we provide a detailed review of available geospatial data, reports, invasive species, and policy /legislative opportunities that may support the NCWRC in revising the NC WAP. a We would like to take this opportunity to acknowl- edge the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commis- sion and our partners on the NC WAP and Climate Change Steering Committees. We would specifically like to thank Shannon Deaton and Perry Sumner for their leadership in organizing and guiding this committee, and for tackling this challenging and important issue. We also appreciated the thoughtful edits and insights provided by the Steering Commit- tee during each stage of report development. In addi- tion to Shannon and Perry, the following Steering Committee members contributed valuable edits to this report: Scott Anderson, Naomi Edelson, Todd Ewing, Chris Goudreau, Jamie Hammerman, Austin Kane, and Chris McGrath. It is our hope that this synthesis will serve as a valuable resource for engaging the conservation community and laying the groundwork for revising the North Carolina State Wildlife Action Plan. v,1 77 v,1 77 W, v,1 77 ,I (� W, µ�, w 4,� W, v,1 7 v,1 7 µ�, w 4,� IrI '�;, ll 171 'IIri ate �, „r ll,lll,�;�� „171 i �� e, !��, 171 I�I �', ,. .�I 17! IIr III Ill,��l'4ro� acts '/ f/ 'r,s x( /F'(''jv/i- „/i / /,//qf - t //6qn ,et” /:/Fall b cn !'r,j 1 / //r,' /lfr" !r r, /Il r"vc/' i 'r,jrlf rlcFn /;. 111 r,I(,r 6qn, Egn(!r '('n /6 /r,/ f" %11116q r / {` llrllll C. Parmesan, 2006 There is now scientific consensus that global warming is caused by increases in green- house gas emissions that are higher today than they have been at any other time in the last 650,000 years (IPCC 2007). The scientific evidence is overwhelming, with numerous independent stud- ies showing patterns of increase in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global sea level. The last decade was the warmest on record since weather records began in the 1880s (Arndt et al. 2009), and global average temperatures have increased 0.4 °F (0.2 °C) per decade since the 1970s (IPCC 2007). Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates will lead to further global warming during the 21st century, which would very likely be greater than that observed during the 20th century (IPCC 2007). The global warming trend has accel- erated in recent decades, and the pace of climate change projected this century is occurring faster than most managed ecosystems have experienced previously (Barnosky et al. 2003). It is likely that rates of climate change will be more rapid than most species can adapt to through evolutionary changes or migration to more favorable climate locations (Davis and Shaw 2001, Pearson 2006). These projected changes threaten our conservation invest- ments — which to date have existed mostly in the form of isolated protected areas and mandated management goals for species and ecosystems based on historical targets (Heller and Zavaleta 2009). Most natural resource planning, management, and monitoring methodologies that are in place today are still based on the assumption that climate, species distributions, and ecological processes will remain stable. Approaches to conservation in a climate changed future will need to be dynamic, address changes across spatial and temporal scales, and incor- porate flexibility to continue refinement as informa- tion increases (Hansen et al. 2010). Under climate change, natural resource agencies may be forced to adjust timeframes, plan for alternative future scenarios, and revise resource management plans or actions more often than in the past. In this chapter, we provide a review of the fundamental components of climate change science, such as climate model- ing, functional and physical impacts on wildlife and habitat, and vulnerability. This review can serve as a baseline for understanding the latest climate science as well as provide a framework for thinking about how wildlife species and habitats may respond to climatic shifts. 1 , '„ /iII it ate e //'h%(PVii' d el `°m and d 1 ; II' fl i ll Wn `°m If oIf ' Wir S cen ar 111 oWir In order to predict and prepare for the impacts of climate change on natural systems, it is necessary to have a basic understanding of the science of climate change. Climate is the accumulation of daily and seasonal weather events, over weeks, months, years, and longer. It is measured in the long -term aver- ages of weather variables and departures of weather variables from normal. Weather is the condition of the atmosphere at any particular moment in time and place, and is the day -to -day state of the atmosphere. The main characteristics of the four SRES storylines and scenario families j Al A2 ,,� B1 B2 Storyline ^ "" Storyline Storyline Storyline Al F1 A A1B p B1 B2 Scenario Groups Illustrative I I Illustrative i Illustrative Illustrative Illustrative Illustrative Scenario i i Scenario Marker Marker Marker Marker Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario OS HS OS HS OS HS OS HS OS HS OS HS 1 5 1 2 2 6 4 2 2 7 4 4 Number of Scenarios This figure shows a schematic illustration of SRES scenarios. Four qualitative storylines yield four sets of scenarios called "families ": Al, A2, Bl, and B2. Altogether 40 SRES scenarios have been developed by six modeling teams. All are equally valid with no assigned probabilities of occurrence. The set of scenarios consists of six scenario groups drawn from the four families: one group each in A2, B 1, B2, and three groups within the Al family, characterizing alternative developments of energy technologies: A1FI (fossil fuel intensive), A1B (Balanced), and A1T (predominantly non -fossil fuel). Within each family and group of scenarios, some share "harmonized" assumptions on global population, gross world product, and final energy. These are marked as "HS" for harmonized scenarios. "OS" denotes scenarios that explore uncertainties in driving forces beyond those of the harmonized scenarios. The number of scenarios developed within each category is shown. For each of the six scenario groups an Illustrative scenarios (which is always harmonized) is provided. Four illustrative marker scenarios, one for each scenario family, were used in draft form in the 1998 SRES open process and are included in revised form in this Report. Two additional illustrative scenarios for the groups A1FI and A1T are also provided and complete a sex of six that illustrates all scenario groups. All are equally sound. By 2100 the world will have changed in ways that are difficult to imagine — as difficult as it would have been at the end of the 19th century to imagine the changes of the 100 years since. Each Storyline assumes a distinctly different direction for future developments, such that the four storylines differ in increasingly irreversible ways. Together they describe divergent futures that encompass a significant portion of the under- lying uncertainties in the main driving forces. They cover a wide range of key future characteristics such as demographic change, economic development, and technological change. For this reason, their plausibility or feasibility should not be considered solely on the basis of an extrapolation of current economic, technological, and social trends. • The Al Storyline and scenario family describes a future world of very rapid economic growth, global population that peaks in mid - century and declines thereafter, and the rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies. Major underlying themes are convergence among regions, capacity building, and increased cultural and social interactions, with a substantial reduction in regional differences in per capita income. The Al scenario family develops into three groups that describe alternative directions of technological changes in the energy system. The three Al groups are distinguished by their technological emphasis: fossil intensive (A1FI), non - fossil energy sources (A1T ), or a balance across all sources (A1B)'. • The A2 storyline and scenario family describes a very heterogeneous world. The underlying theme is self - reliance and preservation of local identities. Fertility patterns across regions converge very slowly, which results in continuously increasing global population. Economic development is primarily regionally oriented and per capita economic growth and technological change are more fragmented and slower than in other storylines. • The B 1 Storyline and scenario family describes a convergent world with the same global population that peaks in mid - century and declines thereafter, as in the Al Storyline, but with rapid changes in economic structures toward a service and information economy, with reduction in material intensity, and the introduction of clean and resource - efficient technologies. The emphasis is on global solutions to economic, social, and environmental sustainability, including improved equity, but without additional climate initiatives. • The B2 storyline and scenario family describes a world in which the emphasis is on local solutions to economic, social, and environmental sustainability. It is a world with continuously increasing global population at a rate lower than A2, intermediate levels of economic develop- ment, and less rapid and more diverse technological change than in the BI and Al storylines. While the scenario is also oriented toward environmental protection and social equity, it focuses on local and regional levels. 'Balanced is defined as not relying too heavily on one particular energy source, on the assumption that similar improvement rates apply to all energy and end use technologies. Figure 1 -1. Schematic illustration of emissions scenarios and storylines from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (Source: Nakicenovic et al. 2000). These scenarios are used to make predictions about future green- house gas emissions, which are then incorporated into projections of future global warming. Increased emissions of greenhouse gases are chang- ing average climate conditions, locally and across the globe. In order to understand the changes in climate that will result from increased concentrations of these gases, scientists rely on climate model simula- tions that are driven by assumptions about future population growth, socio- economic development, and technology change (Nakicenovic et al. 2000). These assumptions, or scenarios, provide the basis for estimating future greenhouse gas emissions and are used as inputs to run global climate models that simulate changes in temperature, precipitation, and other climate - related conditions. The IPCC (2000) has developed a set of 40 scenar- ios that provide multiple alternative models of how future population growth, changes in wealth, and advances in technology may alter future emissions outcomes (Figure 1 -1). These scenarios are based on four narrative storylines that represent different demographic, social, economic, technological, and environmental developments. For example, the Al storyline describes a future with very rapid economic growth, a global population that peaks in mid- centu- ry and declines thereafter, and the rapid introduc- tion of new and more efficient technology (Figure 1 -1). Scenarios that capture the main driving forces behind greenhouse gas and sulfur emissions are then based on each storyline. For example, from the Al storyline, three scenario groups have been distin- guished based on technological emphasis: fossil intensive (A1F1), non - fossil energy sources (A1T), or a balance across all sources (A1B). Each scenario results in a specific quantitative estimate of emissions based on a quantitative interpretation of each story - line (IPCC 2000). These emission scenarios are not predictions or forecasts, rather an alternative image of how the future might unfold based on a set of transparent assumptions. Figure 1 -2. Climate models are systems of differential equations based on the basic laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry. Scientists divide the planet into a 3- dimensional grid, apply the basic equations, solve for the equation of state of the system, and update the results for the next model time step. Atmospheric models calculate winds, heat transfer, radiation, relative humidity, and surface hydrology within each grid and evaluate interactions with neighboring points (Source: NOAA 2008). It is difficult to predict the human choices that will shape our future emissions, and thus what the world might look like in 2100. For example, under the higher emissions scenario (A1F1) atmo- spheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) reach more than triple pre - industrial levels, or 960 ppm, by 2100. Similarly, a lower emissions scenario (B1) represents a world with high economic growth and mid - century population peak and subsequent decline. In contrast to the A1FIscenario, the B1 scenario includes a shift to less fossil -fuel intensive industries and the introduction of clean and efficient technologies with a resulting peak in emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050, and then a decline. In the B1 scenario, CO2 concentrations reach 550 ppm by 2100, which is about double pre - industrial levels (Nakicenovic et al. 2000). In 2009, the global annual mean concentration of atmospheric CO2 was 386.27 ppm (NOAA /ESRL 2010). If recent emissions growth rates continue, CO2 levels, along with the associated effects of climate change, are very likely to exceed even the highest existing emissions scenarios (Rahmstorf et al. 2007). Global climate /general circulation models (both GCMs) are computer -based models of the climate system developed from weather forecasting models (Goodess 2000) which incorporate interactions MULTI-MODEL AvESAGES AND SSEamn Marcos ron Sunmoe W&Pmwa A2 VI -ih::k i��"W 1l�li I-Al,V1 6.0 AlB B1 5.0 Year 2000 Constant _ Concentrations U 20th century a 4.0 co 3.0 L) // 7 1.0 CD 0.0 —1.0— ° K:'0 Q m Q 1900 2000 2100 Year Figure SPM.5. Solid lines are multi -model global averages of surface warming (relative to 1980 -1999) for the scenarios A2, A18 and 81, shown as continuations of the 20th century simulations. Shading denotes the ±1 standard deviation range of individual model annual averages. The orange line is for the experiment where concentrations were held constant at year 2000 values. The grey bars at right indicate the best estimate (solid line within each bar) and the likely range assessed for the six SRES marker scenarios. The assessment of the best estimate and likely ranges in the grey bars includes the AOGCMs in the left part of the figure, as well as results from a hierarchy of independent models and observational constraints. (Figures 10.4 and 10.29) Figure 1 -3. Multi -model averages and assessed ranges for global surface warming under different emissions scenarios (Source: Nakicenovic et al. 2000). Regardless of which scenario is assessed, significant global warming is expected to occur. among atmosphere, oceans, land surface, and ice in order to estimate the likelihood of changes in temperature, precipitation, and other climate factors (Hayhoe et al. 2010). These models are complex, as they simulate the climate system in three dimen- sions (Viner 2000) (Figure 1 -2). Atmosphere -only GCMs were the first generation of climate models, and were used to simulate the equilibrium response of the climate system to a doubling of atmospheric CO, (Viner 2000). More recent models build on the AGCMs with coupled Atmosphere -Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs). AOGCMs are more complex and incorporate additional factors such as sea ice, evapotranspiration over land, and the feedback interactions between the ocean and atmo- sphere (Randall et al. 2007, Hayhoe et al. 2010). Most importantly, these models are able to dynami- cally model the ocean, which has a significant impact on the climate system as a whole. There have been major advances in the development of climate models over the last 20 years, and current models provide a reliable guide to future conditions at a coarse scale, given a particular scenario (Randall et al. 2007). One way GCMs are evaluated is by simulating the historic climate using past observed concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions, and then compare those model outputs to the observed climate (Weart 2009). Climate models have success- fully reproduced the main features of the current climate, including temperature changes over the last hundred years, as well as the main features of the Holocene period (6,000 years ago) and the Last Glacial Maximum (21,000) years ago (Weart 2009). By evaluating models against past climate data, scientists are able to identify potential causal mecha- nisms of climate change, and use that information to project the main features of the future climate (Jones 2000). Models are continually tested and scrutinized, and there are ongoing improvements in computational ability as well as resolution. The ability of AOGCMs to simulate extreme events, such as hot and cold spells, has also improved, although the frequency and amount of precipitation falling in intense events are underestimated (Randall et al. 2007). Models are able to project some climate variables, such as temperature, with a higher degree of confidence than other variables, such as precipitation. However several decades of develop- ment have resulted in a robust and unambiguous picture of significant global warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases (Randall et al. 2007) (Figure 1 -3). There are more than 20 climate models included in the third phase of the Coupled Model Intercom - parison Project (CMIP3), which was developed to serve the IPCC Working Group I for the Fourth Assessment Report (Meehl et al. 2007). Some of these models are better at reproducing observed climate and trends over the past century in partic- ular geographic regions than others (Hayhoe et al. 2010). However, for the purposes of analyzing the potential impacts of climate change, the multimodel ensemble average provides a more robust picture of future climate conditions than any one model (Pierce et al. 2009). Furthermore, choosing one model for use requires a detailed understanding of the climate dynamics in the region of interest (Hayhoe et al. 2010). In most cases, when evaluating the potential impacts of climate change in a given region it is best to use the multi -model ensemble average instead of choosing one or two (Pierce et al. 2009). to Io I D revv r!; c, "a / rl ed rrlat'e r l ("�i°Ie <, i l 1, <,e, One of the drawbacks of the current generation of GCMs is that the resolution is fairly course, upwards of several hundred kilometers (K. Hayhoe et al. 2010). To develop projections of regional climate changes based on global concentrations of green- house gas emissions, the global climate models must be downscaled to transform the large -scale output generated to a regional scale. The main approaches to downscaling are statistical and dynamical down - scaling. Statistical downscaling requires establishing an empirical relationship between the AOGCM output for the past record and observed climate variables of interest. This relationship is tested using a second historical evaluation period and then used to proj- ect future change across the region of interest (K. Hayhoe et al. 2010). Statistical downscaling is the approach that was used to generate the spatial data (Maurer et al. 2007) used in the Climate Wizard (Zganjar et al. 2009), which is a freely available online tool for obtaining downscaled climate projec- tions. All of the climate projections that were created specifically for this publication were developed using Climate Wizard. Climate Wizard (Zganjar et al. 2009) provides access to 16 global climate models that can be used to develop downscaled projections of climate change across North America (Figure 1 -4). Climate Wizard can show climate data for the last 50 years, includ- ing how the climate changed over time. In addition, Climate Wizard shows climate projections for years 2040 -2069 and 2070 -2099. All of these data can be downloaded and exported into a mapping or imagery program. In addition, the Southeast Regional Assess- ment Project (SERAP) is the first regional assessment to be funded by the USGS National Climate Change and Wildlife Center, and will be converting a suite of global models into regional climate projections of likely changes to the Southeast's climate and ecosys- tems. For more on these and other data resources see Appendix A. Regional, or dynamical downscaling relies on the development of a high resolution climate model built for a specific geographic location. The model is centered over the region of interest and relies on global climate model output fields at its boundaries (K. Hayhoe et al. 2010). These models, which can provide a resolution of 10 to 50 kilometers, are able i�ll d j� '"W IF wy C 5 v iifii 0# wuw�V 6 kt? Nas N&U Ee m°mruu do . 'd tl� m mi wu mn ��yi :, AJ 10 Figure 1 -4. The Climate Wizard user interface (http: / /www. climatewizard.org). The website allows the user to easily access statisti- cally downscaled climate projections using 16 global climate models (Zganjar et al. 2009) to simulate the dynamic changes expected to occur at a smaller scale as the global climate changes; they are also expensive to run and data - storage intensive (K. Hayhoe et al. 2010). The regional model simu- lations generated by the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program ( NARCCAP) are currently the most comprehensive set of region- al models currently available ( NARCCAP 2007). The NARCCAP uses regional model /global model pairs to simulate conditions from 2041 to 2070 and compared to 1971 -2000 (K. Hayhoe et al. 2010). 1,2 Oi%'er'vIli" r "NPi(Cof of at Change on S,,,:"ll��Y�clli`es and 14abIliilati°ir Ecosystem processes are strongly influenced by climate, and changes in climate will affect ecosys- tem processes, ecological communities, and indi- vidual species. Climate change has been implicated in several recent species extinctions (McLaughlin et al. 2002, Pounds et al. 2006). Largely in response to environmental factors associate with changes in temperature, species ranges have shifted pole - ward and upward in elevation over the last century (Parmesan and Yohe 2003), and some species ranges, particularly in Polar Regions and at high elevations, are shrinking. Furthermore, changes in the timing of biological processes (phenology) are occurring, altering relationships between species and decou- pling critical species interactions (Walther et al. 2002). Ecological communities are disaggregating, and as new and often novel communities assemble, warm - adapted and invasive species may be favored (Parmesan 2006, Hellmann et al. 2008). Species are also losing habitat due to sea level rise, changes in fire frequency and intensity, changes in water avail- ability, glacial recession, pest outbreaks and altered weather patterns. Species invasions, as well as pest and disease outbreaks, are becoming more prevalent under climate change and, taken with other ongo- ing threats, are likely to significantly impact native species and ecosystems. l i r1 a t l'" /1 a l lI e l i r l /,',I at" t_!; w l l' I x.111' "r'll l'll,br I /t' Y "111'11/ t11!;/ ('" 1 i Climate exerts control over the natural distribution of species and the formation of ecological commu- nities. The diversity of species within ecological communities is influenced by a combination of local and regional -scale processes (Caley and Schluter 1997). Local -scale interspecific interactions include competition, predation, parasitism, mutualisms or commensalisms, while regional -scale processes shape the species pool from which the community can be assembled. Regional processes that main- tain diversity at a larger scale include long - distance dispersal, speciation, wide- spread extinction, and fluctuation in species distributions (Cornell and Lawton 1992). Ecological communities have always been dynamic— species diversity and composition within a community is temporary and, as species respond individualistically to changes in environ- mental conditions, communities may diasassociate, resulting in new species associations and interactions (Huntley 1991). Climate change will alter the abiotic conditions experienced by communities, with resulting effects on community composition and species interactions. As climate changes across the globe, the current distribution of climate conditions will be rearranged, with some climates disappearing entirely and new, dissimilar climates occurring. Using two emissions scenarios, Williams et al. (2007) estimated that by 2100, 17 -100% of global land area will experience novel climate regimes. For the U.S., approximately half of environmental domains, defined by edaphic, topographic and climatic factors, were projected to experience novel climates. Areas projected to experi- ence novel climate conditions are considered to be at greatest risk of biodiversity loss (Saxon et al. 2005). Paleoecological studies suggest that the majority of species will respond individualistically to changes in climate (Huntley 1991, Hansen et al. 2001, Bush 2002). The fossil record from the Quaternary Period contains significant evidence of species responses to climate change from a range of taxa including plants, insects, and mammals (reviewed in Keith et al. 2009). Perhaps one of the most widely recognized impacts of climate change on species is expected and observed range shifts. In regions experiencing warm- ing temperatures, expected species range - shifts are generally poleward to higher latitudes and upward to higher elevations (Parmesan 2006). The distri- bution and abundance of plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate species that occur along the latitude and elevation margins of their range are already strongly influenced by climate change (Lenoir et al. 2008). -1-,,,,q1 / / /i "',ti 'fn !' % //E'Jy ,qj)i- 1/1 V'( 'r1l / //C1 /116q i'r, /Ili%! // /r, /Il,ti A review by Parmesan (2006) provides a number of examples of observed species shifts in response to climate change. In northern hemisphere temperate First Infested in 1951 Year of First Infestation 0 Native Range of Hemlock L] Not Infested 1968 -1984 A Q 1985 -1990 1991 -2002 o3Ea �Plp 0 375 75 150 Miles v Disclaimer: This map depicts counties with ; -,_, established HWA populations that are confirmed and reported by respective state forest health officials. The coarse nature of the map does not provide information below the county level and users should not assume that highlighted infested counties are entirely infested. Map Produced by: USDA Forest Service 03/22/02 Figure 1 -5. Hemlock wooly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) infestation in North America from 1951 to 2002 (Source: USDA Forest Service 2010). Wooly adelgid are sensitive to cold temperatures and experience signifi- cant overwintering mortality when exposed to cold conditions. Under climate change, this pest is expected to thrive with warmer winters, and has already experienced range expansion since it was discovered in 1951. species there is evidence of Lepidoptera expansion of northern boundaries in Finland, Great Britain, and Europe, northern range expansion of 23 of 24 Odonata species in the United Kingdom, range expansions and contractions in songbirds, and colo- nization of an additional 77 lichen species in more northerly locations in the Netherlands. In montane regions, lowland birds are shifting to higher eleva- tions in Monteverde National Park Costa Rica, and the treeline has shifted upslope in Siberia and the Canadian Rockies. Montane species adapted to cooler high elevation sites are becoming locally extinct in the lower elevations of their range, includ- ing Edith's checkerspot butterfly (Euphyclryas eclitha, Mexico to Canada), Apollo butterfly (Parnassius apollo, France), and the pika (Ochotona princeps, in the Great Basin of the Western U.S.). Additionally, entire forest ecosystems and plant communities are expected to change as tree species shift their ranges poleward and upslope in response to climate change. Some common forest types such as oak - hickory may expand while others such as maple- beech -birch are expected to contract and spruce -fir forests may disappear altogether (Karl et al. 2009). Pests, pathogens, and invasive species will also respond to climate change by shifting their distri- butions. Invasive species will have a competitive Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Predicted Range Expansion A spatial representation of the predicted future range expansion for hemlock woolly adelgid was created by estimating spread rates from historical records and using these estimates to predict future spread. Presence was based upon visual detection of life stages by pest management personnel. Historical records were available for 1951, 1971, 1980, 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2002. A GIS was used to calculate the minimum distance of each county to the area initially infested. The rate of spread was estimated as the slope of the least squares linear regression model describing the relationship between each county's distance from the initially infested area and the time until the pest was established in the county. Due to the visibly anisotropic spread of hemlock woolly adelgid ( Souto et al., 1996), the minimum distance of each county to the area initially infested was measured separately in the east /west- and north /south- direction. Thus, two linear models of the distance of the county as a function of its time of first infestation were used to estimate two spread rates. Historical spread of hemlock woolly adelgid in the east /west direction was estimated at 3.6 km /year± 0.2 km /year (r2 =0.60) and in the north /south direction was estimated at 5.8 km /year ± 0.28 km /year (r2= 0.66). Souto, D., Luther, T, Chianese, B., 1996. Past and current status of HWA in eastern and Carolina hemlock stands. In: Salom, S.M., Tignor, T.C., Reardon, R.C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Review, USDA For. Service, Morgantown, WV, pp. 9 -15. III�I 900 900 u V �q Proportion of years with Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Infestation through 2025. 0 No Data 0 -0.2 0 0.2 -0.4 0 0.4 -0.6 ® 0.6 -0.8 0.8 -1 1800 Kilometers ts Map Produced by: USDA Forest Service Randall Morin Northeastern Research Station Figure 1 -6. Hemlock wooly adelgid (Aclelges tsugae) predicted range expansion in North America based on historic rates of spread (Source: USDA Forest Service 2010). W000ly adelgid have already experienced range expansion since 1951, and are expected to expand further based on historic rates of spread. Warmer winters associated with climate change may enhance wooly adelgid overwintering success. advantage over many native species that are also shifting ranges because most invasive species have rapid dispersal abilities and may have the capac- ity to survive and tolerate a range of environmental conditions (Dukes and Mooney 1999). In British Columbia, warmer temperatures are implicated in expanded large mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) outbreaks that are now occurring further north than they have previously been recorded (Logan et al. 2003). The hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) is an invasive non - native insect likely to expand as a result of climate change ( Paradis et al. 2007). Hemlock wooly adelgid has had a catastroph- ic impact on the forest system of the eastern U.S. by decimating stands of eastern and Carolina hemlock (Tsuga canadensis and T. caroliniana). The adelgid is sensitive to cold temperatures and experiences great- er overwintering mortality when exposed to colder conditions for longer periods of time (Shields and Cheah 2004, Paradis et al. 2007). Although the first known hemlock infestation was found in Virginia in 1951, this invasive pest has already spread to signifi- cant portions of the eastern U.S. since (USDA Forest Service 2010, Figure 1 -5). Historic rates of spread indicate an outward expansion of the hemlock woody adelgid's range from its current known range. However, this estimation does not include the predicted impacts of increasing temperatures on its range (Figure 1 -6). The ability of native and non - native species to shift in response to climate changes will depend on a number of factors, including the species' ability to keep pace with climate change through dispersal, the availability of suitable habitat, the permeability of the landscape through which the species must move, the species' capacity to adapt to change, and the resulting interactions of the species within a new community. Coupled global climate models and global vegeta- tion models suggest that keeping pace with climate change may require migration rates much faster than those observed during post - glacial times, potentially at rates of 1,000 meters per year or more (Malcolm et al. 2002). As the geographic range and timing in more, l'C'lcvemt in t �� e' U'; "'oI'/te' „x "t ,l rcs'Ponse,S to of species migration changes, there is also potential for mismatches between species and the resources they require to survive. Furthermore, highways and expanding urban areas, as well as the often isolated distribution of protected areas, may prevent species from successfully migrating in response to climate change. 7_2_2 2_2 CIIrriat f' ( "'w e,,,Iii li aI`;r° Ilitel;°act/i'lrls Species have evolved within an ecological context and are therefore tightly linked to the abiotic and biotic components of ecosystems. The influence of climate on the ecology of species includes direct constraints on the physiology of organisms, as well as indirect effects resulting from disruptions to food supply, changes in competitive interactions, or influ- ences on behavior, along with many others (McCarty 2001, Walther et al. 2002, Parmesan 2006). Any one of these effects alone or in combination has the potential to impact reproduction and /or survival, and therefore the long -term viability of popula- tions. There is now ample evidence for the ecological impacts of recent climate change on populations and species. It is also increasingly apparent that not all species respond in identical ways, creating the poten- tial for mismatches in the timing of events or spatial associations within ecosystems. Regional differenc- es in the magnitude of climate change may further complicate the population dynamics of certain species, such as long distance migrants, that depend on the environmental conditions of more than one area (Stenseth and Mysterud 2002). Phenological events, such as the timing of flowering, the onset of breeding, or the timing of migration, have typically evolved through natural selection to match environmental conditions. These seasonal life cycle events are generally tied to environmental cues, and a growing number of studies have documented changes in phenology in response to recent climate change (e.g., see McCarty 2001, Walther et al. 2002, Parmesan and Yohe 2003, Root et al. 2003, Parme- san 2006 for reviews). However, as local conditions drive phenological events, it is regional changes in climate, rather than global changes, that are likely to be more relevant in the context of species and habitat responses to climate change (Walther et al. 2002). Differences in the rate and magnitude of change across the globe will contribute to heterogeneity in ecological dynamics across systems, potentially disrupting interactions across trophic levels as well as co- evolved relationships such as pollination and seed dispersal. Long -term data sets from Europe and North Amer- ica document phenological changes across taxa, including timing of flowering and leaf out in plants, first appearance of butterflies, initiation of breed- ing in birds, timing of phytoplankton blooms, and choruses or spawning of amphibians (McCarty 2001, Parmesan 2006), which are generally associ- ated with warmer temperatures and earlier onset of growing seasons in northern latitudes. Across species and regions, these observed advances in phenological timing range from a day or less to several weeks per decade (McCarty 2001, Table 1 -1). However, not all species will have the capacity to respond rapidly to climate change, and this variability in response has the potential to disrupt correlations with other ecological factors. For example, population declines in the migratory pied flycatcher (Ficeclula hypoleu- ca) in the Netherlands have been associated with a mismatch between the timing of breeding and their main food supply (Both et al. 2006). Populations have declined by 90% in areas in which the peak in caterpillar abundance in spring has started earlier than the birds' breeding date. The laying dates of resident great tits (Tarus major) have not advanced in concert with the availability of insects and peak food demands for food and thus face a similar mismatch (Visser et al. 1998). Shifts in the timing of emergence or arrival in response to climate change may also have repercus- sions on competitive interactions within and among populations of species. For example, Winkler et al. (2002) found that laying dates in tree swal- lows (Tachycineta bicolor) were more constricted in warmer years. Greater synchrony of hatching dates among nests in warmer years may result in increased competition for food resources to support young. In subalpine meadows in Colorado, timing of early snowmelt affected the composition of co- flowering plants, potentially influencing interactions among plant species as they compete for pollinators (Forrest et al. 2010). In southern Wisconsin, records of arriv- al dates for migratory birds and first bloom of spring flowers over a 61 year period show that roughly one - third of species appeared to have advanced timing of arrival or bloom, while one -third appeared not to have advanced, and the remaining date changes were statistically indeterminate (Bradley et al. 1999). A great number of seasonal events are regulated by Table 1 -1. Observed changes in phenology attributed to recent climate change (drawn from studies reviewed in McCarty 2001). Flowering date 6 wildflower spp. 9.8 days /50 years Northeastern U.S. Oglesby and Smith (1995) 36 plant species 8.2 days /61 years Wisconsin Bradley et al. (1999) Spawning date 2 frog spp. 14 -21 days /17 years northern North Beebee (1995) America Breeding migration 3 newt spp. 35 -49 days /17 years northern North Beebee (1995) America Breeding date 20 bird spp. 8.8 days /25 years United Kingdom Crick et al. (1997) 3 bird spp. 3 -9 days /25 years Germany Winkel and Huddle (1997) Pied flycatcher 13 days /24 years Wales Slater (1999) Tree swallow 5 -9 days /33 years North America Dunn and Winkler Great tit 11.9 days /27 years England McCleery and Perrins (1998) 2 bird spp. 30 days /35 years Hudson Bay region Maclnnes et al. (1990) Mexican jay 10.1 days /27 years Arizona Brown et al. (1999) Migration date 4 bird spp. 11.9 days /50 years England Mason (1995) 39 bird spp. 5.5 days /50 years Northeastern U.S. Oglesby and Smith (1995) American robin 14 days /19 years Colorado Inouye et al. (2000) 19 bird spp. 4.4 days /61 years Wisconsin Bradley et al. (1999) End of hibernation I Yellow- bellied 23 days /23 years Colorado Inouye et al. (2000) marmot mechanisms other than spring temperature —such as photoperiod or winter conditions — and will thus fail to respond or respond in different ways to climate warming. For example, during warm springs, poor synchrony has been observed between oak (Quer- cus robur) bud burst and winter moth (Operophtera brumata) egg hatching ( Visser and Holleman 2001), resulting in a mismatch between the caterpillars and their food supply. The mismatch is the result of different phenologic mechanisms; oak bud burst responds to spring temperatures whereas winter moth egg hatching is affected by the incidence of winter freezes. However, even for species for which temperature or precipitation is closely associated with the timing of phenologic events, genetic or other constraints may limit species' ability to respond. In a review of cases ranging from marine plankton to birds, Visser and Both (2005) found that the major- ity of species shifted either too much or too little in the timing of phenologic events, such as emergence, migration, or laying dates, compared to the shift in timing of food abundance. We know little about the potential implications that shifts in phenology may have on life history charac- teristics influencing reproductive success. For exam- ple, Winkler et al. (2002) looked at the consequences of earlier egg- laying dates on clutch size in tree swal- lows. In birds, there is a strong negative relation- ship between laying date and clutch size, however mean clutch size for tree swallows has not increased with advanced laying dates. Examples such as these suggest that previously established relationships among abiotic factors and life history traits may not adequately capture the impacts of climate change on factors influencing population dynamics (Stens- eth and Mysterud 2002) and quantifying responses of traits for single species may not go far enough in terms of understanding community dynamics (Berg et al. 2010). Berg et al. (20 10) argue that the tradi- tional approach for forecasting change in ecological community structure (i.e., modeling based solely on climate - species range relationships) will fail to accu- rately predict species changes because it ignores the potential role for biotic interactions (Box 1 -1). Box 1 -1. Examples of mechanisms that may facilitate disruption of biotic interactions under climate change (drawn from studies reviewed in Berg et al. 2010). Prey - predator Differential impacts on reproductive rates of predators and prey could result in a temporal mismatch in abundance. Plant- pollinator Disruption in the correlation between flowering period and pollinator activity could result in a temporal mismatch. Plant- pathogen Dissimilarity in dispersal ability could result in a spatial mismatch beween a plant and pathogen. Plant- herbivore Higher development rate in insect herbivores could result in an increase in herbivory intensity. Host - parasitoid Dissimilarity in lethal temperatures could enhance survival in a parasitized host relative to the parasitoid. Plant - mycorrhizae Climate impacts could alter root growth and morphology, adversely affecting the plant - mycorrhizal association. Plant- herbivore - predator Disrupted correlations between environmental cues used by plant and herbivore could cause a temporal mismatch between abundance and food supply across trophic levels. Recent modeling efforts have provided support for the importance of biotic interactions on individ- ual species distributions at macroecological scales (Araujo and Luoto 2007, Heikkinen et al. 2007), but whether these results are generally representa- tive of a wide range of species remains an open ques- tion. Associations between these factors may emerge based on life history traits or trophic status (Berg et al. 2010). For example, the ability of specialists to expand their ranges may be limited by the disper- sal ability of host or prey species, whereas generalist species will not face such constraints. Climate sensitivity may vary across trophic levels, with higher -level predator communities being more sensitive than producers (Voigt et al. 2003). This response may be due, at least in part, to differences in physiologic responses to climate change across trophic levels. For example, development rates of insects may be more sensitive to temperature than those of their plant food sources (Bale et al. 2002), resulting in increased herbivory intensity as a conse- quence of higher growth rates and reduced generation time in insect herbivores. In grasshoppers, changes in temperature influence resource acquisition, ultimate- ly affecting the intensity of intraspecific competition (Laws and Belovsky 2010). As responses to climate change become increasingly apparent across biologi- cal systems (Parmesan and Yohe 2003, Root et al. 2003), it may well be the range and variability of species- specific responses that poses the greatest chal- lenge to efforts to maintain ecological structure and function similar to that of present ecological systems. 7_23 "ol fec,/e, arP(l E cartY! ;t,errr Vr /rlerah///t,} Vulnerability refers to the degree to which an ecologi- cal community or individual species is likely to expe- rience harm due to exposure to perturbations or stresses. Species or ecosystem vulnerability to climate change is a function of three variables: exposure, or the degree to which a system or species is exposed to climate change and variability, sensitivity to these changes, and the species or ecosystems' adaptive capacity to respond to these changes as well as the strategies practitioners implement to help the species or system adapt (IPCC 2007, Williams et al. 2008). Specific factors that influence the vulnerability of species or ecosystems to climate change may include biological and physiological traits that make a species particularly sensitive to climate changes, the adap- tive capacity of the species, barriers to dispersal, high exposure or sensitivity to specific climate impacts because of distribution or biological factors, the pace and magnitude of climate change, or exposure to existing or future non - climate threats such as land use change. In a recent guide, Glick and Stein (20 10) provide an in -depth review and guidance on the use of vulnerability assessments in conservation planning. Exposure relates to short -term or long -term the degree of climate stress in a particular region. From a species or habitat perspective, exposure may include areas exposed to sea -level rise, or changes in precipitation and temperature. In some cases, local microhabitat buffering may reduce exposure. For example, some species may be buffered from climate changes by living in a thermally sheltered microhabi- tat under logs or in a cool ravine alongside a stream. Sensitivity is a measure of how a species or ecosystem responds or changes in relation to climatic condi- tions. Species or ecosystems that are more sensi- tive to changes in climate may experience dramatic shifts in distribution or population size in response to only slight increases or decreases in temperature and precipitation. Sensitivity will be determined by intrinsic factors including ecological, genetic and physiological traits (Table 1 -2). The combination of exposure and sensitivity deter- mine the potential impact of climate change on an ecosystem or species, which is then modified by the species' or ecosystem's adaptive capacity and the capacity of humans to manage, adapt and minimize climate change impacts (Williams et al. 2008). Adaptive capacity refers to the intrinsic ability of organisms to adapt to changing condi- tions. Species or ecosystems with a high degree of adaptive capacity to climate changes will be less impacted than species or ecosystems with relatively low adaptive capacity, even if they are sensitive to climate change. Ecological plasticity, or the abil- ity individuals to modify their behavior, morphol- ogy, or physiology to changing conditions, generally increases the likelihood that a species will be able to respond to climate change impacts (Parmesan et al. 2005). In addition, evolutionary processes have the potential to influence responses to climate change, but require genetic change over multiple genera- tions. Genetic change in response to recent, rapid climate change has been documented in a number of species, over differing time scales and to differing degrees (reviewed in Bradshaw and Holzapfel 2006). However, the majority of species will not likely have the capacity to adapt given the rate and magnitude of projected climate changes (Bradshaw and Holza- pfel 2006, Williams et al. 2008). Evidence from the fossil record suggests that, despite evidence for local adaptation at specific sites, species as a whole tend to shift their geographical distributions in response to climate change, rather than undergoing major evolu- tion at the species level that would allow conserva- tion of the original range (Parmesan 2006). Vulnerability assessments that are geared towards quantifying the relative exposure and sensitivity to climate changes as well as the adaptive capacity of species or ecosystems can help to direct and prioritize research and management efforts. Because vulner- ability assessments can be time - intensive and expen- sive, selecting specific species or ecosystem targets can be challenging and will depend on the manager's needs or an organization's values. If only a subset of species or habitats can be chosen, these targets Table 1 -2. Physiological and life - history traits that influence species vulnerability in response to climate change disturbances (Source: Steffen et al. 2009, (DCommonwealth of Australia, used with permission). • Physiological tolerance to broad range of factors such as tempertures, water availability and fire • High degree of phenotypic plasticity • High degree of genetic variability • Short generation times (rapid life cycles) and short time to sexual maturity • High fecundity • 'Genera list'req uirements for food, nesting sites, etc. • Good dispersal capability • Broad geographic ranges • Narrow range of physiological tolerance to factors such as temperature, water availability and fire • Low genetic variability • Long generation times and long time to sexual maturity • Specialized requirements for other species (e.g. for a disperser, prey species, pollinator or photosynthetic symbiont) or for a particular habitat that may itself be restricted (e.g. a particular soil type) • Poor dispersers • Narrow geographic ranges /J f 1Ni i 1 a- rz can be selected to span variability in life history traits, conservation status, or other testable hypoth- eses that might inform future assessments. The vulnerability assessment process generally follows the series of steps outlined below (Turner et al. 2003, Schroter et al. 2005, Fuentes et al. 2010, Glick and Stein 2010): 1. Define the study areas together with stake- holders — Identify spatial and temporal scales appropriate to management objectives with stakeholders and recognize that the scale of the assessment needs to match the scale of decision - making. Consider how a conservation target (species or system) may respond differently at other scales. Select an assessment approach based on targets, user needs, and available resources. 2. Gather data and identify the climatic process- es that can affect the species or ecosystems of interest — Review the literature, contact experts, and spend time with stakeholders to identify the main climate change impacts that affect the species or conservation targets of interest. Hypothesize how these impacts will affect the target. For example, in assessing the vulnerabil- ity of sea turtles to climate change, knowledge of nesting habitat requirements, physiological tolerances, and mechanisms of sex determina- tion would allow the identification of important climate change factors affecting reproductive success. In this case, increased sand temperatures may alter hatchling sex ratios and survival, while sea level rise and increased storm severity may cause loss and /or alteration of nesting beaches and egg mortality. 3. Select climate scenarios and data — Given the uncertainty in the levels of future greenhouse gas emissions and resulting climate changes it is generally a good idea to use more than one climate change scenario to assess vulnerability. For example, practitioners may use projected climate changes based on a high future emissions scenario and a more moderate future emissions scenario with a lower degree of resulting climate changes. Scenarios should be selected and discussed with all stakeholders in order to assure transparency. The assumptions underlying any projection used in the vulnerability assessment should be outlined explicitly and communicated with stakeholders. 4. Develop a "causal model' of vulnerability — Stakeholders should work together to develop a simple model or flow chart that depicts the factors affecting the sensitivity and exposure of a target to climate change and how these factors contribute to vulnerability. These factors should include both climate change factors and ongo- ing stressors that affect a species vulnerability to climate change. 5. Operationalize the vulnerability model — Esti- mate overall vulnerability of the target based on the factors identified in the causal model and the climate change scenarios. Document levels of confidence or uncertainty in assessments. 6. Use the vulnerability assessment to design adaptation strategies, prioritize response options, and identify areas of further research — Vulnerability assessments pinpoint the factors affecting the vulnerability of a conservation target to climate change and help identify intervention points for management actions. Understand- ing the factors that influence vulnerability for a particular species or system allows managers to design adaptation strategies directed at mitigat- ing a particular impact. For example, increased water temperature is a primary factor contribut- ing to vulnerability of a species. Management responses for species vulnerable to increased water temperatures might include restoring streamside vegetation to lower water tempera- tures or trans - locating the species to streams with cooler conditions. Vulnerability assessments also allow users to identify where information is lack- ing and where additional research or monitoring would be valuable to understanding how climate change impacts the species or system of interest. Depending on the approach used, vulnerability assessments can be used to prioritize species based on relative vulnerability risk, develop adaptation options for sensitive species or habitats, identify future research needs, or help inform the conservation plan- ning process. For a complete review of vulnerability assessment tools, approaches, and applications see Glick and Stein (2010). Table 1 -4. A summary of current approaches and tools used in climate change vulnerability assessment by fish and wildlife practitioners and conservation professionals (Source: Inkley et al. 2010 in Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A guide to climate change vulnerability assessments, Glick and Stein 2010); http: / /www.nwf.org /Global Warming/ Climate - Smart - Conservation /Safeguarding- Wildlife/Assessing- Vulnerability.aspx. ��� (I Illlllllll�illllllllllll�lllll�ll l�l�lllllllllllllfilfflllllll �lll(f � ��� I�III�III I�IIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII����III� 1. Mai lnkre 2. k.PA x. speriec -4 ;IUPR-ftre3 :. lfi=nkni d. inlegrated -e"Pkcilk ?tevada";PeAes F.kriR prM vcdnel- abifitN Rahiiat RatriTZL - x316 PLanimor'k Noohtythl AssFt n ni Syxxi es Akrwkwion i Far Amk!C.clroelir for SpvtLk%5 1•ur dw. h'nur ASw.'- Ykia!Rt }''Fnn3i'1rnf JC thic Xidak Jt}is k'I:IVC. Lail l'nCIR �; e n rkde bicAiifYit d .:lh n ri.: tisrirr:nl ._r: y ?ceiir.. Sa•:w: Su.: ls. Clle!;11 1L:P: ?2, R116 .rt iI M- r'oIn r!t n•;;�:: ?✓nni,.rr.r. Extent =r1=1i:c I .z. ]la[nR L:f�•. =,r,: E�•.xt;.�:,~J C':,,,slslc +r♦1 ..,;rl¢xerl ti:ucty,�.[�i �hl�sJ �,.}:f:��l :•: 1ar[tn ::T}k•Y1 e1l'�! ..1c, w:s �lre:r r Ia f'e: rc:riei *['I:s!huns 5.1 [:I.c'.•.tci ts:_ ;! irs:_ ,I,Ci rl•; �.J.i �•ur,�;Z �N? V '�`L`r:,1� sf,� .�, ^ vclL:Ixi i:.:.:1 xrs h :hiima �rr'r,,ir: s 0 nerlel••,r: - a;'ui' �•1%i 3..: 'cin;x. Iri:d „ir,s! ?i'ti `a . i� ha .1 al••- ,�, -1..: +;1el,a::r, �, �x: lisp C•li ItoW .d,:. .. :J •k;� '.L, .. ��d -1,:r •k;� ti,t ':•, C uan�e :.Sia+`i: cml=: r.3 rvtlf �'•.�i ;.Siaa<i::imu: r.3 -.vl1J �•.�i � at1J k'•.�i Mast::: ,lda :iraal: -. -� Lr3 11iYiCL>va "u L3: VALS +•'«li3 �in:0.'f:L:ii} 'Y: I'in;0.'f: {,:i i} pin:A'f1G:ii1 }'¢F:if sm :fLinul::iSLo "1 mi s!Ir'A 3i"' A, Lli- x:!Lc�L'ir:ed �hd:cel xr., sanr:;::J �,xca Lf.{ICi .:.11�r LL V..,i Ct�. V.,i a. i Ji:EWI 16 i:C.lxct3 iI IM :;Ai. k. tiSiY{CLea -Lei ILIc17,'1 i -M '.11a::�.xe'r -.. �zt in ,. '11.::�xk�c "i zalinn, '.11.::�.xe'r... petit:,. .. ��'E�^'b'a°} '.11.::xe'r... �ztit:�, '•chira a11d ui ('!ft?a:: a lamr.'c:: u i f lnnx��:: -K �:cd _ wi opmr �:: n: ,•Dfid }•••••••••••••••••••••U,.. SCa` Lf••••••••••••••••••••••• �R: il'••••••••••••••• ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.'4fLti �; ZI�1! Il. l':: d:.-•'S. fr, v•• ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, WOW m "%' ..,nplu7JA . :ti4�.t�. -;J� ?,asi�..,.c '11::+11 -;_1�! �' tixf.. i: = •.•..�!.><r.::�l,: >.t1 3c:cl <:;y.� y?;�, r}..; i1Ne ✓r'fri'l NI'.kh.liik " "� j.Ii ,•!'R),J NI .J4i,i�1.] Y_J'Y '�li1.0. ... 7 I' •C+JI.i'(.Cl S2l:l+.S...1 !� %.1!'.l'I..• LII Lead B. 4ulx i.: ...............................,ti. c -iIU .......................S k. d n ..................,, .,. ............,I,,. ,L,',, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, L Jtn9brnn k' }:IiI Of cli yt;l k- `: i:E'A'7 r`i r 4J]n J ,n 11 r17F-Hr Ind 5.1; fslhl r1 11. 1. n•, I a wt [sr i f.I: -rlrr o ii:. Jt�k�y 2NS :!)N. 2n.1SF iSll�lr;:.4Y� 1� u "�, f c r a ,1 �) Araujo, M. B. and M. Luoto. 2007. The importance of biotic interactions for modelling species distributions under climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16: 743 -753. Arndt, D. S., M. O. Baringer, and M. R. Johnson (Eds.). 2010: State of the Climate in 2009. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 91:S1 -S224. Bale, J. S., G. J. Masters, L D. Hodkinson, C. Awmack, T. M. Bezemer, V. K. Brown, J. Butterfield, A. Buse, J. C. Coulson, J. Farrar, J. E. Good, R. Harrington, S. Hartley, T. J. Jones, R. L. Lindroth, M. C. Press, Symrnioudis, A. D. Watt, and J. B. Whittaker. 2002. Herbivory in global climate change research: direct effects of rising temperature on insect herbivores. Global Change Biology 8: 1 -16. Barnosky, A. D., E. A. Hadly, and C. J. Bell. 2003. Mammalian response to global warming on varied temporal scales. Journal of Mammology 84: 354 -368. Berg, M. P., E. T. Kiers, G. Driessen, M. van der Heijden, B. W. Kooi, E Kuenen, M. Liefting, H. A. Verhoef, and J. Ellers. 2010. Adapt or disperse: understanding species persistence in a changing world. Global Change Biology 16: 587 -598. Both, C., S. Bouwhuis, C. M. Lessells, and M. E. Visser. 2006. Climate change and population declines in a long- distance migratory bird. Nature 441: 81 -83. Bradley, N. L., A. C. Leopold, J. Ross, and W. Huffaker. 1999. Phenological changes reflect climate change in Wisconsin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96: 9701 -9704. Bradshaw, W. E. and C. M. Holzapfel. 2006. Evolutionary response to rapid climate change. Science 312: 1477 -1478. Bush, M. B. 2002. Distributional change and conservation on the Andean flank: A palaeoecological perspective. Global Ecology and Biogeography 11: 463 -473. Caley, M. J. and D. Schluter. 1997. The relationship between local and regional diversity. Ecology 78: 70 -80. Cornell, H. V. and J. H. Lawton. 1992. Species interactions, local and regional processes, and limits to the richness of ecological communities: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Animal Ecology 61: 1 -12. Davis, M. B. and R. G. Shaw. 2001. Range shifts and adaptive responses to Quaternary climate change. Science 292: 673 -679. Dukes, J. S. and H. A. Mooney. 1999. Does global change increase the success of biological invaders? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14: 135 -139. Forrest, J., D., W. Inouye, and J. D. Thomson. 2010. Flowering phenology in subalpine meadows: Does climate variation influence community co- flowering patterns? Ecology 91: 431 -440. Fuentes, M., C. J. Limpus, and M. Hamann. 2010. Vulnerability of sea turtle nesting grounds to climate change. Global Change Biology [published online 22 Jan 2010] . Glick, P. and B. A. Stein (Eds.). 2010. Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change V ulnerability Assessment [Draft]. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. Goodess, C. 2000. CRU Information Sheet no. 9: Climate Change Scenarios [Online]. Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia (Retrieved 16 July 2010 from http: / /www.cru. uea.ac.uk /cru /info /scen /). Hansen, A. J., R. P. Neilson, V. H. Dale, C. H. Flather, L. R. Iverson, D. J. Currie, S. Shafer, R. Cook, and P. J. Bartlein. 2001. Global change in forests: Responses of species, communities, and biomes. BioScience 51: 765 -779. Hansen, L., J. Hoffman, C. Drews, and E. Mielbrecht. 2010. Designing climate -smart conservation: Guidance and case studies. Conservation Biology 24: 63 -69. Hayhoe, K., B. Jones, and J. Gross. 2010. Peering into the future: Climate and ecological models. Pages 61 -66 in Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Cimate Change Vulnerability Assessment [Draft] (P. Glick and B. A. Stein, eds). National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. Heikkinen, R. K., M. Luoto, R. Virkkala, R. G. Pearson, and J. Korber. 2007. Biotic interactions improve prediction of boreal bird distributions at macro - scales. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16: 754 -763. Heller, N. and E. Zavaleta. 2009. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation 142: 14 -32. Hellmann, J. J., J. E. Byers, B. G. Bierwagen, and J. S. Dukes. 2008. Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conservation Biology 22: 534 -543. Huntley, B. 1991. How plants respond to climate change: Migration rates, individualism and the consequences for plant communities. Annals of Botany 67: 15 -22. Inkley, D., Cross, M., Hoffman, J., and J. O'Leary. 2010. Using vulnerability assessment results. In: Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment [Draft]. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001:Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. Jones, P. 2000. CRU Information Sheet no. 5: The Millenial Temperature Record [Online]. Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia ( Retreived 16 July 2010 from http: // www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/milltemp/). Karl, T. R., J. M. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson (Eds.). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press. Keith, S. A., A. C. Newton, R. J. Herbert, M. D. Morecroft, and C. E. Bealey. 2009. Non - analogous community formation in response to climate change. Journal for Nature Conservation 17: 228 -235. Laws, A. N. and G. E. Belovsky. 2010. How will species respond to climate change? Examining the effects of temperature and population density on an herbivorous insect. Environmental Entomology 39: 312 -319. Lenoir, J., J. C. Gegout, P. A. Marquet, P. de Ruffray, and H. Brisse. 2008. A significant upward shift in plant species optimum elevation during the 20th century. Science 320: 1768- 1771. Logan, J. A., J. Regniere, and J. A. Powell. 2003. Assessing the impacts of global warming on forest pest dynamics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1: 130 -137. Malcolm, J. R., A. Markham, R. P. Neilson, and M Garaci. 2002. Estimated migration rates under scenarios of global climate change. Journal of Biogeography 29: 835 -849. Maurer, E. P., L. Brekke, T. Pruitt, and P. B. Duffy. 2007. Fine - resolution climate projections enhance regional climate change impact studies. Eos Transactions. AGU 88: 504. McCarty, J. P. 2001. Ecological consequences of recent climate change. Conservation Biology 15: 320 -331. McLaughlin, J. E, J. J. Hellmann, C. L. Boggs, and P. R. Ehrlich. 2002. Climate change hastens population extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99: 6070 -6074. Meehl, G. A., C. Covey, T. Delworth, M. Latif, B. McAvaney, J. E Mitchell, R. J. Stouffer, and K. E. Taylor. 2007. The WCRP CMIP3 multimodel dataset. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 88:1383 -1394. Nakicenovic, N., O. Davidson, G. Davis, A. Grizbler, T. Kram, E. L. La Rovere, B. Metz, T. Morita, W. Pepper, H. Pitcher, A. Sankovski, P. Shukla, R. Swart, R. Watson, and Z. Dadi. 2000. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. (N. Nakicenovic and R. Swart, eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008. The First Climate Model [Online]. NOAA Celebrates 2000 Years of Science, Service, and Stewardship (Retrieved 16 July 2010 from http : / /celebrating200years.noaa. gov /breakthroughs /climate_model /). NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (Dr. Pieter Tans). 2010. Recent Global CO2 [Online]. Global Monitoring Division /Data Products. (Retrieved July 16, 2010 from www. esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends). North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP). 2007. Web site [Online] (Retrieved 16 July 2010, from http://www.narccap.ucar.edu/). Paradis, A., J. Elkinton, K. Hayhoe, and J. Buonaccorsi. 2007. Role of winter temperature and climate change on the survival and future range expansion of the hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) in eastern North America. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 13: 541 -554. Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37: 637 -669. Parmesan, C., S. Gaines, L. Gonzalez, D. M. Kaufman, J. Kingsolver, A. T. Peterson, and R. Sagarin. 2005. Empirical perspectives on species borders: From traditional biogeography to global change. Oikos 108: 58 -75. Parmesan, C. and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421: 37 -42. Pearson, R. G. 2006. Climate change and the migration capacity of species. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 111 -113. Pierce, D. W., T. P. Barnett, B. D. Santer, and P. J. Gleckler. 2009. Selecting global climate models for regional climate change studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 8441- 8446. Pounds, J. A., M. R. Bustamante, L. A. Coloma, J. A. Consuegra, M. P. L. Fogden, P. N. Foster, E. La Marca, K. L. Masters, A. Merino - Viteri, R. Puschendorf, S. R. Ron, G. A. Sanchez - Azofeifa, C. J. Still, and B. E. Young. 2006. Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439: 161 -167. Rahmstorf, S., A. Cazenave, J. A. Church, J. E. Hansen, R. E Keeling, D. E. Parker, and R. C. J. Somerville. 2007. Recent climate observations compared to projections. Science 316:709. Randall, D. A., R. A. Wood, S. Bony, R. Colman, T. Fichefet, J. Fyfe, V. Kattsov, A. Pitman, J. Shukla, J. Srinivasan, R. J. Stouffer, A. Sumi, and K. E. Taylor. 2007. Climate models and their evaluation. In 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 University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY. Root, T. L., J. T. Price, K. R. Hall, S. H. Schneider, C. Rosenzweig, and J. A. Pounds. 2003. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421: 57 -60. Saxon, E., B. Baker, W. Hargrove, E Hoffman, and C. Zganjar. 2005. Mapping environments at risk under different global climate change scenarios. Ecology Letters 8: 53 -60. Schroter, D., C. Polsky, and A. G. Part. 2005. Assessing vulnerabilities to the effects of global change: an eight step approach. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 10: 573 -595. Shields, K. S. and C. A. S -J. Cheah. 2004. 2002- 2003 winter mortality of hemlock eoolly adelgid in the Northeastern United States. Page 72 in XV US Department of Agriculture Interagency Research Forum on Gypsy Moth and Other Invasive Species 2004 (K. W. Gottschalk, ed). January 13 -16, 2004, Annapolis, MD. GTR -NE -332. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. Stenseth, N. C. and A. Mysterud. 2002. Climate, changing phenology, and other life history traits: Nonlinearity and match — mismatch to the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99: 13379 -1338 L Turner, B. L., R. E. Kasperson, P. A. Matson, J. J. McCarthy, R. W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J. X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M. L. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, and A. Schiller. 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100: 8074- 8079. United States Department of Agricuture (USDA) Forest Service. 2010. Forest health protection - hemlock woolly adelgid [Online]. US Forest Service Northeastern Area.( Retrieved 19 July 2010 from http: / /na.fs.fed.us /fhp /hwa/). Viner, D. 2000. CRU Information Sheet no. 8: Modelling Climate Change [Online]. Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia (Retrieved 16 July 2010 from http: / /www.cru. uea.ac.uk /cru /info /modelcc /). Visser, M. E. and C. Both. 2005. Shifts in phenology due to global climate change: the need for a yardstick. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 272: 2561 -2569 Visser, M. E. and L. J. M. Holleman. 2001. Warmer springs disrupt the synchrony of oak and winter moth phenology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 268: 289 -294 Visser, M. E., A. J. Van Noordwijk, J. M. Tinbergen, and C. M. Lessells. 1998. Warmer springs lead to mistimed reproduction in great tits (Torus major). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 265: 1867 -1870. Voigt, W., J. Perner, A. J. Davis, T. Eggers, J. Schumacher, R. Mhrmann, B. Fabian, W. Heinrich, G. Kohler, D. Lichter, R. Marstaller, and E W. Sander. 2003. Trophic levels are differentially sensitive to climate. Ecology 84: 2444 -2453. Walther, G. R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T. J. Beebee, J. M. Fromentin, O. Hoegh- Guldberg, and E Bairlein. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416: 389 -395. Weart, S. 2009. The Discovery of Global Warming [Online Book]. American Institute of Physics (Retrieved 16 July 2010 from http: / /www.aip. org /history /climate /). Williams, J. W., S. T. Jackson, and J. E. Kutzbach. 2007. Projected distributions of novel and disappearing climates by 2100 AD. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 5738. Williams, S. E., L. P. Shoo, J. L. Isaac, A. A. Hoffmann, and G. Langham. 2008. Towards an integrated framework for assessing the vulnerability of species to climate change. PLoS Biology 6: 2621 -2626. Winkler, D. W., P. O. Dunn, and C. E. McCulloch. 2002. Predicting the effects of climate change on avian life - history traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99: 13595- 13599. Zganjar, C., E. Girvetz, and G. Raber. 2009 (Developers). Climate Wizard [Web Program] (http://www.climatewizard.org/). �I P ari dl.. I m un p ac s o rii a'111 d,.. H abi n't ncreased concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere generate complex dynamics that are reflect- ed in changes across the globe, but are likely to be regional in their impact. Atmospheric concentra- tions of greenhouse gases will influence temperature and precipitation patterns as well as hydrology, and feed into the complex dynamics regulating biologi- cal systems. In this chapter, we discuss some of the regional projections of temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise in the Southeast under climate change, and we highlight the available research on potential impacts to terrestrial and aquatic species. 2 ,u 1 �111� "�!�IUIIP'nC h1111n�I�es 11i"nI ithfir° Soi!,llrilheX111`rt As reported by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Karl et al. 2009), the annual average temperature across the Southeast region has risen by approximately 2 °F since 1970, with the great- est increase during the winter months (Table 2 -1). Freeze days have declined by 4 -7 days per year for most of the region over this time period. Climate models project continued warming across the South- east, with an increasing rate of warming toward the end of the century. Rates of warming are expect- ed to be more than double those experienced in the Southeast since 1975. The greatest tempera- ture increases are projected to come during already hot summer months, and the number of very hot days is projected to rise at a greater rate than the average temperature. Different emissions scenarios lead to different projected temperature increases (Karl et al. 2009). Under a low emissions scenario, average tempera- tures in the region are projected to rise by about 4.5 °F by the 2080s, while a higher emissions scenar- G'1(,uixk' "ff}.4f f}P' fZ "k'(fit6' "ll %',6' "(4}4 (k'" to ,, / / //l' !r(9k //l` „` Falk "l'E'i "' 4ri/ r (� /6l / / % //c`'{ /6 /r,rn :1,, E "'ll'!! / , ") Ill,%/% %cr r,r lit /y ho/ to Table 2 -1. Observed temperature changes in the Southeast summarized for two different time peri- ods. Average temperature declined from 1901 to 1970 and then increased strongly from 1970 - 2008 (Source: Karl et al. 2009). io yields about 9 °F of average warming and a much higher heat index. For the same time period, the number of days per year with peak temperatures over 90 °F is expected to rise significantly, especially under a higher emissions scenario (Figure 2 -1). This increase in very hot days will have consequences for human health, drought, and wildfires. As tempera- tures rise, the number of days below freezing will also decrease (Figure 2 -2). A reduction in freezing days can improve survival for disease vectors and pests, alter growing seasons, and reduce the amount of water available from snow pack for spring thaw. Average Change in Temperature in the Southeast Temperature Change in T 1901 -2008 1970 -2008 Annual 0.3 1.6 Winter 0.2 2.7 Spring 0.4 1.2 Summer 0.4 1.6 Fall 0.2 1.1 io yields about 9 °F of average warming and a much higher heat index. For the same time period, the number of days per year with peak temperatures over 90 °F is expected to rise significantly, especially under a higher emissions scenario (Figure 2 -1). This increase in very hot days will have consequences for human health, drought, and wildfires. As tempera- tures rise, the number of days below freezing will also decrease (Figure 2 -2). A reduction in freezing days can improve survival for disease vectors and pests, alter growing seasons, and reduce the amount of water available from snow pack for spring thaw. 4,0 4 -4,07 ' 0 CIS, 30, 45 6PO IM 120 11M ISM `I fifi, "t,26 Figure 2 -1. Number of days per year in the Southeast with peak temperature above 90T (Source: Karl et al. 2009). ORIWAMININ NOAPAN( DC'89 Figure 2 -2. Change in freezing days per year in the Southeast between 1976 and 2007 (Source: Karl et al. 2009). 2, I o l tlIf' /rrgor'Xcts ("'�( Tr'rrqoeran we SI-11(ts sl'oeclesarl / iahIMts The impacts of rising temperatures on terrestrial species and habitats will depend on a number of other climate change factors. However, there are a few key trends in extreme temperatures as well as shifts in growing season that may have a direct physiological impact on species and habitats or an indirect impact on community relationships through competition. The temperature range under which plants grow normally is 0 to 40 °C (Went 1953), but many plants have more specific temperature requirements beyond which significant damage can occur. Moderate tempera- ture increases can speed up plant growth as well as processes such as decomposition and nutrient cycling (Karl et al. 2009) Some of the largest shifts in terrestrial systems are observed in the timing of the seasons. Many species are flowering an average of four to five days earlier than they did in previous decades (Wolfe et al. 2005, Fitter and Fitter 2002), and experiencing longer growing seasons (Myneni et al. 1997). Increased temperatures may also cause shifts in the geographic distribution of species in places where temperature increases exceed physiological toleranc- es. In the northern hemisphere, shifts are expected to track temperatures, primarily along northward or elevational gradients (Parmesan 2006). Such range shifts are likely to result from population extinc- tions at southern latitudes or lower elevations and expansions at the northern range limits. This pattern has been observed in populations of Edith's check - erspot butterfly (Euphycdryas ecditha), which occurs in the western U.S. (Parmesan 1996). Iverson and Prasad (2001) looked at projected climate warming on tree distributions for 80 species occurring in the U.S., and showed that almost half would shift their ecological optima at least 100 km to the north. Most of the species included in their study either expand- ed or contracted their range in response to climate warming. In other cases, temperature may have significant effects on developmental pathways or behaviors influencing reproduction and survival. For exam- ple, sex determination in hard -shell turtles is largely temperature dependent (Bull 1980). A recent study on viviparous lizards occurring in Mexico linked local population extinction to loss of thermal niches (Sinervo et al. 2010). Their research suggests that high temperatures during the reproductive cycle affect foraging behavior and limit reproduction. Rising temperatures can also affect metabolic and growth rates in insects and other ectotherms (e.g., Dukes et al. 2009, Bickford et al. 2010), resulting in faster development and shorter lifecycles in some cases. Increased winter temperatures and frost -free days may also affect overwinter survival of some insects and pathogens (Dukes et al. 2009), result- ing in increased population sizes that contribute to outbreaks. Rapid changes in water temperature will have direct impacts on the physiology and metabolic rates of freshwater biota (Allan et al. 2005), which are domi- nated by cold - blooded organisms with no physi- ological ability to regulate their body temperature. Furthermore, the ability of freshwater organisms to move to new locations is constrained by the connec- tivity of streams and rivers within drainage basins. Eaton et al. (1995) reported maximum temperature tolerance estimates for 30 species of freshwater fish- es occurring in the U.S. (Table 2 -2). Temperature tolerance ranges are species specific, and the avail- ability of cooler waters may become limiting to some species in their current range in a warmer climate. Table 2-2. Maximum temperature tolerance estimates for 30 species of fish (Source: Eaton et al. 1995, @ American Fisheries Society, used with permission). Temperature tolerance ranges are species specific, and in a warmer climate cooler waters may become limiting to some species in their current range. TaW �e 1. ,The 95th per"ntile WQQWV mean temperatures and standarld evon caktjilated lot twe highest 5% of F/T dint arat values,(NIA for e ach e, 91%,h 5Ran4aTd spedes Pefice"Iti'lle MDT' N, E'Wack cap pile Ibmawrsn*omocubma, SE 10,411 1416 Blue8011 tepomis mmrmhims 34.7 5E jO,jO$ 495 Brook troul SWWOvs fan(ihv4s 21,711-51 SE (")15A Mo Bfiawn k�ijltheaid r Irvebuopstys 29.5 SE 10.7 a B5 Wown tro"I -51,34rno fruva 24.,11 SE 10.410 53 3,, 11 A SE 10.106 '7 IA, Channel r i kwItorus punmrus 3,1 „ 10. 11 ClNnjaa c calm Oncorhynchus r'5,tv7W)4sChQ 24" O $k 0,12 282 Chum sal man Qncv irk ynovs kgtal 19A 5E 10- 1 a 70, Cob* t a Im"'Ors Orxvehynchjis kkaitch 7,13,4 U 101713 193 Cuftfvroattrauk Ojimrhynchus Ovki 231: 5E OA3 110,91 Rativaid catfish Odkos 6-5' 12 St' 1 D, 14 11,122 Ifteo' water dto Ap,Warmgus runniem 12.4 H 0,21,15 213 Guard shad Ommm cepedwnum 4114 SE „1; $02 Golden shinjeT Nb ,us crywkRAtOs 30.8 SE0,27 1134 Co ten sunNsh Lieparmn cyoxnieki$ 3,1 r). I I :� 90, iLA,jigemouith bd&q, micfvpterus sahnoklev 31.7 SE 1031 3,91 Mountain vmflWish fihU*UMI wiffiamsonli 23.2 SE 1�, 616 83 Northtin p&@, 8OW IkKkls 12& 0 St 10,518 72 Pink,.5 On,CQfAyn,Ch,US garblusche 2:x.0 SE 11 1101 7116 Rainbow trout Oncorhynch''405 ??J'Aiss 2 4, .t) SE D, 14 442 Rock lh&q's AoTh mp-Wfis 29.x, '5E 10.40 121 5aulgef -Sfizogfe6on conocfense 5E 03 , 106 bal'-4 miavleras ", mield 209, Smallimawhbiuff ailo kliobvs a,OW 12"11 SE 0.161 '216, Wafleye sb wstediqn vifteum 12:9,10 110 St, O,1 5 102 Whitv 1bas s W,rone,c&ysqps 4. 5f, 0,06 249 White crappile ftam, is anniufafii, 31 SE 0,019 21 5, Abite six* v V,4 5E 0�31 433 "Yellow petch Ama Aivescern 21"Al SE� OJ4 64 Under warmer climatic conditions, the habitat avail- able to cool water species is expected to decrease and the distributions of these species will become more spatially fragmented. Rahel et al. (1996) investigated potential habitat loss in relation to climate warm- ing for salmonids occurring in streams of the North Platte River drainage in Wyoming. Under summer air temperature increases of 1.8 -9 °F, they estimated that 7 -76% of habitat would be lost, depending on the approach and amount of warming. In addition, population fragmentation was expected to occur as cold water populations were restricted to increasingly higher elevations. Eaton and Sheller (1996) looked at the effects of climate warming on 57 species of fishes in streams across the U.S., using temperature projections based on the Canadian Climate Center GCM (CCC GCM). They found a nearly 50% reduction in thermal habitat for cold and cool water species and a 14% decrease in habitat for warm water species. Overall, species with smaller ranges were projected to exhibit the largest habitat losses. Cold and cool water fish were least affected in locations that were higher in latitude or elevation. Additional studies on stream systems have confirmed significant effects on cold water fishes, but vary in their assessments of the impacts on cool and warm water fishes. For exam- ple, Mohseni et al. (2003) used a different approach to examine the impacts on climate change for the same set of 57 species used by Eaton and Sheller (1996). The results of their analysis projected a 36% decrease in cold water fish habitat and a northward shift in range. Changes in habitat for cool and warm water fishes was dependent on the assumptions for minimum temperature tolerance (32 °F vs. 35.6 °F ) and ranged between a 12 -15% decrease in habitat for cool water fishes and a 0 -31% increase in habitat for warm water fishes. Maximum temperature tolerance was not expected to have a significant effect on warm water habitat due to evaporative cooling of streams (Mohseni et al. 2003). Recognizing that both temperature and dissolved oxygen concentrations control the distribution of fish species in lakes, Stefan et al. (2001) simulated changes in both factors and examined impacts on fish habitat in North American lakes in response to projected climate warming. Using a doubled CO2 concentration scenario under the CCC GCM, their results suggest that climate warming will reduce the geographic area in which lakes have suitable cold and cool water habitat by 45% and 30% respectively. Suitable habitat for coldwater fish was likely to be restricted to deep lakes along the northern border of the U.S. In the south central and southeastern states, summer kill of cool water fish was expected to be more prevalent. However, warm water fish were expected to benefit in all lake types (Stefan et al. 2001). In rivers and streams with adequate dispersal corri- dors, species at the southern extent of their geograph- ical distribution may shift their distributions northward into cooler habitats (Allan et al. 2005). For lakes, differences in surface area, depth, lati- tude, and elevation are all factors that will influence response to climate change. Water levels are likely to be reduced in regions that experience increased evapotranspiration brought about by higher temper- atures and longer growing periods, unless offset by increased precipitation. As in streams, warmer air temperatures will raise water temperatures, especially in smaller and shallower lakes. In ponds and lakes deep enough to exhibit summer thermal stratification, warm water habitat will increase in depth, potentially forcing cool water organisms into deeper waters (Allan et al. 2005). At the same time, bottom waters may become depleted of oxygen due to higher decomposition of algae and organic matter settling out of warmer, more produc- tive surface waters. Cool water habitat may there- fore be constrained by increased warm water volumes above and oxygen depletion below (Figure 2 -3). Large, deep lakes could see an increase in suitable habitat for warm water fishes in the summer, without exceeding the temperature tolerances of cool water fish in the cooler waters of the hypolimnion. Smaller, shallower lakes may experience enough loss of cooler bottom waters to reduce habitats for cool water fish. Changes in temperature caused by global climate change may also affect primary production and the nutrient concentration of inland waters (reviewed in Ficke et al. 2007). Increased productivity resulting from warmer temperatures can lead to oxygen deple- tion in bottom waters as algae and organic matter settle out of surface waters and decompose. Summer TemperaturelDissoived Oxygen Squeeze Current Future (higher temperature&, ivwer inflow) VMrrr+waier Fishes Hawing Vlfarmwater Fishes air rte► � 4Warm 5€ rlaca � Water Coopsater Fishes, "7' 'T T Oxygenated Coal Zon No FIsh I dish o �w Oxygen MLre Respiration Coop Wa!er Thermal Refuges isprirgs) a. �f S»itabie Ca4tweter Habitat Cilmatia Change May Ca�rse a Summer Hahi,at 5u+ieazo for CooKvater Fish Figure 3. Potential increases in the severity of the summer temperature— dissolved oxygen squeeze with future climate change Figure 2 -3. Increased air temperatures are expected to result in decreased cool water fish habitat as a result of higher water temperatures in surface waters and lower dissolved oxygen concentrations in deeper waters (Source: Mulholland et al. 1997, © Wiley Interscience, used with permission). King et al. (1999) provided empirical links between growth and thermal habitat for species occurring in lakes in Ontario. Years with warmer temperatures resulted in an earlier onset of stratification, a warmer epilimnion, larger thermal gradient, and shallower thermocline. On average, these variables accounted for 44% of the variation in fish growth. However, responses were species specific. For example, small - mouth bass (Micropterus clolomieui) showed increased growth rates, presumably as a result of increased availability of preferred growth temperatures in shal- low waters. Whereas, in the case of lake trout (Salve - linus namaycush), early stratification was suspected to promote earlier migration into deeper water and limit the length of spring feeding, thus reducing growth rates. These findings illustrate how climatic changes not only have the potential to directly influ- ence the availability of thermal habitats, but also may indirectly place constraints on feeding habitat avail- ability, with subsequent consequences on growth. 2 fur IF "I o"JpJ r °c e ',,halPlltges 11i" n Unlike projections for temperature, where consis- tency among models in local warming is high, less agreement exists among models regarding projected changes in precipitation for many regions (Meehl et al. 2007). Confidence in model projections of precipitation may vary depending on region and season. For example, confidence in precipita- tion projects is higher for winter and spring than for summer and fall (Karl et al. 2009). However, changes in the Southeast appear more difficult to project with confidence than some other regions of the United States (Figure 2 -4). The cross hatching in Figure 2 -4 indicates regions in which two - thirds of models agree on the direction of the mean change. Notice that the Gulf Coast states will tend to have less rainfall in winter and spring compared with the more northern states in the region, but the projected change for the mid - Atlantic states is generally small and with less agreement among models (Karl et al. 2009). This is not to say that changes in precipi- tation have not already occurred in the Southeast. Across the region, average autumn precipitation has increased by 30 percent since 1901, while summer and winter precipitation has declined by approxi- mately 10 percent during this same period (Karl et al. 2009, Figure 2 -5). �' in lI; Projected Change in North American Precipitation by 2080 -2099 01 ^• ,r�, %V i A Y "1 %� I ,WY s � / Winter � ,rnNrr � ri��,`i, F��,: Spring �i� ✓r,; Sri+ r ri r r r ✓d ,�u II !� r �li %/y 7 I /cf /ff: ' � v� Avr All r rryl" Jt' r 4� J) i� Itt y UM 111 � ���'� ��� �or � Fall c:l"TVN_A93 The maps show projected future changes in precipitation relative to the recent past as simulated by 15 climate models. The simulations are for late this century, under a higher emissions scenario" For example, in the spring, climate models agree that northern areas are likely to get wetter, and southern areas drier. There is less confidence in exactly where the transition between wetter and drier areas will occur. Confidence in the projected changes is highest in the hatched areas. Figure 2 -4. Multi -model changes in precipitation under a higher emissions scenario for the end of the century. Cross - hatches shows regions where at least two- thirds of models agree on the sign of the projected change (Source: Karl et al. 2009). , , '10 1 f 2'0, 21 301, 4,40, -,31$ 14$4' -21 -24 -41%, oO, "I a 6 182 Pore'an"I Chaimga NOAANCDC: Figure 2-5. Observed changes in precipitation between 1901 and 2007 in the Southeast (Source: Karl et al. 2009). In addition to the differences in the amount of precipitation, the occurrence of heavy downpours has increased in many parts of the region. For example, analyses of temporal trends over the past century have documented an increase in heavy rain- fall events across the area, extending from central Texas to the Appalachian Mountains in Tennes- see and North Carolina (Keim 1997). Increased frequency of extreme rainfall events will likely affect processes such as soil erosion, sedimentation, and stream dynamics. At the same time, many parts of the region are experiencing an increasing number of droughts. The areas of moderate to severe spring and summer drought have increased by 12 and 14 percent, respectively, since the mid -1970s (Karl et al. 2009). Continued rising temperatures will likely lead to further droughts in affected areas, as high temperatures increase evaporation of moisture from soils and plants. The projected increased variabil- ity in precipitation may have greater impacts than increases or decreases in magnitude. Table 2 -3. Observed precipitation changes in the Southeast summarized for two different periods (Source: Karl et al. 2009) 2,27 " k,'w'I Its arid Severe re V /{fe' 7 Pe'r Everits During hurricane season, tropical cyclones account for as much as 15% of the rainfall along portions of the Carolinas (Knight and Davis 2007). Changes in hurricane frequency and intensity would have impacts on precipitation patterns across the state. There has been much research into whether the significant increase in numbers of tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic over the last three decades is due to increases in sea surface tempera- tures or to other factors related to multidecadal variability (Webster et al. 2005, Pielke et al. 2005). More support exists for a link between warmer sea surface temperatures and the observed increases in hurricane intensity (Emanuel 2005, Elsner et al. 2008). Globally, the number of category four and five hurricanes has almost doubled since 1975, and similar trends have been observed in the Atlan- tic basin (Webster et al. 2005). It remains unclear whether these observed patterns have exceeded the variability expected through non- anthropogenic causes. However, advances in modeling techniques have increased confidence concerning several aspects of cyclone- activity projections (reviewed in Knutson et al. 2010). A general convergence of frequency projections, in combination with fairly accurate hindcasting predictions, have begun to provide some confidence that globally the number of tropical cyclones is likely to decrease or remain unchanged under warming conditions. There is less certainty in projections for individual basins. Some increase in mean maximum wind speed of tropical cyclones is likely, although increases may not occur in all tropi- cal regions, and rainfall rates are likely to increase. High resolution models for the western Atlantic suggest there will be fewer tropical cyclones in the basin overall, but significantly more intense hurri- canes by the end of the twenty -first century (Bender et al. 2010). When storms do occur, rising sea levels will amplify the impacts of storm -surge incidence, particularly in sensitive coastal regions. Average Change in Precipitation in the Southeast Precipitation Change in % 1901 -2008 1970 -2008 Annual 6.0 -7.7 Winter 1.2 -9.6 Spring 1.7 -29.2 Summer -4.0 3.6 Fall 27.4 0.1 2,27 " k,'w'I Its arid Severe re V /{fe' 7 Pe'r Everits During hurricane season, tropical cyclones account for as much as 15% of the rainfall along portions of the Carolinas (Knight and Davis 2007). Changes in hurricane frequency and intensity would have impacts on precipitation patterns across the state. There has been much research into whether the significant increase in numbers of tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic over the last three decades is due to increases in sea surface tempera- tures or to other factors related to multidecadal variability (Webster et al. 2005, Pielke et al. 2005). More support exists for a link between warmer sea surface temperatures and the observed increases in hurricane intensity (Emanuel 2005, Elsner et al. 2008). Globally, the number of category four and five hurricanes has almost doubled since 1975, and similar trends have been observed in the Atlan- tic basin (Webster et al. 2005). It remains unclear whether these observed patterns have exceeded the variability expected through non- anthropogenic causes. However, advances in modeling techniques have increased confidence concerning several aspects of cyclone- activity projections (reviewed in Knutson et al. 2010). A general convergence of frequency projections, in combination with fairly accurate hindcasting predictions, have begun to provide some confidence that globally the number of tropical cyclones is likely to decrease or remain unchanged under warming conditions. There is less certainty in projections for individual basins. Some increase in mean maximum wind speed of tropical cyclones is likely, although increases may not occur in all tropi- cal regions, and rainfall rates are likely to increase. High resolution models for the western Atlantic suggest there will be fewer tropical cyclones in the basin overall, but significantly more intense hurri- canes by the end of the twenty -first century (Bender et al. 2010). When storms do occur, rising sea levels will amplify the impacts of storm -surge incidence, particularly in sensitive coastal regions. The hydrologic cycle describes the continuous circu- lation and conservation of water on, above, or below the surface of the Earth and is thus uniquely tied to changes in temperature and precipitation. Hydrolog- ic patterns are driven by complex processes associated with precipitation, evaporation, and transpiration, which are typically incorporated into predictive models of future hydrologic system behavior. Because climate change may impact hydrological systems in a number of distinct but interrelated ways, this synthesis is treated separately from temperature and precipitation, with an understanding that projected changes in temperature and precipitation will be interrelated with impacts on hydrology. Changes in climate will have direct and indirect effects on the hydrological cycle and freshwater systems. A warm- er climate increases the capacity of the atmosphere to hold moisture while also increasing evaporation from land and water surfaces, resulting in a more vigorous water cycle (Huntington 2006). Global increases in continental runoff from major rivers, increases in evapotranspiration (ET) inferred from hydrologic budgets and increased ocean salinity, and evidence for increase in water -vapor at the surface over most northern latitudes, all point to ongoing and future intensification of the hydrologic cycle (reviewed in Huntington 2006). Altered precipi- tation regimes will directly affect stream flows and groundwater recharge, but the net effect on water levels will depend on how increasing temperatures and CO2 affect ET processes. Praskievicz and Chang (2009) review hydrological modeling of basin -scale climate change impacts, as well as impacts of urban development and interac- tions with climate change. They note that a number of factors influence basin hydrological response to climate change. Latitude and whether a basin is located in a relatively humid or arid region will affect potential for flood risk and water stress. Humid mid - latitude regions may generally experience increased runoff, whereas and regions may be more likely to experience a decrease in annual runoff. Eleva- tion will influence hydrologic response to warming according to whether the basin is dominated by rainfall or snowmelt. Basins dominated by snow - melt are likely to exhibit increased winter runoff and earlier spring peaks. The geology of the basin will also be an important factor. Groundwater domi- nated systems, particularly those with deep aquifers maybe less sensitive to changes in temperature in the short term whereas systems with shallow aquifers or those dominated by surface flows will respond more quickly. In addition to changes in mean hydrology, climate change will likely affect hydrological vari- ability. Even in areas that see only slight changes in annual runoff, the frequency of very low or very high flows may change significantly. There are several approaches to developing climate change scenarios for incorporation into hydro- logic models (Praskievicz and Chang 2009). One approach is to modify the historical average tempera- ture and precipitation by some fixed amount. A disadvantage of this approach is that these projec- tions may or may not provide realistic reflections of current atmospheric changes. An alternative and increasingly common approach is to use projections based on IPCC emissions scenarios that have been coupled with global circulation models downscaled to appropriate scales. These projections are then used as inputs in a hydrologic model to examine projected changes in runoff and other variables. Uncertainty associated with the choice of GCM, downscaling method, and choice of hydrological model can all impact projected changes to hydrology (Praskievicz and Chang 2009). Of these, the greatest source of uncertainty in the modeling chain appears to be the choice of GCM (Graham et al. 2007). However, fewer studies have addressed the range of outcomes obtained using different hydrologic models with a given climate scenario. Hydrologic models differ in their parameters and assumptions and their usefulness to various applications. Gleick (1986) identified six criteria for evaluating the applicabil- ity of hydrologic models for use with climate change projections (Box 2 -1) and focused on water balance models as particularly useful for identify hydrologic consequences of changes in temperature, precipi- tation, and other climate variable. In addition, a number of other types of models have been applied to modeling hydrologic effects of climate change (Examples are shown in Table 2 -4). One limitation of many of these models is that they do not incor- porate physiological changes in plants or changes in plant communities resulting from increased temper- ature and atmospheric CO 2' Box 2 -1. Criteria for evaluating hydrologic models for use in climate change impact assessment (Gleick 1986). Accuracy of the hydrologic model Degree to which model accuracy depends on the climatic conditions used to develop and calibrate the model Availability of input data, including historical data Accuracy of the input data Model flexibility and ease of use Compatibility with existing general circula- tion models Compared to surface waters, far fewer studies have assessed the potential impacts of climate change on groundwater. Indeed far less is known about groundwater recharge and levels even under current conditions. Groundwater systems will generally respond more slowly to climate change than surface water systems and, as compared to surface water, climate effects on groundwater may be more heavily influenced by changes in precipitation than tempera- ture (Kundzewicz et al. 2007). However, in warm periods, temperature effects are likely to be more pronounced (Kundzewicz et al. 2007). Recharge rates are determined by precipitation minus the combined effects of evapotranspiration and surface runoff. Warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons are expected to increase evaporative demand (Allan et al. 2005). As with surface water, ground- water recharge will be affected by changes in the frequency and magnitude of intense precipitation events as well as total precipitation amounts. Several studies document generally increasing stream flow in the eastern and southeastern regions of the United States over the last century (tins and Slack 2005, Mauget 2003) consistent with trends in precipitation. This overall pattern was observed in the South - Atlantic Gulf, but the region showed more variability than other regions of the U.S. For exam- ple, a number of stations documented low stream flow, particularly in Georgia (tins and Slack 2005). While precipitation is a major driver of runoff, increases and decreases in precipitation do not neces- sarily correspond to equal increases and decreases in runoff (Karl et al. 2009). Rose (2009) found a high degree of elasticity in the rainfall -runoff rela- tionship in the southeastern U.S. in that small devia- tions in rainfall amounts resulted in proportionally greater deviations in runoff. These differences were largely driven by differences in elevation and water- shed relief. For example, the runoff /rainfall ratio for the Blue Ridge region was more than twice that of the Coastal Plains or Piedmont regions in North Carolina, indicating that stream flow in areas with high topographic relief might be more susceptible to changes in precipitation regimes. Furthermore, the relationship between rainfall and runoff was more tightly correlated in the Blue Ridge than the Coastal Plains or Piedmont (Rose 2009). Milly et al. (2005) looked at global runoff projec- tions (2041 -2060) using a set of models from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007). The results for the United States are replotted in Lettenmaier et al. (2008) and show general agreement among a majority of model runs for slight increases (2 -5 %) in runoff in the Southeast (Figure 2 -6). However, these Table 2 -4. Studies that have modeled the impacts of climate change on hydrology at the basin -scale (A) and examples specific to the Southeast (B). A. Basin -scale models (expanded from studies reviewed in Praskievicz and Chang 2009) Author(s) GCM(s) Study period Hydrological Results Study basin model 2090s Frei et al. (2002) HadCM2; 2020s Thomthwaite By 2080s: Increase of 12% in runoff under New York (Catskills) CGCMal 2050s conceptual HadCM2; Decrease of 30% in runoff strea mfl ow. 2080s water balance under CGCMal period, decreased runoff in later time 2070 -2099 modell Loukas et al. (2002) CGCMal British Columbia Eckhard and Ulbrich Ensemble of 5 (2003) models Central Europe Christensen and Lettenmeier (2006) Colorado River Basin Jha et al. (2004) Upper Mississippi Basin Jha et al. (2004) Upper Mississippi Basin Thodsen (2007) Denmark Bae et al (2007) South Korea Ensemble of 11 models 2080 -2100 UBC Water- Rainfall- dominated basin: increased fall/ 51% increase in surface runoff; 43% shed Modell winter runoff, decreased spring /summer runoff; Snowmelt- dominated basin: earli- er spring peak, increased winter runoff 2090s SWAT G3 Increased winter runoff; earlier spring SWAT3 peak; decreased summer runoff and groundwater recharge. Small effects on flow from the south; North: increased mean annual groundwater recharge and strea mfl ow. 2010 -2039 VIC3 Runoff essentially unchanged in first time 2040 -2069 period, decreased runoff in later time 2070 -2099 periods. Average total basin reservoir storage generally declined. HadCM2 2040 -2049 SWAT3 51% increase in surface runoff; 43% increase in groundwater recharge; 50% increase in total water yield HadCM2 2040 -2049 SWAT3 South of the Baltic Basin: reduced river flow from the south; North: increased river flow HIRHAM RCM 2071 -2100 NAM2 River discharges increased 12% on average. Monthly river discharges increased from December to August and decreased in September and October ECHO -G; NCAR/ 1960 -2100 PRMS1 Northern regions: increased runoff; Southern regions: decreased runoff. Monthly variation: decreased runoff in spring and summer; increased runoff in fall and winter. Table 2 -4 (continued). Studies modeling impacts of climate change on hydrology at the basin -scale (A) and examples specific to the Southeast (B). B. Examples from the Southeast Author(s) GCM(s) Study period Hydrological Results Study basin model Oi et al. (2009) HadCMSu12; CGC1 2100 PRMS1 Increasing streamflow and ET under HadC- North Carolina MSu12; Decreasing streamflow and ET under (Coastal Plain) CGC1 Sun et al. (2000) HadCM2 2100 North Carolina (Coastal Plain) Amatya et al. (2006) CGC1; HadCM2 2001 -2025 North Carolina (Coastal Plain) PnET-III Increased drainage of 6 %, increased ET of 8.7 %, increased and forest productivity of 2.5% DRAINWAT' Decreased drainage outflow and increased ET under CGC1; Outflow unchanged but increased ET under HadCM2 Tu (2009) CGCM3.1 2005 -2024 AVGWLF4 Increased streamflow in late fall and winter, Massachusetts decreased streamflow in summer and early fall. Lower impact on annual streamflow Lu et al. (2006) Fixed scenarios 2003, 2004 South Carolina (incr. temperature (Coastal Plain) 2'C; incr. precipi- tation 10 %) Lu et al (2009) Fixed scenarios 1992 -1996 Florida (Flatwoods) (incr. temperature 2'C; incr. precipi- tation 10 %) MIKE SHE' Decreased water table and streamflow under warmer temperatures and increased precipitation MIKE SHE' Decreased water table levels especially during dry periods. PET increased under higher temperature scenario projections are not based on downscaled models and, as a result, do not capture spatial variability at finer scales. Relatively few studies have dealt specifically with projected hydrologic trends in the southeast- ern United States and this remains an area in need of future research. Both spatial and seasonal vari- ability will greatly affect local systems, the latter of which will not be captured in projections of annual averages. An earlier study (Cruise et al. 1999) used downscaled data from the Hadley Center GCM and a simple regionalized stochastic stream flow model to examine the impacts of climate change on water quality in the southeastern United States. Although, their hydrologic model relied on a number of simpli- fied assumptions and is therefore of limited applica- tion, their results illustrate the potential variability across wet and dry season stream flow conditions that are not captured in projections of annual averages. ® , , m 4. oU.. V'11714 m w # "W11111 J1 41 151% hy o- l ,z *6 MI y i ru, ` 'V M , Oil . 45 ll Figure 4.10 Median changes in runoff interpolated to USGS water resources regions from Milly et al. (20 05) from 24 pairs of GCM simulations for 2041 -2060 relative to 1901 -1970. Percentages are fraction of 24 runs for which differences had some sign as the 24 -run median. Results replotted from Milly et al. (2005) by Dr. PC. D. Milly, USGS. Figure 2 -6. Mid - century projected changes in runoff for U.S. regions (Source: Lettenmaier et al. 2008). A handful of studies have modeled hydrologic response to climate change in the Southeast using scenarios based on GCMs or other projections. The scenarios used in these studies consistently project warming by the end of the 21st century (although vary in magnitude) but differ in the projected chang- es in precipitation patterns, with some scenarios projecting decreases and others projecting increases in annual precipitation. A regional assessment of the effects of climate change on forest productivity and hydrology suggested that climate change could significantly alter stream flow across many forested areas in the southern U.S. (McNulty et al. 1997). The studies reviewed here (see Box 2 -2) are limited to forested systems in the coastal plain. However, a common finding was that hydrologic regimes are likely to be much more sensitive to changes in precipitation than to changes in temperature. Box 2 -2. Hydrological models applied at watershed and regional scales in the southeast. Sun et al. (2000) looked at climate change impacts on the hydrology and productivity of loblolly pines using PnET -IIS on a flat lower coastal plain in North Carolina. The PnET -IIS model closely integrates forest hydrology with biological processes, however, like most other models reviewed here, it does not consider biological responses such as stomata conductance and water use efficiency to changes in temperature and carbon dioxide concentra- tions. Under a climate scenario projecting warmer temperatures and increased precipitation (HadCM2), forest productivity, evapotranspiration, and drainage were all projected to increase, suggesting that overall water yield will track trends in precipitation patterns. Amatya et al. (2006) used DRAINWAT to reassess climate change impacts on drainage and shallow groundwater tables in a loblolly pine plantation in North Carolina. Unlike the PnET-IIS model, DRAINWAT is based on a model developed for use with poorly drained soils. Amataya et al. (2006) examined two future climatic scenarios repre- senting warmer /wetter (HadCM2) and hotter /drier (CGC1) regimes projected over a 25 -year period. The results of both climate scenarios indicated that the change in air temperature would have a less significant impact than the change in precipitation on the hydrology of the system. In both scenarios, evapotranspiration increased. However, there was little effect on the drainage outflows under the HadCM2 climate scenario (5% increased precipitation). Under the CGC1 scenario (12% decreased precipitation) decreased outflow was the result of reduced rain and deeper predicted water table depths. Even under these conditions, water was not limited enough to significantly reduce forest productivity. Lu et al. (2006) applied the MIKE SHE model to a coastal plain watershed in South Carolina. The MIKE SHE model simulates the full hydrologic cycle characteristics of forest ecosystems, including evapotranspiration and verti- cal soil water movement in the unsaturated zone to the groundwater. They looked at response to increased air temperature or decreased precipitation independently using fixed scenarios rather than inputfrom GCMs. Warmer temperatures (2 °C) or decreased precipitation (10 %) resulted in reduced groundwater recharge and thus a lower water table. Similarly, projected stream flow decreased in response to warmer temperatures or reduced precipi- tation. However, stream flow was much more sensitive to changes in precipitation than temperature. Qi et al. (2009) found similar results using the USGS Precipitation Runoff Modeling system model with downscaled GCMs to examine the potential impacts of climate on the monthly stream flow of a river basin on the lower coastal plain of eastern North Carolina. Simulated stream flow response was more sensitive to changes in precipitation than to air temperature using scenarios based on the HadCM2 and CGC1. 2_23 A dltliirial The general effects of climate change on freshwater systems will likely include increased water tempera- tures, decreased dissolved oxygen levels, and increased toxicity of pollutants thereby altering the availability and quality of habitat for aquatic biota (reviews in Mulholland et al. 1997, Allan et al. 2005, Ficke et al. 2007). Meyer et al. (1999) identified characteristics of aquatic ecosystems that are particularly sensitive to climate change (Table 2 -5). These highlight the range of impacts climate change poses to the biota of freshwater systems — ranging from loss of habitat and the resulting shifts in species composition to changes in nutrient cycling that affect oxygen and nutrient availability —and the indirect effects of synergies with other stressors. Changes in global climate affect primary produc- tion and the nutrient concentration of inland waters (reviewed in Ficke et al. 2007). Increased produc- tivity resulting from warmer temperatures can lead to oxygen depletion in bottom waters as algae and organic matter settle out of surface waters and decompose. Water quality is also likely to be influ- enced by climate - induced changes, with potential consequences for aquatic organisms (reviewed in Murdoch et al. 2000). Warming of surface waters and longer growing seasons have the potential to increase primary production, organic matter decom- position, and nutrient cycling (Mulholland et al. 1997), particularly in systems with sufficient nutri- ent and oxygen supplies. Productivity will be affect- ed by changes in the hydrologic cycle that impact nutrient loading and residence times. For example, more frequent storm events may flush nutrients and sediment into surface waters. In addition, warmer water temperatures may increase productivity as a result of increased metabolic rates. During drier climatic periods, decreased stream flow may increase the residence time and concentrations of nutrients and pollutants in surface waters. However, in oxygen poor systems, decreased oxygen holding capac- ity associated with warmer water temperatures may actually exacerbate low oxygen availability and limit productivity. Table 2 -5. Some properties of aquatic ecosystems that are particularly sensitive to climate change (Source: Meyer et al. 2002, © Wiley Interscience, used with permission). Lakes Streams Wetlands Mixing Regime Flow Regime Altered Water Balance Leading to Wetland Losses Nutrient and DOC Inputs Sediment Transport/ Channel Fire Frequency Alterations Habitats Meeting Temperature and Nutrient Loading and Rates of Altered Rates of Exchanges of Oxygen Requirements Nutrient Cycling Greenhouse Gases Productivity Fragmentation and Isolation of Cold Vegetation Species Composition Water Habitats Top Predator Changes Leading to Altered Rxchanges with the Riparian Reproductive Success of Many Trophic Cascades Zone Animal Species Abundance of Cold- and Warm- Life History Characteristics of Many Sensitivity to Invasion by Tropical Water Fish Species Aquatic Insects Exotic Species ,2 f tIIr,' llrqtacts ("�i a ld I slllfts Precipitation patterns have direct effects on evapo- transpiration and water availability, which are key determinants of the distribution of plant diversity (Kreft and Jetz 2007) and vegetation types (Stephen- son 1990). Although most landscape -scale shifts in vegetation are assumed to have occurred over rela- tively long time scales in the past, rapid changes in future climate are expected to produce major shifts in vegetation (e.g., Saxon et al. 2005). Such rapid responses to altered moisture regimes are not unprec- edented. For example in northern New Mexico in the 1950s, the boundary between semiarid ponder- osa pine forest and pifion- juniper woodland shifted extensively and rapidly through mortality of ponder- osa pines in response to severe drought, with lasting effects (Allen and Breshears 1998). Among pines found in the southeastern United States, longleaf pine may be more tolerant of a range of conditions (NWF 2009), including very dry periods during the growing season, than loblolly and slash pine (Iverson et al. 1999). Among aquatic systems, wetlands will be particularly sensitive to even relatively small changes in precipi- tation. Wetlands that depend primarily on precipi- tation as a water source will be among the habitats most vulnerable. Winter (2000) assessed the vulner- ability of wetlands to changes in climate relative to their position within the hydrologic landscape. He suggested that wetlands located in mountainous regions would be some of the most vulnerable to climate change due to their location within relatively small watersheds and dependence on precipitation inputs. For the organisms that are dependent on these ecological systems for specific portions of their life cycles, changes in precipitation patterns through- out the year can be as significant, if not more so, than changes in total or mean precipitation (Virginia Burkett and Kusler 2000). A number of amphibian species, for example, are sensitive to the amount and timing of precipitation for successful reproduction. Analysis of population trends over a 26 -year peri- od in South Carolina showed that declines in four species were associated with insufficient rainfall and a shortened hydroperiod at breeding sites (Daszak et al. 2005). Wetlands associated with surface water, such as ripar- ian wetlands, will be dependent on the hydrologic impacts of climate change on the stream flow. Those wetlands located in broad basins of interior drain- age often depend on stream flow originating from precipitation in the contiguous uplands, with much smaller contributions from ground water and precip- itation. They will therefore be highly dependent on precipitation regimes in the contiguous uplands and will also be more vulnerable to shifts in hydrol- ogy. Wetlands in coastal areas can be moderately vulnerable to climate change depending on their reliance on precipitation and flooding from streams. However, direct loss of area due to sea level rise is very likely to be the greatest threat to wetlands in coastal landscapes. A number of aquatic species will be sensitive to changes in hydrology and timing of flooding and drying events. For example, fish kills associated with low dissolved oxygen levels and nutrient enrichment may be impacted by climate change. Strong storm events can flush excess nutrients into waterways, increasing productivity and temporarily causing low oxygen conditions. Warmer water tempera- tures are likely to exacerbate these situations through decreased oxygen carrying capacity and increased oxygen demand, potentially increasing the frequen- cy of fish kills. Freshwater mussel assemblages are especially vulnerable to stream drying, particularly in streams without refugia such as that provided by wood debris (Golladay et al. 2004). 2 ,,,,.;' Sea Level Rising seas are perhaps one of the most immedi- ate, and possibly devastating, impacts of climate change in coastal areas. The potential consequences of sea level rise include submerged wetlands, eroded beaches, flooded coastal areas, increased salinity in freshwater aquifers and estuaries, and damage to both human property and coastal ecosystems. Using tide gauge records from around the world, scientists have been able to reconstruct global sea levels since 1700 and then analyze shifts in levels and associated rates of change (e.g., Jevrejeva et al. 2008). Although there are some differences in the estimates of the magnitude and rates of change based on underly- ing model assumptions and available data, the IPCC suggests that current sea level rise (SLR) has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past centu- ry (Bindoff et al. 2007). Recent satellite altimetry measurements suggest that this rate may be increas- ing, with a mean rate of 2.8 to 3.1 mm per year from 1993 — 2003 (Bindoff et al. 2007). Warming temperatures contribute to global sea level rise (SLR) through two mechanisms as tempera- ture rises: (1) ocean water expands and increases in volume and (2) land reservoirs of ice (in glaciers and ice flows) melt and contribute additional water to the oceans. Observations suggest that both ocean warm- ing and ice mel are contributing to increasing rates of average global sea level rise (Bindoff et al. 2007). The average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3,000 meters, and observations show that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80 percent of the heat added to the climate system (Williams et al. 2009). This warming causes seawa- ter to expand and sea levels to rise. In addition, mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, and losses from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have very likely contributed to global sea level rise between 1993 and 2003 (Williams et al. 2009). Photo: Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, beyondseasonsend org Land subsidence, both natural and human- caused, is the gradual downward settling of the Earth's surface (Williams et al. 2009). Groundwater removal, drainage of organic soils, and underground mining can all contribute to subsidence, leading to signifi- cant damage and increasing risk from flooding due to sea level rise. Subsidence is also caused by a vari- ety of natural factors including tectonic processes, sediment loading and compaction, and the extrac- tion of subsurface fluids such as oil and water. Both local subsidence and global mean SLR determine the relative sea level rise experienced at a particular loca- tion. On the Atlantic coast of North America, the Earth's crust is actually relaxing vertically, or sinking downward (Engelhart et al. 2009). Relative SLR is therefore measured with respect to a specific verti- cal point or line used as a reference in a particular location and can be measured directly by coastal tide gauges, which record both the movement of land to which the gauge is attached and the changes in global sea level rise. Relative SLR is already evident in many coastal regions and will increase significantly during this century (Bindoff et al. 2007), Williams et al. 2009), further magnifying the effects of global SLR resulting from thermal expansion and melting. 2o d, 7 i r�trwe GIr'�Ib( '7I Results of climate models suggest that mean sea level rise during this century will significantly exceed rates experienced over the past century. Based on temper- ature increases projected in the IPCC report of 2 - 11.5 °F of warming over the next century, global sea levels could rise from 0.18 meters to 0.59 meters, with an additional increase of up to 0.2 meters based on melting ice sheets (Meehl et al. 2007). Since publication of the Fourth IPCC report, these esti- mates have been called conservative (e.g., velicogna and Wahr 2006, Bamber et al. 2009). The IPCC projections include a conservative contribution from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and glaciers at the rates observed for 1993 -2003 (Meehl et al. 2007). However, scientists have been warning of accelerations in the ice sheets and near - coastal thin- ning for several years (Rignot and Thomas 2002, Thomas et al. 2004, Rignot and Kanagaratnam 2006, Csatho et al. 2008). In particular, Rignot and Kanagaratnam (2006) detected a doubling in mass loss in the Greenland ice sheet between 1996 and 2005 using satellite radar interferometry and found that the contribution of Greenland's melting ice to sea level rise increased from 0.23 ±0.08 mm /yr in 1996 to 0.57 ±0.1 mm /yr in 2005. Several studies have projected up to 1.4 meters of sea level rise by 2100 when ice sheet contributions are included (e.g., Rahmstorf et al. 2007, Pfeffer et al. 2008). As sea level rises, storms will reach higher elevations leading to more extensive inundation (FitzGerald et al. 2008). The combination of sea level rise and storm surge will lead to a greater frequency of flood waters overtopping levees, breaking over seawalls, and breaching barriers. These threats may be magnified with climate change, as storms that lead to coastal storm surges are likely to become more intense and bring heavy precipitation and higher wind speeds (Williams et al. 2009). Recent studies suggest that hurricanes in the Altantic Ocean have increased in intensity over the past half century (Kunkel et al. 2008). 2,3_2 t If' p f' irrgoa is Coastal habitats, including tidal marshes, submerged aquatic vegetation, estuarine beaches, tidal flats, freshwater tidal forest systems, marsh and barrier islands, cliffs, and other coastal habitats are all at risk to losing area to inundation under sea level rise. Additionally, these communities face impacts from changes in tidal range, saltwater intrusion, erosion and increases in the frequency and duration of flood- ing. Shoreline habitats are complex and dynamic environments shaped by physical processes, sediment transport and deposition, geology, and changes in sea level (Gutierrez et al. 2009). Although it is widely recognized that sea level rise alters coastal landforms, predicting precisely how changes in the landscape will occur in response to sea level rise is a complex endeavor. Gesch et al. (2009) identify a number of impacts that coastal regions will face in response to sea level rise (Box 2 -3). Box 2 -3. Responses of a coastal regions to sea level rise ( Gesch et al. 2009) Land loss resulting from inundation of low lying lands Land loss due to erosion Barrier island migration, breaching and segmentation Wetland accretion and migration Wetland drowning (deterioration and conversion to open water) Expansion of estuaries Saltwater intrusion Increased frequency of storm flooding Photo: Shoreline erosion in North Carolina, coastalgeology. eAINCCOHAZ Along much of the U.S. coast, shoreline changes are related to changes in the shape of the landscape at the water's edge. These changes do not occur as a direct result of sea level rise but rather in response to waves and currents, sediment availability, coastal storms, and human activity, as well as the underlying geology. The complex and dynamic factors contrib- uting to shoreline development make predictions of how shorelines will change in the future (and the rela- tive contribution of sea level rise) difficult and uncer- tain. While current impact assessments often focus on the vulnerability of certain coastal landscapes to inundation due to sea level rise, these models do not incorporate the processes (e.g., barrier island migra- tion) or the environmental changes (e.g., marsh dete- rioration) which may occur (Gutierrez et al. 2009) and may therefore fail to capture the full extent of impact required for local planning purposes. Barrier islands are expected to be disproportionately affected by the impacts of sea level rise. These islands act as an energy buffer, protecting the back - barrier estuarine system from high - energy waves. Because barrier islands occur in areas of large wave energy they are exposed to overwash produced by storms. Overwash acts to erode dunes into the island interior, and sediment deposition from overwash then builds the island's elevation (Gutierrez et al. 2009). As sea level rises, three main processes will affect barrier islands. First, higher sea levels may cause storm overwash to occur more frequently, potential leading to greater erosion and overwash. Second, tidal inlet formation and migration will change future shore- line positions of barrier islands. Third, barrier island shoreline changes may accelerate with rising sea level and stronger storms. Given the dynamic nature of barrier islands, these factors have the potential to leading irreversible changes (Gutierrez et al. 2009), such as landward migration, changes in barrier island size or increases in tidal inlets. Narrow, low eleva- tion barrier islands are most susceptible to increased overwash and may be the first to cross these thresh- olds. The future of these barrier islands depends in part on the ability of salt marshes in barrier lagoons and estuaries to build vertically at a pace equal to the rise in sea level (Gutierrez et al. 2009). However, assessments of shoreline changes on barrier islands indicate that barriers have already thinned in some areas of the country over the last century (Gutierrez et al. 2009). Coastal wetlands are also highly vulnerable to the impacts of sea level rise. Tidal wetlands build verti- cally through the accumulation of mineral sedi- ments and organic matter controlled by a number of processes (Figure 2 -7, Cahoon et al. 2009). Miner- al sedimentation represents the balance between sediment import and export, which varies among geomorphic settings and different tidal and wave energy regimes. Predicting marsh sustainability with given rates of projected sea level rise depends on an understanding of the complex factors that influence wetland development, some of which are them- selves influenced by climate change. In addition to the environmental drivers identified in Figure 2 -7, wetland development is also influenced by barriers to migration, such as human development and topog- Figure 2 -7: Drivers and processes that influence wetland vertical development (Source: Calhoon et al. 2009). The sustainability of coastal wetlands under sea level rise will be affected by differences in the rate and magni- rude of acccretion. raphy— drivers that may become increasingly impor- tant factors for wetland migration under sea level rise. The relative role of each driver in controlling the vertical development of wetlands depends varies with geomorphic setting (Cahoon et al. 2009). Habitat loss due to sea level rise is expected to have a significant impact on nesting areas, spawning grounds, migratory paths, and foraging areas for a number of species (Daniels et al. 1993). Species that rely primarily on habitats in low -lying areas for some portion of their life history are expected to be partic- ularly at risk. For example, Galbraith et al. (2002) modeled the impact of sea level rise on five inter- nationally important sites for shorebird migration and overwintering. Although they used a conserva- tive global warming estimate, the results of the study suggested a significant loss of tidal flat habitat across all sites. However, the magnitude of loss was depen- dent on local characteristics (Galbraith et al. 2002). Given the scale of habitat loss, the authors suggested that major reductions of shorebirds could occur, and could be excerbated if other synergistic threats (e.g., shoreline hardening, subsidence) were considered. Species that are already endangered or threatened are of particular concern. For example, many endan- gered sea turtles in the Southeast nest on barrier islands that could be inundated under even conser- vative estimates of sea level rise (Daniels et al. 1993). Wave overwash in the early 1980s destroyed 3 -35% of all loggerhead sea turtle nests on barrier islands in South Carolina (Hopkins and Murphy 1989 in Daniels et al. 1993). In addition to sea turtles, Daniels et al. (1993) suggest that other endangered or threatened species, such as the wood stork (Mycte- ria americana) and the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), will be negatively impacted not just by the reduction in marsh size and nesting sites, but the decline in recruitment success of larval and juve- nile fish within tidal creeks (Thomas et al. 1991 in �6q b/f °6qf ,), l(" Eq /Fir ', "' 6q r /k` Eq Ill, /6l ber 1) Daniels et al. 1993). Thus, species with a variety of life history characteristics may be at risk because of loss of nesting habitat, food sources, and breeding locations due to rising seas. 1� u "�, f c r a ,1 �) Allan, J. D., M. Palmer, and N. L. Poff. 2005. Climate change and freshwater ecosystems. Pages 272 -290 in: Climate Change and Biodiversity (T. E. Lovejoy and L. Hannah, eds). Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Allen, C. D. and D. D. Breshears. 1998. Drought - induced shift of a forest — woodland ecotone: rapid landscape response to climate variation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95: 14839- 14842. Amatya, D. M., G. Sun, R. W. Skaggs, G. M. Chescheir, and J. E. Nettles. 2006. Hydrologic effects of global climate change on a large drained pine forest. Pages 383 -394 in Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydrology and Management of Forested Wetlands, 8 -12 April 2006. ASABE Publication No. 701 P0406, St Joseph, MI. Bae, D. H., L W. Jung, and H. Chang. 2007. Potential changes in Korean water resources estimated by high- resolution climate simulation. Climate Research 35: 213 -226. Bamber, J. L., J. L. Gomez -Dans, and J. A. Griggs. 2009. A new I km digital elevation model of the Antarctic derived from combined satellite radar and laser data — Part 1: Data and methods. Cryosphere 3: 101 -111. Bender, M. A., T. R. Knutson, R. E. Tuleya, J. J. Sirutis, G. A. Vecchi, S. T. Garner, and L M. Held. 2010. Modeled impact of anthropogenic warming on the frequency of intense Atlantic hurricanes. Science 327: 454 -458. Bickford, D., S. D. Howard, D. J. J. Ng, and J. A. Sheridan. 2010. Impacts of climate change on the amphibians and reptiles of Southeast Asia. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 1043 -1062. Bindoff, N. L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, J. Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le Quere, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C. K. Shum, L. D. Talley, and A. Unnikrishnan. 2007. Observations: Oceanic climate change and sea level. Pages 385 -432 in: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller, eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY. Bull, J. J. 1980. Sex determination in reptiles. The Quarterly Review of Biology 55: 3 -21. Burkett, V. and J. Kusler. 2000. Climate change: Potential impacts and interactions in wetlands of the United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36: 313 -320. Cahoon, D. R., D. J. Reed, A. S. Kolker, M. M. Brinson, J. C. Stevenson, S. Riggs, R. Christian, E. Reyes, C. Voss, and D. Kunz. 2009. Coastal wetland sustainability. Pages 57 -72 in Coastal Sensitivity to Sea -Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid - Atlantic Region. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Titus, J.G. (Coordinating Lead Author), K.E. Anderson, D.R. Cahoon, D.B. Gesch, S.K. Gill, B.T. Gutierrez, E.R. Thieler, and S.J. Williams (Lead Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Christensen, N. and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2006. A multimodel ensemble approach to assessment of climate change impacts on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions 3: 3727 -3770. Cruise, J. E, A. S. Limaye, and N. Al -Abed. 1999. Assessment of impacts of climate change on water quality in the southeastern United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 1539 -1550. Csatho, B., T. Schenk, C. J. Van der Veen, and W. B. Krabill. 2008. Intermittent thinning of Jakobshavn Isbrae, West Greenland, since the Little Ice Age. Journal of Glaciology 54: 131 -144. Daniels, R. C., T. W. White, and K. K. Chapman 1993. Sea -level rise: destruction of threatened and endangered species habitat in South Carolina. Environmental Management 17: 373 -385. Daszak, P., D. E. Scott, A. M. Kilpatrick, C. Faggioni, J. W. Gibbons, and D. Porter. 2005. Amphibian population declines at Savannah River site are linked to climate, not chytridiomycosis. Ecology 86: 3232 -3237. Dukes, J. S., J. Pontius, D. Orwig, J. R. Garnas, V. L. Rodgers, N. Brazee, B. Cooke, K. A. Thecharides, E. E. Stange, R. Harrington, and others. 2009. Responses of insect pests, pathogens, and invasive plant species to climate change in the forests of northeastern North America: What can we predict? Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39: 231 -248. Eaton, J. G. and R. M. Scheller. 1996. Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat in streams of the United States. Limnology and Oceanography 41: 1109 -1115. Eaton, J. G., J. H. McCormick, B. E. Goodno, D. G. O'Brien, H. G. Stefany, M. Hondzo, and R. M. Scheller. 1995. A field information - based system for estimating fish temperature tolerances. Fisheries 20: 10 -18. Eckhardt, K. and U. Ulbrich. 2003. Potential impacts of climate change on groundwater recharge and streamflow in a central European low mountain range. Journal of Hydrology 284: 244 -252. Elsner, J. B., J. P. Kossin, and T. H. Jagger. 2008. The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones. Nature 455: 92 -95. Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436: 686 -688. Engelhart, S. E., B. P. Horton, B. C. Douglas, W. R. Peltier, and T. E. Torngvist. 2009. Spatial variability of late Holocene and 20th century sea -level rise along the Atlantic coast of the United States. Geology 37: 1115 -1118. Ficke, A. D., C. A. Myrick, and L. J. Avila. 2007. Potential impacts of global climate change on freshwater fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 17: 581 -613. Fitter, A. H. and R. S. R. Fitter. 2002. Rapid changes in flowering time in British plants. Science 296: 1689 -1691. FitzGerald, D. M., M. S. Fenster, B. A. Argow, and I. V. Buynevich. 2008. Coastal impacts due to sea -level rise. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 36: 601 -647. Frei, A., R. L. Armstrong, M. P. Clark, and M. C. Serreze. 2002. Catskill Mountain water resources: vulnerability, hydroclimatology, and climate - change sensitivity. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92: 203 -224. Galbraith, H., R. Jones, R. Park, J. Clough, S. Herrod- Julius, B. Harrington, and G. Page. 2002. Global climate change and sea level rise: potential losses of intertidal habitat for shorebirds. Waterbirds 25: 173 -183. Gesch, D. B., B. T. Guitierrez, and S. Gill. 2009. Coastal elevations. Pages 25 -42 in Coastal Sensitivity to Sea -Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid - Atlantic Region. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Titus, J.G. (Coordinating Lead Author), K.E. Anderson, D.R. Cahoon, D.B. Gesch, S.K. Gill, B.T. Gutierrez, E.R. lhieler, and S.J. Williams (Lead Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Gleick, P. H. 1986. Methods for evaluating the regional hydrologic impacts of global climatic change. Journal of Hydrology 88: 97 -116. Golladay, S. W., P. Gagnon, M. Kearns, J. M. Battle, and D. W. Hicks. 2004. Response of freshwater mussel assemblages (Bivalvia: Unionidae) to a record drought in the Gulf Coastal Plain of southwestern Georgia. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23:494 -506. Graham, L. P., S. Hagemann, S. Jaun, and M. Beniston. 2007. On interpreting hydrological change from regional climate models. Climatic Change 81: 97 -122. Gutierrez, B. T., S. J. Williams, and E. R. lhieler. 2009. Ocean coasts. Pages 43 -56 in Coastal Sensitivity to Sea -Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid - Atlantic Region. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Titus, J.G. (Coordinating Lead Author), K.E. Anderson, D.R. Cahoon, D.B. Gesch, S.K. Gill, B.T. Gutierrez, E.R. lhieler, and S.J. Williams (Lead Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Hopkins, S. R. and T. M. Murphy. 1989. Management of loggerhead turtle nesting beaches in South Carolina. Study completion report, E -I, Study No. VI -A -2. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Columbia, SC. Huntington, T. G. 2006. Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: Review and synthesis. Journal of Hydrology 319: 83 -95. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. Iverson, L. R. and A. M. Prasad. 2001. Potential changes in tree species richness and forest community types following climate change. Ecosystems 4: 186 -199. Iverson, L. R., A. M. Prasad, B. J. Hale, and E. K. Sutherland. 1999. An atlas of current and potential future distributions of common trees of the eastern United States. USDA Forest Service, Radnor, Pennsylvania, USA (Retrieved from: http: / /www.nrs.fs.fed.us /atlas /). Jevrejeva, S., J. C. Moore, A. Grinsted, and P. L. Woodworth. 2008. Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago? Geophysical Research Letters 35: L08715. Jha, M., Z. Pan, E. S. Takle, and R. Gu. 2004. Impacts of climate change on streamflow in the Upper Mississippi River Basin: A regional climate model perspective. Journal of Geophysical Research 109: D09105. Karl, T. R., J. M. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson (Eds.). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Keim, B. D. 1997. Preliminary analysis of the temporal patterns of heavy rainfall across the southeastern United States. The Professional Geographer 49: 94 -104. King, J. R., B. J. Shuter, and A. P. Zimmerman. 1999. Empirical links between thermal habitat, fish growth, and climate change. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128: 656 -665. Knight, D. B. and R. E. Davis. 2007. Climatology of tropical cyclone rainfall in the Southeastern United States. Physical Geography 28: 126 -147. Knutson, T. R., J. L. McBride, J. Chan, K. Emanuel, G. Holland, C. Landsea, L Held, J. P. Kossin, A. K. Srivastava, and M. Sugi. 2010 Tropical cyclones and climate change. Nature Geoscience: 157 -163. Kreft, H. and W. Jetz. 2007. Global patterns and determinants of vascular plant diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1045925 -5930. Kundzewicz, Z. W., L. J. Mata, N. W. Arnell, P. D611, P. Kabat, B. Jimenez, K. A. Miller, T. Oki, Z. Sen, and L A. Shiklomanov. 2007. Freshwater resources and their management. Pages 173 -210 in: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (M. L. Parry, O. E Canziani, J. P. Palutkiof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson, eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Kunkel, K., P. Bromirski, H. Brooks, T. Cavazos, A. Douglas, D. Easterling, K. A. Emanuel, Groisman, P.Ya., G. Holland, T. Knutson, J. Kossin, P. Komar, D. Levinson, and R. Smith. 2008. Observed changes in weather and climate extremes. Pages 35 -80 in: Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate: Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands (T. Karl, G. Meehl, C. Miller, S. Hassol, A. Waple, and Murray, Eds). U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Washington, DC. Le Treut, H., R. Somerville, U. Cubasch, Y. Ding, C. Mauritzen, A. Mokssit, T. Peterson, and Prather M. 2007. Historical Overview of Climate Change Science in: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller, Eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NW, USA. Lettenmaier, D., D. Major, L. Poff, and S. Running. 2008. Water resources. Pages 121 -150 in: The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States. A Report by the U.S. Climate change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington, DC. Lins, H. E, and J. R. Slack. 2005. Seasonal and regional characteristics of US streamflow trends in the United States from 1940 to 1999. Physical Geography 26: 489 -501. Loukas, A., L. Vasiliades, and N. R. Dalezios. 2002. Potential climate change impacts on flood producing mechanisms in southern British Columbia, Canada using the CGCMAI simulation results. Journal of Hydrology 259: 163 -188. Lu, J., G. Sun, D. M. Amatya, S. V. Harder, and S. G. McNulty. 2006. Understanding the hydrologic response of a coastal plain watershed to forest management and climate change in South Carolina, USA. Pages 231 -239 in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydrology and Management of Forested Wetlands, 8 -12 April 2006. ASABE Publication No. 701 P0406, St Joseph, MI. Lu, J., G. Sun, S. G. McNulty, and N. B. Comerford. 2009. Sensitivity of Pine Flatwoods Hydrology to Climate Change and Forest Management in Florida, USA. Wetlands 29: 826 -836. Mauget, S. A. 2003. Multidecadal regime shifts in US streamflow, precipitation, and temperature at the end of the twentieth century. Journal of Climate 16: 3905 -3916. Maurer, E. P., L. Brekke, T. Pruitt, and P. B. Duffy. 2007. Fine - resolution climate projections enhance regional climate change impact studies. Eos Transactions AGU 88: 504. McNulty, S. G., J. M. Vose, and W. T. Swank. 1997. Regional hydrologic response of loblolly pine to air temperature and precipitation changes. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33: 1011 -1022. Meehl, G. A., T. E Stocker, W. D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A. T. Gaye, J. M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. Knutti, J. M. Murphy, A. Noda, S. C. B. Raper, L G. Watterson, A. J. Weaver, and Z. Zhao. 2007. Global climate projections. Pages 747 -842 in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller, eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY. Meyer, J. L., M. J. Sale, P. J. Mulholland, and N. L. Poff. 1999. Impacts of climate change on aquatic ecosystem functioning and health. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 1373 -1386. Milly, P. C. D., K. A. Dunne, and A. V. Vecchia. 2005. Global pattern of trends in streamflow and water availability in a changing climate. Nature 438: 347 -350. Mohseni, O., H. G. Stefan, and J. G. Eaton. 2003. Global warming and potential changes in fish habitat in US streams. Climatic change 59: 389 -409. Mulholland, P. J., G. Best, C. Coutant, G. Hornberger, J. Meyer, P. Robinson, J. Stenberg, R. Turner, E Vera- Herrera, and R. Wetzel. 1997. Effects of climate change on freshwater ecosystems of the south - eastern United States and the Gulf Coast of Mexico. Hydrological Processes 11: 949 -970. Murdoch, P. S., J. S. Baron, and T. L. Miller. 2000. Potential effects of climate change on surface - water quality in North America. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36: 347 -366. Myneni, R. B., C. D. Keeling, C. J. Tucker, G. Asrar, and R. R. Nemani. 1997. Increased plant growth in the northern high latitudes from 1981 to 1991. Nature 386: 698 -702. National Wildlife Federation (NWF). 2009. Standing Tall: How restoring longleaf pine can help prepare the Southeast for global warming. Parmesan, C. 1996. Climate and species' range Nature 382: 765 -766. Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37: 637 -669. Pfeffer, W. T., J. T. Harper, and S. O'Neel. 2008. Kinematic constraints on glacier contributions to 21st - century sea -level rise. Science 321: 1340 -1343. Pielke, R. A., C. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver, and R. Pasch. 2005. Hurricanes and Global Warming. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86: 1571 -1575. Praskievicz, S. and H. Chang. 2009. A review of hydrological modelling of basin -scale climate change and urban development impacts. Progress in Physical Geography 33: 650 -671. Qi, S., G. Sun, Y. Wang, S. G. McNulty, and J. A. Moore Myers. 2009. Streamflow Response to Climate and Landuse Changes in a Coastal Watershed in North Carolina. Transactions of the ASABE 52: 730 -749. Rahel, E, C. J. Keleher, and J. L. Anderson. 1996. Potential habitat loss and population fragmentation for cold water fish in the North Platte River drainage of the Rocky Mountains response to climate warming. Limnology and Oceanography: 1116 -1123. Rahmstorf, S., A. Cazenave, J. A. Church, J. E. Hansen, R. E Keeling, D. E. Parker, and R. C. J. Somerville. 2007. Recent climate observations compared to projections. Science 316: 709. Rignot, E. and P. Kanagaratnam. 2006. Changes in the velocity structure of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Science 311: 986 -990. Rignot, E. and R. H. Thomas. 2002. Mass balance of polar ice sheets. Science 297:1502 -1506. Rose, S. 2009. Rainfall -runoff trends in the south - eastern USA: 1938 -2005. Hydrological Processes 23: 1105 -1118. Saxon, E., B. Baker, W. Hargrove, E Hoffman, and C. Zganjar. 2005. Mapping environments at risk under different global climate change scenarios. Ecology Letters 8: 53 -60. Sinervo, B., E Mendez -de -la -Cruz, D. B. Miles, B. Heulin, E. Bastiaans, M. Villagran -Santa Cruz, R. Lara- Resendiz, N. Martinez- Mendez, M. L. Calderon - Espinosa, R. N. Meza- Lazaro, H. Gadsden, L. J. Avila, M. Morando, 1. J. De la Riva, P. V. Sepulveda, C. E D. Rocha, N. Ibarguengoytia, C. A. Puntriano, M. Massot, V. Lepetz, T. A. Oksanen, D. G. Chapple, A. M. Bauer, W. R. Branch, J. Clobert, and J. W. Sites. 2010. Erosion of lizard diversity by climate change and altered thermal niches. Science 328: 894 -899. Stefan, H. G., X. Fang, and J. G. Eaton. 2001. Simulated fish habitat changes in North American lakes in response to projected climate warming. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130: 459 -477. Stephenson, N. L. 1990. Climatic control of vegetation distribution: the role of the water balance. American Naturalist 135: 649 -670. Sun, G., D. M. Amatya, S. G. McNulty, R. W. Skaggs, and J. H. Hughes. 2000. Climate change impacts on the hydrology and productivity of a pine plantation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36 367 -374. Thodsen, H. 2007. The influence of climate change on stream flow in Danish rivers. Journal of Hydrology 333: 226 -238. Thomas, C. D., A. Cameron, R. E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L. J. Beaumont, Y. C. Collingham, B. E Erasmus, M. E De Siqueira, A. Grainger, L. Hannah, and others. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427: 145 -148. Thomas, J. P., R. L. Ferguson, J. D. Dobson, and E A. Cross. 1991. NOAA's coastwatch: Change analysis program. Pages 259 -267 in Coastal Zone 91, Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management. ASCE, Long Beach, California. Tu, J. 2009. Combined impact of climate and land use changes on streamflow and water quality in eastern Massachusetts, USA. Journal of Hydrology 379: 268 -283. Velicogna, L and J. Wahr. 2006. Acceleration of Greenland ice mass loss in spring 2004. Nature 443:329-331. Webster, P. J., G. Holland, J. A. Curry, and H -R. Chang. 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science 309: 1844 -1846. Went, E W. 1953. The effect of temperature on plant growth. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 4: 347 -362. Williams, S. J., B. T. Gutierrez, J. G. Titus, S. Gill, D. R. Cahoon, E. R. Thieler, K. E. Anderson, D. FitzGerald, V. Burkett, and J. Samenow. 2009. Sea -level rise and its effects on the coast. Pages 11 -24 in: Coastal Sensitivity to Sea -Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid - Atlantic Region. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Titus, J.G. (Coordinating Lead Author), K.E. Anderson, D.R. Cahoon, D.B. Gesch, S.K. Gill, B.T. Gutierrez, E.R. Thieler, and S.J. Williams (Lead Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Winter, T. C. 2000. The vulnerability of wetlands to climate change: A hydrologic landscape perspective. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36: 305 -312. Wolfe, D. W., M. D. Schwartz, A. N. Lakso, Y. Otsuki, R. M. Pool, and N. J. Shaulis. 2005. Climate change and shifts in spring phenology of three horticultural woody perennials in northeastern USA. International Journal of Biometeorology 49: 303 -309. (though regional studies provide a useful framework for assessing the impacts of climate change on fish and wildlife across the Southeast, state - specific information will be criti- cal for updating the North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan (NC WAP) (NCWRC 2005). Fortunately, a number of climate modeling and scenario tools are available to project potential shifts in temperature and precipitation in the state. In this chapter, we apply climate modeling scenarios to map state - specific projected temperature and precipitation changes. We also provide a review of recent studies on projected sea - level -rise for the coast of North Carolina. In each section, we use the information from the projections to identify a broad subset of species and habitats in North Carolina that may be particularly susceptible to climate change impacts in the state. l,u 1 fror NoII "th ° a1a"'oill'no Climate Wizard (Zganjar et al. 2009) is a useful mapping tool that can be used to derive temperature projections for North Carolina for the middle and end of this century. This user - friendly tool allows users to access past changes in climate, as well as project future changes in rainfall and precipitation in a given area based on available climate models statis- tically downscaled to a 12 km2 resolution (Maurer et al. 2007). The projections presented in this section are based on multi -model ensemble averages of 16 global circulation models (GCMs) using the high emissions scenario (A2) from the IPCC. Estimates of mean temperature departures are provided for mid - century (2040 — 2069) and end of century (2070- 2099). in a Based on projections using Climate Wizard, average yearly temperatures across the state are expected to increase 3.5 to 4.7 °F by mid century. The areas of highest temperature increase will be in the north and west of the state and in many of the mountainous regions. Coastal areas are also projected to experience significant yearly average temperature increases, but to a lesser degree than inland areas. By the end of the century, projections show increases in annual aver- age temperatures of 5 to 6T, again with the greatest increases in the north and west portions of the state (Figure 3 -1). In addition to changes in average annual tempera- ture, seasonal, monthly, and maximum/ minimum daily temperatures can sometimes provide more meaningful projections for assessing the impact of temperature changes on species and ecosystems. Climate Wizard can easily be used to complete this type of analysis. Figure 3 -2 shows projected change in temperature in North Carolina by season for the end of the century. The largest increase in temperature (7.8 °F) is projected to occur in the summer months between June and August, while the lowest increases in temperature are projected to occur during the fall and winter. Other tempera- ture related variables, such as number of frost free days or length of the growing season are also biologically important. Although, Climate Wizard does not provide these outputs directly, many climate modelers are interested in working with state agencies and other partners to identify the data and information needs required to facilitate climate change adaptation for wildlife. University research- ers as well as many of the federal initiatives are identi- fied in Appendix E. Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 53 Mean An nual Termperatu re C ha nge for North, Carolina Mid-Century and End of Century Da .1a frami Qfimat- VAzwd (A2, emir wm 5oenariv,,16 ensemL�le model) Mid, Century Sm End of Gentury M C1 0010 I%m paratu re p rqla chona 112 R i,i,i re%u U1 u i,i I 1r am C111 i1sm., E Viamd, rdy'kwirid [wrn hilrOmRiom alma WoAzard rAq OM 10 F*AO OVOW ref, (Ine k) Were Map Pm)ecUx,"c Mm,11i Cardho •Va& Ptw,,re �iNAD 1993,1, Prapsred4, Defendersc.4 Wldlh-e Gimakle Ghwige Deparlment May 20 10 I* wd,zgk rirAils d4mckogdo"w4wo N" Figure 3-1. Projected change in mean annual temperature for North Carolina by mid and end of the century. Projections are based on a high emissions scenario (A2) and the ensemble average of 16 GCMs statistically downscaled to 12 km. 54 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina �End of Century, Changes in Temperaturt. by Season for North Carolina Data f rom Climate Wzard mission is scenorio, 16 en sembll ref odO) December - February &,anpa at state, 4 7 - 5.6 degrees March - May Temperature iHigb 14,0 Departure (degrees, F) Lcm 3 5 chanigia aicross siate 6.5 - 7.8 degrerhes IDala Vxii,rpr Tor"Pomul ro pr4)j*,C0Pr1,$ (12 ks'n IVoro, Clio'J."de Wvovl (P10(" dl &POM arl $11JV201Q, 93 -m-se Ojhrl�ijh- Maotel el; W, (20U) IM99 P(rojeaz&: Norit) c',aro, Ili-in Iate I Pliai-* (NAO "I �; I 1 11!! 111111 111 ", 11 ;11 �! 111111 111111 " 11 ., 11 11 111ml 11 111111 1 chmige across stame 4.8 - 5.6 degirees Figure 3-2. End of century projected changes in temperature shown by season for North Carolina. Projections are based on a high emissions scenario (A2) and the ensemble average of 16 GCMs statistically downscaled to 12 km. Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 55 I', I / I'Irqtrects ("�i Te rgoe r'rear lei, ruI'PIIts f,l`P l'(l't „,le "''s P rld /iah/tat i II "P � re °e�lll "rep In North Carolina, a number of important species may be impacted by increasing temperatures. Shifts in the timing of seasons may cause asynchrony in species interactions or trophic mismatches. Warmer and dryer years may alter the timing of insect emer- gence or the time of blooming (reviewed in Parme- san 2006). High elevation communities may be particularly at risk given projected climate warm- ing in the region. Spruce -fir forests are projected to move northward as physiological tolerances are exceeded across its southern range, which is limited by summer heat and drought (Figure 3 -3, Iverson and Prasad 2001). Research from Iverson and Prasad (2001), suggests that spruce -fir habitat could be easi- ly extirpated from the eastern U.S. as temperatures increase. In addition, changes in seasonal temper- atures may allow pest species to survive during warmer winters and thus exacerbate the threat of insect outbreaks (Logan et al. 2003). An increase in insect outbreaks may make spruce -fir habitats in North Carolina particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Spruce -fir habitats provide critical habitat for a number of priority birds, including a subspecies of brown creeper (Certhia americans) and northern saw -whet owl (Aegolius acacdicus), that may be endemic to the high peaks of the Southern Blue Ridge Ecoregion (NCWRC 2005 ). Reptiles and amphibians can also be very sensitive to changes in temperature. An ectotherms' life histo- ry traits, behavior and physiology are all strongly influenced by environmental temperature (Standora and Spotila 1985, Janzen 1994). For example, in a study on Eastern red - spotted newt (Notophthahnus viricdescens), Rohr and Madison (2003) found that elevated dehydration risk may compromise anti - predator behavior and exacerbate amphibian popu- lation declines. Although they spend the majority of their lives at sea, marine turtles have a terrestrial e a u t I,,)Eqn FI e,,, in i �F6q,,, rjnEqG lf�l fF'f E /t�F FIEqlf /yF,t;, .. >'6q t''t e`P" 6q /'r,`' (n,e,'t /u,tbltE'1 ;'',e, ill 6qy ////// 6q ,'r,`' x {`Y i`r,` /e` I7'E'J��"�` /l. "' /, `Il /V O/-,l /') ( eg1-,(,1h' `,q l'�,gll,f Al'j G'(" G l vul l `l- ,,gble op lb(, ol"c/invalc ux l% component of their life cycle, returning to land each year to nest. Sand temperature during egg incuba- tion is a critical factor in embryo development, hatch- ing success, and hatchling sex ratios (Figure 3 -4). Increases in sand temperature may therefore affect reproductive success and hatchling development, as well as the sex ratios of offspring produced (Hawkes et al. 2009). Increased water and air temperatures may also lead to earlier onset of egg - laying and range expansion northward. For example, warmer temper- atures in past interglacial periods have facilitated the expansion of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) into higher latitudes (Bowen et al. 1994), and leath- erback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) nests are now being recorded at their most northerly locations in a decade of monitoring (Ration et al. 2003). Logger- head sea turtles have shown earlier nesting by 12 to 18 days in response to 1.8 °F of warming (Hawkes et al. 2007). Both loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles are identified as priority species in North Carolina and are internationally classified as endan- gered and critically endangered respectively (Marine Turtle Specialist Group 1996, Sarti Martinez 2000). 56 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina Figure 3 -3. Current forest types as determined from forest inventory data and potential future forest types under five scenarios of climate change. (Source: Iverson and Prasad 2001, © Springer, used with permission). Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 57 Fig. 3. Breeding and nesting phase of marine turtles. Dotted grey arrows represent the potential climate variables and their indirect effects, + or - indicate likely direction of effect Figure 3 -4. Climatic factors affecting sea turtles during nesting and breeding (Source: Hawkes et al. 2009, © Inter - Research, used with permission). Increases in sand temperature due to climate change may affect reproductive success and hatchling devel- opment, as well as the sex ratios of offspring produced (Hawkes et al. 2009). Marine turtles typically incubate successfully only between 77 and 95T (Ackerman 1997 in Hawkes et al. 1997). In general, the higher end of this temperature range produces female embryos while lower temperatures result in male turtles (e.g., Hays et al. 2003). An equal number of males and females are produced at the `pivotal temperature' which, for loggerhead turtles, occurs between 82.4 to 87.8 °F (Mrosovsky 1988). Projected future increases in temperature could result in biased sex ratios towards females, although behavioral changes, such as choos- ing shaded nesting sites, nesting earlier, or nesting later in the season, could maintain mixed sex ratios (Hawkes et al. 2009). Whether marine turtles will be able to adapt either behaviorally or physiologically to increased temperatures for incubation, remains unclear. Aquatic habitats and species are expected to be signif- icantly impacted by warming climate trends. The Southeast has the highest aquatic species diversity in the entire United States, including significant taxo- nomic diversity of fishes, mollusks, and crayfish (NC WAP). A significant proportion of these groups are already known to be at risk in North Carolina, with 83 fish species, 43 mussel species, 21 crayfish species, and 10 snail species identified as priorities for conser- vation in the NC WAP. Major threats identified in the NC WAP include pollution, hydrologic altera- tion, physical habitat manipulation, and introduc- tion of non - indigenous species, many of which are likely to be exacerbated by climate change. In the Piedmont and Mountains, a number of river basins are already extensively modified by dams (Figure 3 -5) and impoundments, further limiting species ability to move to more suitable habitats under changing climatic conditions. f Photo: Cheoah Dam, www. learnnc. orgld lmultimedi&7836 58 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina i'! E11111111111111 IN 1111111111111111� II dflwe;,�wuyvl?/JdGAYG �Il9k�mllJmJ�drvllm ,. ,, ,. rC"NAJuem 5Wyr'l/ , P'�rnufµ ��r�mo�Vw n r.,, � �u N � Ty' o 4JlTtJF71 11,0U z �� I R 4 �oNsdby� �' + ti „.,.,' LAN, WnI, wmic: �Q1�3T � ®I1��6' � mWlk � �, N�a Y!'� 1�1�M11J N,I�HFRq �N 4V11"i�'�H "�I�YMiW NVN",M ��"n INMR �WN�fl WWuHfu R11R^"f�,� NqR ��:�IF(I M1I� ��'8.�,�Q �' "mPM�dY`R��FS`Yl1fRIX;p PaW n('utMmiowa'Peftrfitn,A'lpm Elms, MPNO1,0uoWW r o[M�c,o"' �:ar�� ��� r ���w P1iRpor eddby�"gr'i'I'H)dePscf EMtOO 4 R mV'�K VV! Omm'& RAVj pOMA51 "1U'WNWJ Non MW R,uwpmr;lor, Ih1p ikWuUWA u�WY&pWzp iMffly � ry .. � " V 1"��''R " �� q m11;wm "n,"Irn pN%v• IIJPom4' • 0,^ M eeov'ia�I�p1N'�3 PlwiR0ro iwd: ��d�� r tl NNM N��.Np �or�rcreaw �l�vM iQ nu wn:,i �N: N RN��W� �;d, M y 2710 IRu aF R'Nm �NwvJkm ; RollkAh S"mallku ShAw PYmiu u11144 P':;'AIE5I if: �mm bmua.% d%wd iNPDA, P I,A W" ILA : uuaw hmlNmm �.�.n fr�,m:ur , ukrrirW fie Figure 3 -5. Dams and major rivers in North Carolina. Existing threats to aquatic habitats and species, such as hydrological alteration, may be exacerbated by climate change. As the availability of cool water habitat contracts, priority species that inhabit cooler headwaters, such as Johnny darter (Etheostom a nigrurn), striped shin- er (Luxulis chrysocephalus), and slippershell mussel (Alasmidonta viridis) may be more at risk. Recre- ationally important fisheries, for example those stocked in cold and cool water hatcheries in the state, such as walleye (Sander vitreus), muskellunge (Esox masquinongy), and trout species, are also likely to be affected. Box 3 -1 includes a detailed assess- ment of temperature impacts on brook trout (Salve - linus fontinalis). Sessile organisms unable to move to more suitable habitats, such as temperature-sensi- tive mussel species, may be particularly at risk. For example, Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta ravene- liana) populations are already restricted to scattered pockets of suitable habitat consisting of cool, clean well - oxygenated water (NatureServe 2009). f (,/ ll (,l l ` uv f u(WU P G I ` 1.1 E(WU P I f 6q / ,� , "/ E I N., „ Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 59 R('Zb p llh?4(As"N.�N �mul� "N rN /l II @� INtlr' .mm...m .......... ......... mm... m. mmm. ,mmmmmmmm....�................m a,ix 'ur rs II IX III {'11 fl %IN�':� .,, .,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,, ,,,,,, ................. LAN, WnI, wmic: �Q1�3T � ®I1��6' � mWlk � �, N�a Y!'� 1�1�M11J N,I�HFRq �N 4V11"i�'�H "�I�YMiW NVN",M ��"n INMR �WN�fl WWuHfu R11R^"f�,� NqR ��:�IF(I M1I� ��'8.�,�Q �' "mPM�dY`R��FS`Yl1fRIX;p PaW n('utMmiowa'Peftrfitn,A'lpm Elms, MPNO1,0uoWW r o[M�c,o"' �:ar�� ��� r ���w P1iRpor eddby�"gr'i'I'H)dePscf EMtOO 4 R mV'�K VV! Omm'& RAVj pOMA51 "1U'WNWJ Non MW R,uwpmr;lor, Ih1p ikWuUWA u�WY&pWzp iMffly � ry .. � " V 1"��''R " �� q m11;wm "n,"Irn pN%v• IIJPom4' • 0,^ M eeov'ia�I�p1N'�3 PlwiR0ro iwd: ��d�� r tl NNM N��.Np �or�rcreaw �l�vM iQ nu wn:,i �N: N RN��W� �;d, M y 2710 IRu aF R'Nm �NwvJkm ; RollkAh S"mallku ShAw PYmiu u11144 P':;'AIE5I if: �mm bmua.% d%wd iNPDA, P I,A W" ILA : uuaw hmlNmm �.�.n fr�,m:ur , ukrrirW fie Figure 3 -5. Dams and major rivers in North Carolina. Existing threats to aquatic habitats and species, such as hydrological alteration, may be exacerbated by climate change. As the availability of cool water habitat contracts, priority species that inhabit cooler headwaters, such as Johnny darter (Etheostom a nigrurn), striped shin- er (Luxulis chrysocephalus), and slippershell mussel (Alasmidonta viridis) may be more at risk. Recre- ationally important fisheries, for example those stocked in cold and cool water hatcheries in the state, such as walleye (Sander vitreus), muskellunge (Esox masquinongy), and trout species, are also likely to be affected. Box 3 -1 includes a detailed assess- ment of temperature impacts on brook trout (Salve - linus fontinalis). Sessile organisms unable to move to more suitable habitats, such as temperature-sensi- tive mussel species, may be particularly at risk. For example, Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta ravene- liana) populations are already restricted to scattered pockets of suitable habitat consisting of cool, clean well - oxygenated water (NatureServe 2009). f (,/ ll (,l l ` uv f u(WU P G I ` 1.1 E(WU P I f 6q / ,� , "/ E I N., „ Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 59 Box 3 -1. A detailed assessment of the potential impact of climate change on brook trout Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), sometimes called the Eastern brook trout, are one of the most popular gamefish in the Northeast (Crossman and Scott 1973 in Roberts 2000), and the only trout species native to North Carolina (Southern Division American Fisheries Society Trout Committee (SDAFSTC) 2005). Because brook trout are coldwater fish, they are extremely sensitive to changes in stream temperature, particularly in their southern and lower elevation ranges. The upper thermal tolerance for brook trout is 72.3 °F (Eaton and Shell- er 1996) and maximal weight gain in juveniles occurs at temperatures less than 65 °F (McCormick et al. 1972). As of 2002, only 24% of potential stream locations nationwide were cool enough to support brook trout (O'Neal 2002). In addition, average summer stream temperatures at sites across the U.S. are projected to rise 0.7 -1.4 °F by 2030, 1.3 -3.2 °F by 2060, and 2.2 -4.9 °F by 2090 (O'Neal 2002), potentially shrinking the already much - diminished available habitat for brook trout by 26-41% by 2090 under the higher emissions scenarios. Although this study focused on the impacts of climate change on water temperature, other potential climate change effects may have a significant impact on the amount and quality of available trout habitat, including the magnitude or timing of precipitation, evaporation rates, or stream flow changes. Additional secondary effects of climate change, such as the impact of warming waters on food supply, water quality, pesticide toxic- ity or disease, may impact the viability and persistence of brook trout in North Carolina, although further research is clearly needed. Brook trout may also face demographic threats as populations become ever more confined to the highest elevation and coldest streams. The loss of this widely popular recreational species from North Carolina waters could have a significant impact on local and regional economies (Responsive Management 2009). ,, ' Change Fl 1r o'ect111i`o ,wm fror° NoII "th ° a1a' °oill'IC'lr'o Climate Wizard (Zganjar et al. 2009) can also be used to derive middle and end of century precipi- tation projections for North Carolina. Unlike the temperature projections shown in the previ- ous section, which vary in the magnitude but not the direction of effect among models, precipitation projections provide divergent results in the direction (wetter or drier) of change. One way to visualize this is to look at the range of projections generated by the ensemble models (Figure 3 -6). The lowest 20% of projected values from the ensemble suggest less precipitation across the state; whereas the highest 20% of projected values from the ensemble suggest more precipitation, although there appears to be less variability in some seasons than others. Although the seasonal ensemble averages suggest that coastal areas may be drier in the spring and wetter in the fall and winter, with less variability in the western portion of the state (Figure 3 -7), caution should be used in interpreting results from ensembles for which there is high disagreement among the input models. Seasonal averages are also likely to be less biologically relevant to many organisms, which are often more influenced by increased variability and changes in the timing and amount of precipitation during particu- lar time periods, rather than changes in the magni- tude of seasonal averages. The guidance provided by Climate Wizard cautions that projections should be used for making climate decisions only in areas with high model agree- ment (Zganjar et al. 2009), which is often not the case when assessing future projected precipitation. 60 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina End o' Changes by Season Data fram Climate Wizard emissibns scenario, 16, en semble, model), IL w r Range (C) - 20 % qr. 9litille) Deg - Fib Jun, -Aug 'p/, 'W NOW Ensemble Aer Precipitation Departure A !J`!! i Upper Range (8-0 1 OD% ia1"Ttil%) fi X11 � DAR ,50LIPPE19: PreclpitaMan projections (f ki"r, f nin CtirM AV'Sal I� r*oW F 1m, Pirepared by D fervier.s of Wildlife 5w 01D, Base dJ'gO1'F , wef'e Oowwjroik:�IlWj INyp / 'Cmiservation,i INanning Prograi,ii Mmiopt M Ali. (x r'" T�e Il ivwesd r1te ime'i (A of 'ler y y ay d.1i u�em�trll ka 01F. Yw)Oel we shlywon, 4fi l'J P (oJet,, Iion � 131 -rVa4'i 'lic VVG, a I Sao, Figure 3 -6. End of century precipitation projections by season for North Carolina illustrating the divergence among projections from models included in the ensemble. Projections are based on a high emissions scenario (A2). The lowest (0 -20 %), average, and upper (80 -100 %) quantiles are shown for the ensemble of 16 GCMs statistically downscaled to 12 km'. Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 61 End of Century Changes in Precipitation by, -: Carolina Data from Cflirniot,e, Wii' Ilr '( 2 emissions, s,oe nli ri n11 'nseimble model) CA"onge. across agar Irk Ida° change, wro s suat . -11.2 - S.0,1" Precipitation pitatio % Departuire change acrd& s alerts 4.7-15.21% P' 91p Vd1 pfoJeC«M OnS ("12 Iklfli FESCAUi60n) °Ilromitilrmarte. r���r�� by zard retrieved From hltp: m a w ,.clirrwFw1xarO.urg on C 1010Q, Jrol Q DQPQrV1'1QrR �,uur1ucraj��llral May 2010, Map Nt" rthi -M '¢?: kof r-We Rome e a" NAD '19U) Figure 3 -7. End of century precipitation projections for North Carolina based on the ensemble average of 16 models. Projections are based on a high emissions scenario (A2) and the ensemble average of 16 GCMs statisti- cally downscaled to 12 km2. 62 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina The analysis of model projections reviewed by the U.S. Global Change Research Program gives simi- lar results. Most climate models agree that, at a continental scale, northern latitudes are likely to see increases in precipitation and southern areas will see decreases in precipitation, but there is less confi- dence in where this transition will occur (Karl et al. 2009). North Carolina falls in this transition area, but it is important to note that even if increases in precipitation occur, these may not offset increased evaporation and water loss resulting from higher temperatures projected to occur in the state. As a result, the frequency, duration, and intensity of droughts are likely to continue to increase (Karl et al. 2009). ,27 1 tat, I it arlr I l} G,I;,a l I-1(ts "ol!.; e it <; as l H ah/t atsr rir IIVI a,1Ir Bogs, wetlands and flood plain communities are among those most likely to be impacted by even moderate changes to precipitation regimes. In North Carolina, many of these communities are already threatened by extensive land conversion and other modifications that alter hydrologic regimes (NC WAP). Changes in precipitation have the potential to exacerbate these issues through seasonal shifts in precipitation patterns as well as changes in the frequency of high - intensity events. For exam- ple, willow flycatchers (Enpiclonax trailii), a SGCN species in the NC WAP, are sensitive to flooding of nest sites during the breeding period from June to August (NatureServe 2009). Small pools and wetlands that occur in depressions and are flooded for only a portion of the year are also important sites for breeding amphibians, in particular ambystomid salamanders. These habi- tat types may be found associated with bogs, small wetlands and floodplain forests across the state. Several ambystomids are identified as priority species Photo: www.tbinkstock.com in North Carolina, and are sensitive to the timing of vernal pool formation and precipitation cues for breeding. For example, spotted salamanders (Arnbys- tom a maculatum) begin their migration to breeding areas in response to rain and warming temperatures in the spring (Grace and Church 2003 in Nature- Serve 2009). Marbled salamanders (A. opercum) rely on breeding sites that lack standing water in the fall but are inundated by fall rains and hold stand- ing water through spring. For marbled salaman- ders, timing of larval hatch is dependent on when the pond -basin nesting area is flooded (NatureServe 2009). Pechmann et al. (199 1) reported that breed- ing populations of mole salamander (A. talpoicleum), eastern tiger salamander (A. trigrinum tigrinum) and ornate chorus frog (Pseuclacris ornata) in South Carolina were reduced during years of drought due to low numbers of breeding females and recruitment Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 63 failures associated with inadequate pond hydroperi- od. Timing of heavy rains is also associated with egg laying (NatureServe 2009) in species such as bark- ing treefrog (Hyla gratiosa) and southern chorus frog (Pseucdacris nigrita), a subspecies of which is identi- fied as a priority species in North Carolina. A number of aquatic species will be sensitive to changes in hydrology and timing of flooding and drying events. For example, several darters are associated with fast flowing waters. Priority species include longhead darter (Percina macrocephala) and olive darter (P. squarnata), both of which prefer waters with moderate to high gradients. The former may already have been extirpated from the state (NatureServe 2009). Others species, such as Caro- lina darter (Etheostorna collis), prefer habitats char- acterized by low velocity currents. Some species are particularly sensitive to changes in stream flow (NatureServe 2009). For example beds in flowing areas of creeks appear to be essential habitat for the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), a federally listed species limited to a single river basin. In the Little Tennessee River Basin, hydrologic regime had a significant effect on fish species assemblage over a ten -year period (1983 -1992) that had some of the highest and lowest flows over the previous 58 year period (Grossman et al. 1998). Virtually all river drainages in North Carolina are already impacted by erosion and sedimentation from timberlands, agricultural areas, and urban develop- ment activities (NC WAP). Seasonal increases in runoff under climate change have the potential to further increase nutrient and sediment loads impact- ing species such as shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), which utilizes silt free cobble or boul- der bottom for spawning (NatureServe 2009). In Virginia, siltation was identified as a primary cause of decline for Roanoke bass (Ambloplites cavifrons) in the Upper Roanoke River Drainage (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991 in NatureServe 2009). Examples of other priority fish species that may be particularly sensitive to increased sedimentation include spotfin chub (Cyprinella monacha), lake chubsucker (Erimy- zon sucetta), Carolina darter (Eheostoma collis), and Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas). Zamor and Grossman (2007) found that even low to moder- Photo: National Park Service, www. nps.gov 64 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina Table 3 -1. Fish kill events in river basins in North Carolina (Source: Street et. al 2005, © North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, used with permission) River basin Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2400 2001 Total Neuse 14 12 8 16 23 37 110 Cape Fear 21 16 23 14 12 5 91 Tar - Pamlico 3 6 5 11 14 23 62 Pasquotank 10 2 8 2 0 1 23 White Oak 3 3 1 3 3 3 16 Lumber 4 3 5 0 2 0 14 Chowan 2 2 1 1 0 1 7 Roanoke 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 Total 59 44 52 47 54 70 326 ate levels of turbidity affected foraging success in the rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides) collected from the Little Tennessee River Basin. Interactions between turbidity, velocity and interspecific compe- tition with the yellowfin shiner (Notropis lutipin- nis), which has recently invaded the Little Tennessee Basin, have also been shown to affect foraging behav- ior in this species (Hazelton and Grossman 2009). In addition, mussels are particularly vulnerable to silt and sedimentation (reviewed in Watters 1999) as are a number of crayfish species such as Broad River stream crayfish (Cambarus lenati) and Broad River spiny crayfish (C. spicatus) (Simmons and Fral- ey 2010), two priority species occurring in western North Carolina. In 1996 -2001 fish kills were concentrated in the Neuse, Cape Fear, and Tar- Pamlico River Basins (Street et al. 2005). Small schooling fish maybe some of the most affected in estuarine waters, but other fish observed in fish kill events in North Carolina include sunfish, minnows, killifish, suckers, and darters (Table 3 -1, Street et al. 2005). Species from these groups are well- represented in the priority species identified in the North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Other freshwater taxa may also be vulnerable, for example, Edisto crayfish (Procam- barus ancylus) is thought to be particularly sensitive to disturbances affecting dissolved oxygen concentra- tions (NatureServe 2009). 33 Sea I l;,`vel [,?'Ise (('W' Conservative estimates from the IPCC show that Coastal North Carolina has over 5900 kM2 of land below one meter of elevation (over 1 million acres) (the third largest low -lying region in the U.S. after Louisiana and Florida). Over 1.4 million acres of land in North Carolina are below 1.5 meters (Titus and Richman 2001). North Carolina is fortunate to have access to LiDAR data for the state, which provides high quality elevation data with an accu- racy of 20 cm and is a valuable tool in the assess- ment of vulnerability of low lying areas to sea level rise (Figure 3 -8). A recent report put out by the North Carolina Coast- al Resources Commission (NCCRC) Science Panel on Coastal Hazards (2010) synthesizes the best avail- able science on SLR as it relates specifically to North Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 65 ,r He ,q r { a � 61 Ilr"rH'f, y 4 Elevation Weters) Upland 3,0 Z a L5 .a Tidal An F160"fia of "*0000,10, W 'Sowf W410 �tl a t wrirq h4gh Water, WN,ch mrd the average Hgh fide dUair U mooni grad appira4o mala�, that 010fi'W tunjr .y of I04 W hi m '1hij mraM,p �P a ; = . 4r gralphicAl ire "4 rlop c4ovaa, a'�ra� m:Rrm��san�a� rr>�Ir� lga�r m�r�m��ae �Nr!��ramm� �L r,�r:9amm rrcamm� ,�:aaw�l r�raLra� : r�m�rr �ilar�rwa��sxrv;m� ���� "P:� "� apaa �u�u.ura° ,� C� �Nlaa� ���al �' "r��ra�. 'iu4,"M�� ?� m� u'� a�� ���� N_��acN ��.ras�• �Nr� G% :,rrrY,rr� �IW. ULS . Lrawiremrr m&Mai Prale r:fdnaw Acy, 66 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina Figure 3 -8 Coastal elevations for North Carolina based on data from Titus and Wang (2008). Elevation values used in these data are relative to spring high water elevations and are higher than the mean tide level or mean sea level (Source: http: // maps.risingsea. net /).available with a vertical accuracy of 20cm.) Carolina and summarizes the results of four studies that provide data on the rates of relative sea level rise in (Box 3 -2). The data analyzed in the report indi- cates that relative sea level rise varies as a function of latitude, with higher rates in the north as a result of local geology and differences in crustal subsidence and uplift (NCCRC 2010). The first three studies listed in Box 3 -2 utilize geological data and provide the basis for understanding the potential for future changes in the rate of sea level rise. Based on these studies, the panel made projec- tions for relative sea level rise in North Carolina through 2100 based on differing rates of sea level rise acceleration (Figure 3 -9). The initial rate of rise was set at 4.27 mm per year ( Zervas 2004) with a minimum rise of 0.50 meters to a maximum of 1.4 meters by 2100. Delayed positive feedback may result in an underestimation of the contribution from land use resulting in a total sea level rise above 1.4 meters (NCCRC 2010). Given the uncertain- ty and potential increase in ice sheets melting and contributing to sea level rise the panel concluded that 2 meters of sea level rise, by 2100 is unlikely, but still possible, and could occur only with rapidly accelerated and very high rates of warming and ice sheet melting (NCCRC 2010). Box 3 -2. Four studies summarized in the North Carolina Sea -Level Rise Assessment Report that provide data on relative sea level rise in North Carolina (Source: NC Coastal Resources Commission 2010). Study 7: Horton et al. (2009) developed a sea -level database for North Carolina from new, published and unpub- lished geological data that cover the past 12,000 years. During this period, long -term average rates of SLR varied from approximately 5 mm per year (19 inches /century) until approximately 3,500 y BP (y BP — years before present, where "present" is AD 1950), to about 1 mm per year (4 inches /century) from 3,500 y BP until today. Study2: Kemp (2009 thesis) presented continuous, high resolution constructions of SLR in North Carolina for the past 2,000 years using geological data from Sand Point (Roanoke Island) and Tump Point (Cedar Island).The rate of RSL rise was close to 1 mm per year (4 inches /century) for most of this period. The rate almost doubled to 1.7mm per year (6.7 inches /century) for about 350 years during the Medieval Warm Period (AD 1000 to 1350), and then returned to 1.0 mm /yr for the next few centuries.The rate then increased in the 20th century to about 3.2 mm per year (12.6 inches /century). Study 3: Kemp et al. (2009) concentrated on the RSL records at Sand Point and Tump Point since AD 1500. They noted that the 20th century rate of RSL rise of 3.0 to 3.3 mm per year (13 inches /century) is in agreement with local tide gauges (Fig. 1) and instrumental records from the north -west Atlantic (Woodworth et al., 2008). Study4: Zervas (2004) documented the MSL trends for eight water level stations in North Carolina (Table 1). The intervals of time represented by the data vary from station to station and dredging has resulted in variation in the trends of different tidal datums. These factors led Kemp et al. (2009, Study 3) to average North Carolina tide gauge records. The highest rates (up to 16.8 inches /century) are in the northern portion of the state. Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 67 Figure 3 -9. An analysis of rates of sea -level rise (SLR) under different scenarios of climate warming and ice sheet melting. The resulting magnitude of sea level rise differs depending on the rate of acceleration. According to the NC Coastal Resources Commission's Science Panel on Coastal Hazards, the most likely scenario is a rise of 0.4 meters to 1.4 meters above present by the end of the century (Source: NCCRC 2010). 68 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina L .^''p, Y "'v uS;S w. n4.tl IO 4 ,F,. k " Gdu 111 10 " I e A(u o;mJ" 033IIV4 n'u ryry f MAC �m w f W eV'o0 S, a,,V Y:',i l "N"OO 01X.0 J, 01,0 1010 '"V) Figure 2. This chart illustrates the magnitude of SLR resulting from differing rates of acceleration. The most likely scenario for 2100 AD is a rise of 0.4 meter to 1.4 meters (15 inches to 55 inches) above present. Figure 3 -9. An analysis of rates of sea -level rise (SLR) under different scenarios of climate warming and ice sheet melting. The resulting magnitude of sea level rise differs depending on the rate of acceleration. According to the NC Coastal Resources Commission's Science Panel on Coastal Hazards, the most likely scenario is a rise of 0.4 meters to 1.4 meters above present by the end of the century (Source: NCCRC 2010). 68 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 3,3,7 f I I) I l 1 P,i c t s (,,'b l rG l' P,i l l'' v l' l l' e les af'`ld I iah/tatsl 111 1IV1 �1 X11 Storms, wave energy, rising sea levels, and other natural and human activities have led to significant shifts in the North Carolina coast line (Feldman et al. 2009). These dynamic coast lines both retreat and accrete, with long -term erosion rates (19402 — 1998) estimated at an average of 0.8 in per year (NC DCM 2003 in Feldman et al. 2009). In areas where data are available, average erosion rates have been shown to vary by as much as 4 — 8 in depending on location, time period, or accretion rates (see Everts et al. 1983). Although erosion already plays an impor- tant role in defining the North Carolina coastline, no 1"Ar, impacts will likely be magnified by sea level rise and greater storm surges. For example, Leatherman et al. 2000 found a 1 in sea level rise would result in a shore retreat of an average of 88 in statewide, in addition to erosion caused by existing wave energy, storms, or human activities (in Feldman et al. 2009). North Carolinas coast is primarily composed on wave - dominated barrier islands consisting of long, thin stretches of sand that buffer shallow estuaries or lagoons and are bisected by widely -space tidal inlets (Gutierrez et al. 2009, Figure 3 -10). These barrier islands act as an energy buffer, protecting the inte- rior coastal estuarine system from high - energy waves. Overwash, breaching, and storm surge, are already Coastal Landform Types Along U.S. Mid - Atlantic Coast t 13 fib r m`iu u� Oyu �UmU�4 i hii�rueur�m, t i'�!.'r��FWN"OVN�tlrr �i�Nlll� I�'fiNii7!�§� �" .Ire �Id, � i U�urmmFr,�mv�INrvmwv� JAr, d4tgrr J71111" Figure 3.1 Map of the mid - Atlantic coast of the United States showing the occurrence of the four coastal landform types. Numbers on the map designate distinct portions of the coast divided by landform type and refer to the discussions in Sections 3.5 and 3.7. Numbers on the photographs refer to specific sections of the coast that are depicted on the map. Images from Google Earth (Gutierrez et al., 2007). Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 69 EM an OR Potential Mid - Atlantic Landform Responses to Sea -Level Rise I Al m� y a r� A l 104 U � w r Figure 3.2 Map showing the potential sea -level rise responses (in millimeters [mm] per year [yr]) for each coastal compartment. Colored portions of the coastline indicate the potential response for a given sea -level rise scenario according to the inset table. The color scheme was created using ColorBrewer by Cindy Brewer and Mark Harrower. After Gutierrez et. al. (2007). Figure 3 -11. Much of North Carolinas coastline will be susceptible to overwash, erosion, and island breaching under current rates of sea level rise (Source: Gutierrez et al. 2009). 70 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina V CWE DUE �N , F II a C *18 8, I'VI IN Ove r7. DUE'- ig EWA im t Enmkxt OFIR 11 Mpr 96 fu udt'v iuts, a i uuf f r .i; a rm'61 "O ''i WOO'k Figure 3.2 Map showing the potential sea -level rise responses (in millimeters [mm] per year [yr]) for each coastal compartment. Colored portions of the coastline indicate the potential response for a given sea -level rise scenario according to the inset table. The color scheme was created using ColorBrewer by Cindy Brewer and Mark Harrower. After Gutierrez et. al. (2007). Figure 3 -11. Much of North Carolinas coastline will be susceptible to overwash, erosion, and island breaching under current rates of sea level rise (Source: Gutierrez et al. 2009). 70 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina V CWE DUE �N , F II a C *18 8, I'VI IN Ove r7. DUE'- ig EWA im t Enmkxt OFIR 11 Mpr 96 fu udt'v iuts, a i uuf f .i; a rm'61 "O ''i WOO'k Figure 3.2 Map showing the potential sea -level rise responses (in millimeters [mm] per year [yr]) for each coastal compartment. Colored portions of the coastline indicate the potential response for a given sea -level rise scenario according to the inset table. The color scheme was created using ColorBrewer by Cindy Brewer and Mark Harrower. After Gutierrez et. al. (2007). Figure 3 -11. Much of North Carolinas coastline will be susceptible to overwash, erosion, and island breaching under current rates of sea level rise (Source: Gutierrez et al. 2009). 70 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina a cause of barrier migration on the Core Banks in North Carolina (Riggs and Ames 2003, Gutierrez et al. 2009) (Figure 3 -11). Maritime forests and shrub communities have been identified as highly sensitive habitats in the NC WAP. These habitats are mainly found along barrier islands and the mainland coast on stabilized upper dunes and flats protected from salt spray. These habitats are important breeding and migration stopover points for many migratory birds, and key breeding areas for declining populations of the eastern painted buntings, as well as for several snake species (NC WAP). All of the barrier island maritime forest /shrub communities occur in very dynamic environments and will be susceptible to sea level rise. Coastal wetlands are also highly vulnerable to sea level rise, and loss of this habitat has the poten- tial to adversely affect a number of priority species listed in the NC WAP. Estimates suggest there are between 3.1 and 3.9 million acres of wetland in Photo: North Carolina Derision of Coastal Management pp/)6qP�" / %E(% /: /E ",° ll:l(y' 1(,ll('( f E(G l(,l (le�i�)c r (," )i (, (f( }c/ a l%'t�u/i ''/// (,r Cb /Z'He ,jxrF ie, ,lr(ll ire f , ')e1' C IAA l., coastal North Carolina, including marshes, swamps, forested wetlands, pocosins, and other wetland habi- tats (Street et al. 2005). Vertical accretion rates in North Carolina have been able to keep up with the rate of sea level rise (Feldman et al. 2009), however there are some wetlands that have been unable to vertically accrete at a pace to match current rates of sea level rise. Feldman et al. (2009) suggest that North Carolinas lower coastal plain fringe wetlands may not survive with the 10 mm per year of relative sea level rise scenario described by Day et al. (2005) for the Mississippi Delta region. Pocosin wetlands generally accrete at a rate of approximately one to two mm per year when in their natural state (Craft and Richardson 1998 and Moorhead and Brin- son 1995 in Feldman et al. 2009). Human altered drainage patterns appear to be limiting their verti- cal accretion, which, in combination with saltwater intrusion, could cause subsidence and conversion to open water (Pearsall and Poulter 2005). As sea level rises further and waters with higher salt content reach the Albemarle- Pamlico peninsula, the ability of peat -based wetlands to keep up is unlikely (Box 3 -3, Feldman et al. 2009). Higher scenarios of sea level rise may lead to an increase in inlets and segmen- tation or disintegration of barrier islands leading, potentially resulting in a change from a non -tidal to a tidal regime with increased salinity. These changes would fundamentally alter the structure of current ecosystems and would lead to increased erosion and impacts on wetlands (Riggs and Ames 2003). Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 71 Box 3 -3. Vulnerability of the Albemarle - Pamlico Peninsula to sea level rise and stakeholder response (Source: Feldman et al. 2009, see original report for citations). Vulnerability to sea -level rise on the diverse Albemarle — Pamlico Peninsula is very high: about two - thirds of the peninsula is less than 1.5 meters (m) (5 feet [ft]) above sea level (Heath, 1975), and approximately 30 percent is less than I m (3 ft) above sea level (Poulter, 2005). Shoreline retreat rates in parts of the peninsula are already high, up to about 8 m (25 ft) per year (Riggs and Ames, 2003). The ecosystems of the Albemarle — Pamlico Peninsula have long been recognized for their biological and ecological value. The peninsula is home to four national wildlife refuges, the first of which was established in 1932. In all, a.bout ane• third of the p- eninsula has been set aside for arnservatinn purposes. The Albemarle-- P'arnlico Peninsula i5 among HO th Caralina�s poc5t -6st areas. Four of 45 Nu counties are classified as economically distressed by the state, with high unemployment rates and low average household incomes (NC Department of Commerce, 2008). However, now that undeveloped waterfront property on the Outer Banks is very expensive and scarce, developers have discovered the sn-oll fishing villages on the peninsula and begun acquir- ing property in several areas — including Columbia (Tyrrell County), Engelhard (Hyde County), and Bath (Beaufort County). The peninsula is being marketed as the "Inner Banks" (Washington County, 2008). Communities across the peninsula are planning infrastructure, including wastewater treatment facilities and desalination plants for drink- ing water, to enable new development. Columbia and Plymouth (Washington County) have become demonstra- tion sites in the North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center's STEP (Small Towns Economic Prosperity) Program, which is designed to support revitalization and provide information vital to developing public policies that support long -term investment in small towns (NC REDC, 2006). There are already signs that sea -level rise is causing ecosystems on the Albemarle — Pamlico Peninsula to change. For example, at the Buckridge Coastal Reserve, a 7,547- hectare (ha) (18,650 -acre [ac]) area owned by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, dieback is occurring in several areas of Atlantic white cedar. Other parts of the cedar community are beginning to show signs of stress. Initial investigations suggest the dieback is associated with altered hydrologic conditions, due to canals and ditches serving as conduits that bring salt and brackish water into the peat soils where cedar usually grows. Storms have pushed estuarine water into areas that are naturally fresh, affecting water chemistry, peatland soils, and vegetation intolerant of saline conditions (Poulter and Pederson, 2006). There is growing zwarcaLss on the part u residP_nts and local officials about potential vulnerabilities across the landscape (Poulter, et al., 2009). Some farmers acknowledge that saltwater intrusion and sea -level rise are af- fecting tkccir fields (Moorleacl arsd Brinson, 1995). Researchers at North Carolina State University are using Hyde County farms to experiment with the development of new varieties of salt - tolerant soybeans (Lee et al., 2004). Hyde County is building a dike around Swan Quarter, the county seat (Hyde County, 2008). A variety of evidence has suggested to some stakeholders that the risks to the Albemarle — Pamlico Peninsula merit special management responses. In fact, because so much of the landscape across the peninsula has been transformed by humans, some have expressed concern that the ecosystem may be less resilient and less likely to be able to adapt when exposed to mounting stresses (Pearsall et al., 2005). Thus far, no comprehensive long -term response to the effects of sea -level rise on the Peninsula has been proposed. In 2007, The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Audubon Society, Environmental Defense, Ducks Unlimited, the North Carolina Coastal Federation, and others began working to build an Albemarle — Pamlico Conservation and Communities Collaborative (AP3C) to develop a long -term strategic vision for the peninsula. Although this initiative is only in its infancy, sea - ieve -I rise wlll be one of tl:e Frstand most important issues the partnershipwill address (TNC. 2008). The Nature Cc, nstr•vancy and other stakeholder s have already id rnt vd sever-'al adaptive responses to sea -level rise on the Peninsula. Many of these approaches require community participation in conservation efforts, land protec- non, and adaptive management (Pearsall and Pointer 2005). Sppc.Ar. management strategies that The Naturp. C8n- servancy and others have recommended include: plugging drainage ditches and installing tide gates in agricultural £gilds w that sea water does not flow inland through them, est;i 61 i sh i ng cypress trees where land has been cleared in areas that are expected to become wetlands in the future, reestablishing brackish marshes in hospitable areas that are likely to become wetlands in the future, creating conservation corridors that run from the shoreline inland to facilitate habitat migration, reducing habitat fragmentation, banning or restricting hardened structures along the estuarine shoreline, and establishing oyster reefs and submerged aquatic vegetation beds offshore to help buffer shorelines (Pearsall and DeBlieu, 2005; Pearsall and Poulter, 2005). 72 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina Table 3 -2. Bird Species of Greatest Conservation Need threatened by sea level rise. Species that occur only in coastal habitats in the Mid - Atlantic Coastal Plain Ecoregion or those species that depend on coastal habitats for at least part of their life cycle are highlighted as these species may experience greater impacts than species that occur in both coastal and interior habitats. Scientific Name Common Name State Status (Federal Status) Habitat type v v o 0- �=O N ° 0 E E o V C w c 0 _0 _0 p m Ammodramus caudocutus Saltmarsh Sharp Tailed Sparrow X X Ammodramus nelsoni Nelson's Sharp - tailed Sparrow X X Anhingaanhingo Anhinga SR X Asio flammeus Short -eared Owl X X Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern SR X X Calidrisolba Sanderling X X Calidris can utus Red Knot X X Choradriusmelodus Piping Plover T(T) X X Choradrius wilsonia Wilson's Plover SR X X Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk X Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier SR X X Cisthothorus plotensis Sedge Wren X X Coturnicopsnoveboracensis Yellow Rail SR X X Egretta caeruleo Little Blue Heron SC X X Egretta thulo Snowy Egret SC X X Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron SC X Elanoides forficatus Swallow- tailed Kite X Falco peregrin us Peregrine Falcon E X X Gollinulachloropus Common Moorhen X Hoemotopus polliatus American oystercatcher SR X X Holioeetus leucocepholus Bald Eagle T(T) X X Himontopusmexicanus Black necked Stilt SR X X Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern X X Loterrallus jamaicensis Black Rail SR X X Mycteriaamericano Wood Stork E(E) X X Nyctanosso violaceo Yellow- crowned Night -heron X X Passerino ciris Eastern Painted Bunting X Pelecan us occidentalis Brown Pelican SR X X Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis SC X X Porzono caroling Sora X X Rolluselegons King Rail X X Rolluslimicolo Virginia Rail X X Rynchops niger Black Skimmer SC X X Sterna ontillorum Least Tern SC X X Sterno cospio Caspian Tern SR X X Sterno hirundo Common Term SC X X Sterno nilotica Gull - billed tern T X X Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 73 North Carolinds coastal marsh habitat usually devel- ops on the mainland side of barrier islands and sounds, and in the lower reaches of rivers. These communities are important habitat year -round for a variety of rails, bitterns, and wading birds. Other birds that use coastal wetlands during some stage of their life cycle include the piping plover (Characlrius meloclus, see Box 3 -3), Wilson's plover (Characlrius wilsonia), American oystercatcher (Haematopuspalli- ates), black skimmer (Rynchops niger), gull- billed tern (Gelocheliclon nilotica), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leuco- cephalus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines), and woodstork (Mycetria americana). Endangered or threatened sea turtles and diamond - backed terrapins also use these habitats for nesting. In addition, many commercially important species such as young blue crabs (Callinectes sapiclus), various shrimp species, and southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma) use tidal salt marsh habitat at various stages of their life (Street et al. 2005). With the rates of sea level rise projected in the future, apecies associated with coast- al habitats, including many species identified in the NC WAP, will be threatened by direct loss of habitat to sea level rise (Tables 3 -2, 3 -3, 3 -4, and 3 -5). Photo: Wood Stork (Mycteria americana), www. thinkstock. com 74 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina Table 3-5: Reptile Species of Greatest Conservation Need threatened by sea level rise. Species that occur only io coastal habitats in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain Eco ioomr6ig6|ig6te6uo6zcocoycciconouy experience greater impacts than species that occur in both coastal and interior habitats. Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change io North Carolina 77 111 a is itattype State Status Alligator mississippiensis American Alligator T(T) X Fretmochelys imbricato imbricato Atlantic Hawksbill Sea Turtle E(E) X Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change io North Carolina 77 Table 3-6. Quantification h, county oF the amount oF North [u/okous shoreline along the Atlantic Ocean, the Pamlico and Albemarle sounds, and the back barrier sounds by likelihood of shore yno,rc600 (Modified from: Clark et al. 2010, http://risingsea.net/ERL). Table a. Shoreline Length by Major Water Body and Likelihood of Shore Protection (mi|es)* North Carolina 78 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change io North Carolina Atlantic Ocean 53 26 106 0 0 303 Carteret 25 0 0.3 43 0 0 68.3 Albemarle Sound 30 2 18 0 41 0 91 Cape Fear River 8 10 13 <0.1 15 0 46 78 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change io North Carolina Table 3-6. Continued Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 79 :Ii IIIN�1�ea�nl of Si,jcre l',�rotectiairfj lllb."�) Pin."rtectii�."�rrr llh irt i da 1 We'dairrds, 0 �"Jot "i i cl & S'U,J�Jily'A"irea IN"rit"a I S Air m"mtCeirtaliirr Lflke�ly - Lhrflflke�ly Neuse River 35 11 10 2 22 0 80 Carteret 0 5 1 0 0.8 0 6.8 Craven 21 3 5 2 12 0 43 Pamlico 14 2 4 0 10 0 30 North River 2 0.4 32 0 0 0 34.4 Camden 0 0 12 0 0 0 12 Currituck 2 0.4 20 0 0 0 22.4 Pamlico River 32 16 5 4 13 0 70 Beaufort 32 1 16 j 3 4 8 0 63 Pamlico 0 0 2 0 5 0 7 Pamlico Sound Dare 0.1 2 2 0 0 0 4.1 Pasquotank River 19 3 10 0 0 0 32 Camden 9 2 6 0 0 0 17 Pasquotank 10 1 4 0 0 0 15 Perquimans River Perquimans 9 7 0.2 19 0 0 35.2 Back Barrier Bays 199 99 117 98 159 0 672 Brunswick 60 5 8 8 5 0 86 Carteret 49 13 15 51 7 0 135 Currituck 13 3 43 1 20 0 80 Dare 42 27 0.6 24 50 0 143.6 Hyde 1 12 8 5 57 0 83 New Hanover 12 11 17 4 0.9 0 44.9 Onslow 8 24 7 4 8 0 51 Pamlico 0 0 1 0 8 0 9 Pender 12 2 17 0 1 0 32 North Carolina Total* 1,458 772 1,655 445 2,921 15 7,267 Note: * Includes tributaries to major water bodies. Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 79 vp s o io KW4*01 w�rr�a p�� -rrt N an Ild'al Atdan& +1 TKW, VOO44 „ uY NO, .. ........ w-----"— 216 0111 Figure 3 -12. Likelihood of shore hardening to protect public and private property from the impacts of sea level rise in North Carolina. For each shore protection category, the darker shades represent lands that are either less than 7 feet above spring high water, or within 1000 feet of the shore. The lighter shades show the rest of the study area. This map is based on data published between 1999 and 2003 and site - specific changes suggested by planners in 2002 and 2003 (Source: Clark et al. 2010, http: / /risingsea.net /ERL, used with permission). 80 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina Figure 3 -13: Dare County (Mainland and Roanoke Island): Likelihood of Shore Protection. For each shore protection category, the darker shades represent lands that are either less than 7 feet above spring high water, or within 1000 feet of the shore. The lighter shades show the rest of the study area. This map is based on data published between 1999 and 2003 and site - specific changes suggested by planners in 2002 and 2003 (Source: Clark et al. 2010, http: / /risingsea.net /ERL). Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 81 Impacts ofHurnan Adaptation on Species and Habitats In addition to the direct impacts of habitat loss resulting from sea level rise, ecosystems and species may also be impacted by human adaptation strategies implemented in response to SLR. Under the exist- ing nationwide permit for shore protection, almost any owner of a small or medium -sized lot is allowed to erect shore protection structures that prevent ecosystems, such as tidal marshes, from migrating inland. Although it is currently difficult to predict where such future armoring will take place, a recent study attempted to quantify the potential for future armoring in the mid - Atlantic region using a survey approach (Titus et al. 2009). Based on 131 state and local land use plans, Titus et al. (2009) estimated that almost 60% of the land below one meter along the coastline of the Atlantic will be hardened to protect public and private property from the impacts of sea level rise (Figure 3 -12, Table 3 -6). Currently, 28% of dry land within 1 meter above tidal wetlands is devel- oped and most likely will continue to be armored, while an additional 14% of lands within 1 meter above tidal wetlands have some existing development or are expected to be developed in the future. By contrast, only 3 % of land area within 1 meter above tidal wetlands is set aside for conservation or in some type of protected status. Shoreline protection or armoring resulting from the threat of sea level rise is likely to threaten coastal wetlands by preventing inland migration of wetlands in response to SLR. In order to maintain wetland areas under SLR wetlands will need to migrate inland, which may be difficult given that less than 10% of coastal lands are currently protected and is likely impossible in areas where armoring has occurred (Titus et al. 2009). In North Carolina, some of the areas more likely to be armored include barrier islands near Nags Head, areas along the southern coast southeast of Wilmington, and areas on the Albermarle Peninsula (Figure 3 -13, Titus et al. 2009). Photo: Bulkbeading, www.vims.edu 82 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 1� u "�, f c r a ,1 �) Ackerman, R. A. 1997. The nest environment and embryonic development of sea turtles. Pages 83 -106 in The Biology of Sea Turtles (P. L. Lutz and J. A. Musick, eds). CRC Press, Boca Raton. Bowen, B. W., N. Kamezaki, C. J. Limpus, G. R. Hughes, A. B. Meylan, and J. C. Avise. 1994. Global phylogeography of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) as indicated by mitochondrial DNA haplotypes. Evolution 48:1820 -1828. Clark, W, J. Kassakian and J. G. Titus. (2010). North Carolina. in The Likelihood of Shore Protection along the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Volume 1: Mid - Atlantic Q. G. Titus and D. Hudgens, eds.). Draft Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009th edition. Washington, D.C. Crossman, E.J., and W.B. Scott. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Bulletin 184: 966. Craft, C.B. and C.J. Richardson. 1998. Recent and long -term organic soil accretion and nutrient accumulation in the everglades. Soil Science Society of America Journal 62: 834 -843. Day, R.H., R.K. Holz, and J.W. Day Jr. 1990. An inventory of wetland impoundments in the coastal zone of Louisiana, USA: historical trends. Environmental Management 14: 229 -240. Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV). 2005. North Carolina Brook Trout Conservation Strategies. Retrieved 18 July 2010, from http: // vvww.easternbrooktrout.org/docs/EBTJV-- NorthCarolina—CS.pdf. Eaton, J. G. and R. M. Scheller. 1996. Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat in streams of the United States. Limnology and Oceanography 41:1109 -1115. Everts, C.H., J.P. Battley Jr., and P.N. Gibson. 1983. Shoreline Movements Report 1: Cape Henry Virginia to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS. Feldman, R. L., J. G. Titus, and B. Poulter. 2009. North Carolina. Pages 688 -713 in Appendix 1: State and local information on vulnerable species and coastal policies in the Mid - Atlantic. In: Coastal Sensitivity to Sea -Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid - Atlantic Region. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [Titus, J.G. (Coordinating Lead Author), K.E. Anderson, D.R. Cahoon, D.B. Gesch, S.K. Gill, B.T. Gutierrez, E.R. Thieler, and S.J. Williams (Lead Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Grossman, G. D., R. E. Ratajczak, Jr., M. Crawford, and M. C. Freeman. 1998. Assemblage organization in stream fishes: effects of environmental variation and interspecific interactions. Ecological Monographs 68:395- 420. Gutierrez, B. T., S. J. Williams, and E. R. Thieler. 2009. Ocean coasts. Pages 43 -56 in: Coastal Sensitivity to Sea -Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid - Atlantic Region. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [Titus, J.G. (Coordinating Lead Author), K.E. Anderson, D.R. Cahoon, D.B. Gesch, S.K. Gill, B.T. Gutierrez, E.R. Thieler, and S.J. Williams (Lead Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 83 Hawkes, L. A., A. C. Broderick, M. H. Godfrey, and B. Godley. 2009. Climate change and marine turtles. Endangered Species Research 7:137 -154. Hawkes, L. A., A. C. Broderick, M. H. Godfrey, and B. J. Godley. 2007. Investigating the potential impacts of climate change on a marine turtle population. Global Change Biology 13:923 -932. Hays, G. C., A. C. Broderick, E Glen, and B. J. Godley. 2003. Climate change and sea turtles: a 150 -year reconstruction of incubation temperatures at a major marine turtle rookery. Global Change Biology 9:642 -646. Hazelton, P. D., and G. D. Grossman. 2009. Turbidity, velocity and interspecific interactions affect foraging behavior of rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides) and yellowfin shiners (Notropis lutippinis). Ecology of Freshwater Fish 18:427 -436. Iverson, L. R., and A. M. Prasad. 2001. Potential changes in tree species richness and forest community types following climate change. Ecosystems 4:186 -199. Janzen, E 1994. Climate change and temperature - dependent sex determination in reptiles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 91:7487 -7490. Karl, T. R., J. M. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson (Eds.). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press. (Retrieved 1 December 2009, from: www.globalchange.gov/usimpacts). Leatherman, S., K. Zhang, and B. Douglas. 2000. Sea level rise shown to drive coastal erosion: A reply. EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 81:437 -441. Logan, J. A., J. Regniere, and J. A. Powell. 2003. Assessing the impacts of global warming on forest pest dynamics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:130 -137. Marine Turtle Specialist Group. 1996. Caretta caretta. In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2010.2. (Retrieved 22 June 2010, from: wwwiucnredlist.org). Maurer, E. P., L. Brekke, T. Pruitt, and P. B. Duffy. 2007. Fine - resolution climate projections enhance regional climate change impact studies. Eos Transactions AGU 88:504. Moorhead, K.K. and M.M. Brinson. 1995. Response of wetlands to rising sea level in the lower coastal plain of North Carolina. Ecological Applications 5: 261 -271. McCormick, J. H., K. E. E Hokanson, and B. R. Jones. 1972. Effects of temperature on growth and survival of young brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29:1107 -1112. Mrosovsky, N. 1988. Pivotal temperatures for loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) from northern and southern nesting beaches. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66:661 -669. NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application] . Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. (Retrieved from: http: / /www.natureserve.org/ explorer). 84 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission's Science Panel on Coastal Hazards. 2010. North Carolina sea -level rise assessment report (Retrieved from: http : / /dcm2.enr.state.nc.us /slr/ NC Sea -Level Rise Assessment Report 2010 - CRC Science Panel.pdf.) North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh, NC. O'Neal, K. 2002. Effects of Global Warming on Trout and Salmon in U.S. Streams. Page 46. Defenders of Wildlife and Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C. Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37:637 -669. Pearsall, S. and B. Poulter. 2005. Adapting coastal lowlands to rising seas. Pages 366 -369 in Principles of Conservation Biology, 3rd edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA. Pechmann, J. H., D. E. Scott, R. D. Semlitsch, J. P. Caldwell, L. J. Vitt, and J. W. Gibbons. 1991. Declining amphibian populations: the problem of separating human impacts from natural fluctuations. Science 253:892. Rabon Jr, D. R., S. A. Johnson, R. Boettcher, M. Dodd, M. Lyons, S. Murphy, S. Ramsey, S. Roff, and K. Stewart. 2003. Confirmed leatherback turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea) nests from North Carolina, with a summary of leatherback nesting activities north of Florida. Marine Turtle Newsletter 101:4 -8. Responsive Management. 2009. The Economic Impact of Mountain Trout Fishing in North Carolina. Page 60. Responsive Management National Office, Harrisonburg, VA. Riggs, S. R., and D. V. Ames. 2003. Drowning the North Carolina coast: sea -level rise and estuarine dynamics. Page 152. North Carolina Sea Grant, NC State University, Raleigh, NC. Roberts, J. 2000. Salvelinus fontinalis [Online]. Animal Diversity Web. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. (Retrieved July 23, 2010, from: http:/ /animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/ site / accounts / information /Salvelinus— fontinalis. html.) Rohr, J. R., and D. M. Madison. 2003. Dryness increases predation risk in efts: Support for an amphibian decline hypothesis. Oecologia 135:657 -664. Sarti Martinez, A. L. 2000. Dermochelys coriacea. In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2010.2. (Retrieved 22 June 2010 from: www iucnredlist.org) Simmons, J. W., and S. J. Fraley. 2010. Distribution, status, and life- history observations of crayfishes in western North Carolina. Southeastern Naturalist 9:79 -126. Standora, E., and J. Spotila. 1985. Temperature Dependent Sex Determination in Sea Turtles. Copeia 1985:711 -722. Street, M. W., A. S. Deaton, W. S. Chappell, and P. D. Mooreside. 2005. North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC. Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina 85 Titus, J. G., D. E. Hudgens, D. L. Trescott, M. Craghan, W. H. Nuckols, C. H. Hershner, J. M. Kassakian, C. J. Linn, P. G. Merritt, T. M. McCue, J. E O'Connell, J. Tanski, and J. Wang. 2009. State and local governments plan for development of most land vulnerable to rising sea level along the US Atlantic coast. Environmental Research Letters 4:044008. Titus, J. G. and C. Richman. 2001. Maps of lands vulnerable to sea level rise: modeled elevations along the US Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Climate Research 18:205 -228. Titus, J. G., and J. Wang. (2008). Maps of lands close to sea level along the Middle Atlantic Coast of the United States: An elevation data set to use while waiting for LIDAR. Section 1.1. in Background Documents Supporting Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1 Q. G. Titus and E. M. Strange, Eds). EPA 430R07004. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. Watters, G. T. 1999. Freshwater mussels and water quality: A review of the effects of hydrologic and instream habitat alterations. Pages 261 -274 in Proceedings of the First Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Symposium. Zamor, R. M., and G. D. Grossman. 2007. Turbidity affects foraging success of drift - feeding rosyside dace. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:167 -176. Zervas, C. 2004. North Carolina bathymetry/ topography sea level rise project: determination of sea level trends. NOAA Technical Report NOS CO -OPS 041. Zganjar, C., E. Girvetz, and G. Raber. 2009, Developers. Climate Wizard [Web Program]. (Retrieved 16 July 2010, from: http: / /www. climatewizard.org /). 86 Chapter 3: Projected Impacts of Climate Change in North Carolina SyJ rm.e gj S t .gym ' ".1110 brea t s to " "f e c .7m es a �irrm i I lax )1 ta t -" uman -induced climate change threatens """""""" °� species and habitats already impacted other serious stressors such as habitat loss and degradation, introduction of non - native species, overexploitation, and many others. For numerous terrestrial species, habitat destruction and degradation have been ranked as a primary threat, often followed by competition with, or predation by, non - native species (e.g., Flather et al. 1998, Wilcove et al. 1998). Analyses focused on aquatic systems also identify habitat destruction and degra- dation (Williams et al. 1989), as well as agricultural pollution, non - native species, and altered hydro- logic regimes as primary threats to species and habi- tats (Richter et al. 1997). In many cases, these extrinsic factors continue to be primary drivers of biodiversity loss. However synergies among stress - ors are likely to amplify the dynamics of extinction (Brook et al. 2008). Climate change is already beginning to exacerbate the impacts of these existing threats and, as a result, esti- mates of extinction risk for vulnerable species may be much more severe than previously recognized (Brook et al. 2008). For example, species attempting to shift their ranges in response to changing climatic condi- tions are now faced with trying to move through heavily modified landscapes (Honnay et al. 2002). Current protected areas only capture a narrow range of environmental conditions across the wide range of habitat types. With climate change, protected areas may no longer capture temperature, precipitation, or hydrologic conditions within historic ranges (Dyke 2004). Additionally, new bioclimatic conditions and altered composition of ecological communities may facilitate invasions by non - native species, further stressing resident species (Dukes and Mooney 1999). In this chapter, we examine several synergistic threats to species and habitats, including land use change, demand for land intensive alternative energy sources, and spread of invasive species, as well as how climate change may amplify the impact of these stressors on wildlife in North Carolina. 4,u 1G i iiEiii��d11WUe Change Conversion of land to urban development produces some of the greatest rates of local extinction among the many anthropogenic activities that cause habitat loss. Unlike other types of habitat conversion, conver- sion to urban development is often more permanent than conversion to other land uses. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, population size in North Carolina increased 21.4% between 1990 and 2000, increasing population density from 136.1 to 165.2 people per square mile (USCB 2004). Projections suggest that roughly half the state or greater will be settled at a density of urban, suburban, or sprawling exurban (rural communities beyond the suburbs that serve as commuter towns) by 2030 (Conservation Trust for North Carolina 2007). Across the Unit- ed States, the rate of urban land use is accelerating faster than the rate at which land is being protected as national parks, state parks, or privately by land trusts such as The Nature Conservancy (McKin- ney 2002). The impact of urbanization is observed along the urban to rural gradient, affecting both species richness and species composition (McKinney 2002). Additionally, a large percentage of imperiled plants and animals are affected by other land uses, such as agriculture, extractive land uses, water and infrastructure development, and outdoor recreation ( Wilcove et al. 1998). The USGS Land Cover Trends Project (USGS 2010) uses a probability sampling approach to measure national land change on an ecoregion (EPA Level III) basis for the time period spanning 1973 to 2000. For each sample block, satellite images are used to Overall Spatial Change, a 1973-2000 "..% 14,5% 1303 srrptre';' IPIr-rj -,t Int�plda�n�dccov-artrvprids nsgs gnuv accassiad hPNVI("6 EPA L#M III E:c*r *qJ n mmiimmd drerrm Inlr(p)M iv a '� w ra rh�ri �� �unm��� � uiii'iln 7o d�., n �I IId6 Shape6dc•" d'dr stl Ia p Pluj 'c'd "nn fftx of N 11AD i K7,% d IsPr arad bV DoO'eaidersof VAIdIiife, N dur�uuri 11�`ri radn Fab 2010 rM rft#r r '.,Arti[rw.'r;udY lr .flu dr++l' r rPN Figure 4 -1. The four ecoregions (EPA Level III) covering portions of North Carolina are shown. Colors indicate the percent of area within each ecoregion that experienced a change in land cover at least once during four time periods occurring between 1973 to 2000 (Data: USGS Land Cover Trends Project, USGS 2010). interpret land cover change for four separate time periods (ending in 1980, 1986, 1992, and 2000) as well as across the entire study period. Across the eastern U.S., 12.5% of land area was convert- ed from one land cover category to another at least once during the study period (Loveland and Acev- edo 2010). However this figure masks high amounts of geographic variability across the landscape. The southeastern ecoregions experienced greater than average land change (18.9 %) but with enormous heterogeneity across regions. For example, overall land use change in the ecoregions occurring in North Carolina ranged from 2% in the Blue Ridge Moun- tains to 20% in the Southeastern Plains (Figure 4 -1). Across the region, land cover change during this time period was dominated by changes in forest. In the Southeastern Plains, Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain, and Piedmont, the primary land cover transitions were from forest to mechanically disturbed and from mechanically disturbed back to forest (Ruch 2008, Napton 2008, Sohl 2010), which are consistent with large -scale planting and cutting rotations asso- ciated with the timber industry. In 1999, planted pine stands occupied 15% of the South's commercial forest land, up from 1% of commercial forest land in 1952, with the remainder consisting of natural stands of pine, hardwood, and mixed forest (Conner and Hartsell 2002). This change is illustrated in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain, where only 59.5% of forest persisted throughout the study period, one of Photo: C.j. Peters the lowest percentages of all eastern ecoregions (Ruch 2008). Changes in forest cover for each ecoregion are provided in Table 4 -1. In the Blue Ridge Mountains, where 98% of land cover remained stable across the study period, the leading land cover conversion was forest to developed use (Taylor and Kurtz 2008). Increasing population pressures across the region have corresponded to increases in developed areas (Table 4 -2). For example, in the Piedmont and Southeastern Plains, approxi- mately 2.7 million acres were converted from forest and agricultural land to developed uses (Ruch 2008, Napton 2008). In the Piedmont Ecoregion, 70% of the land that was converted to developed uses was forested. Unlike land cover transitions associated with planting and cutting rotations, these developed areas rarely revert to non - developed cover types. Table 4 -1. Changes in forest cover between 1973 and 2000 for the four ecoregions (EPA Level III) occurring in North Carolina (Data: USGS National Land Cover Trends Project). Percentage of total area is indicated in parentheses. :o11 1K'11011'11 Acirefs Q 197 3" j Acres (2000) 1, rIei1 c ein t age clmllnge Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain 7,861,400 (35.5 %) 7,112,200 (32.1 %) -9.5% Southeastern Plains 44,071,700 (53.1 %) 43,053,400 (51.8 %) -7.3% Piedmont 24,469,400 (59.8 %) 22,524,100 (55.1 %) -7.9% Blue Ridge Mountains 9,394,200 (79.5 %) 9,245,900 (78.3 %) -1.6% Table 4 -2. Changes in developed area between 1973 and 2000 for the four ecoregions (EPA Level 111) occurring in North Carolina (Data: USGS National Land Cover Trends Project). Percentage of total area is indicated in parentheses. r:o111Ki'110o11 Aches D 197 3` j Acres (2000) Il eirc ei nuage c;JIminge Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain 1,433,200 (6.5 %) 1,988,500 (9.0 %) 38.7% Southeastern Plains 7,461,600 (9.0 %) 8,543,400 (10.3 %) 14.4% Piedmont 4,866,000 (11.9 %) 6,703,500 (16.4 %) 37.8% Blue Ridge Mountains 715,600 (6.1%) 846,600 (7.2 %) 18.3% Data at the State and Low/ Scale Investments in remote sensing and advances in spatial technology have made land use and land cover datasets increasingly available for use in the public sector. While it remains true that the resolution of the available data can present challenges for land use planning, particularly at local scales, these data sets are particularly useful in capturing changes over time (assuming data from multiple time points are available). It is important to keep in mind that for any metric capturing change over time, the magni- tude of change will depend on the time period and geographic area under consideration, as well as the definition of land use types used in the data model. Here we review some of the more commonly used data sets and provide a few examples that apply to North Carolina. These and other data resources are also listed in Appendix A. Both the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) and NOAAs Coastal Change Analysis Program (CCAP) provide data on land use and land cover for portions of the state of North Carolina (Appendix A). NLCD provides data from 1992 and 2001, as well as a retrofitted change product to allow comparison between the time periods (differences in methodolo- gies between the two periods make direct compari- son impossible). The CCAP provides data from 1996, 2001, and 2006, but is limited geographically to estuarine drainage area boundaries and thus maps only a portion of North Carolina. Both data sets use a modification of the Anderson classification system (Anderson et al. 1976), which has relatively coarse category definitions (e.g., deciduous forest, culti- vated crops, open water). The USGS National Gap Analysis Program (GAP) recently released a national land cover map (based on 2001 satellite data) and an online map viewer (http: / /www.g_ap.uidaho.edu/ landcover.html). These maps utilize the NatureServe Ecological Systems Classification, which provides a consistent, detailed classification of vegetative types across the U.S. The National GAP land cover map contains 551 cover classes (82 of which occur in North Carolina). The 2001 land cover map is simi- lar to the 1992 North Carolina Gap Land Cover which was crosswalked to the North Carolina Wild- life Action Plan (NC WAP, NCWRC 2005) habi- tat classes. A crosswalk from the 2001 land cover to those same NC WAP habitat classes is available. These regional and state data sets can be obtained from the Southeast GAP Program (http: / /www. basic.ncsu.edu /sewn). Across the state of North Carolina, both the NLCD and CCAP data sets show an approximately 6% increase in urban /developed areas within the preced- ing decades (Tables 4 -3, 4 -4). However, within some areas, the rate of development has been much higher. For example, Pitt County saw an increase of almost 9% in developed area between 1996 and Table 4 -3. Land cover change in the state of North Carolina for the period 1992 -2001 derived from the Nation- al Land cover Database (NLCD) 1992/2001 Retrofit Land Cover Change Product (Fry et al. 2009). Percentage of total area is indicated in parentheses. 1i miWii "x)I C,,-v,(,er Cass Acres 992 Acres 2001 ll,'Aeirceint 011 Open Water 2,078,836 (1.5 %) 2,177,307 (1.5 %) 4.7% Urban 1 12,680,568 I (8.9 %) 1 13,422,270 I (9.5 %) I 5.8% Barren 1 471,946 I (0.3 %) 1 575,423 I (0.4 %) I 21.9% Forest 1 67,826,462 I (47.8 %) 1 64,437,680 I (45.4 %) I -5.0% Grassland /Shrub 1 9,181,576 I (6.5 %) 1 11,575,851 I (8.2 %) I 26.1% Agriculture 1 32,476,851 I (22.9 %) 1 32,746,512 I (23.1%) I 0.8% Wetlands 17,067,268 (12.0 %) 16,848,464 (11.9 %) -1.3% Changes by class from 1992 to 2001 Class Acres ClId„Yr,s.s Arf.,lr'es. Urban - unchanged 2,808,1 10 Forest to Open Water 11,849 Barren - unchanged 1 101,161 Forest to Urban 1 137,602 Forest - unchanged 1 13,966,503 Forest to Barren 1 16,158 Grassland /Shrub- unchanged 1 1,979,306 Forest to Grassland /Shrub 1 526,073 Agriculture- unchanged 1 6,827,971 Forest to Agriculture 1 381,544 Wetlands- unchanged 1 3,628,173 Forest to Wetlands 1 44,527 Open Water to Urban 1 915 Grassland /Shrub to Open Water 1 338 Open Water to Barren 1 1,414 Grassland /Shrub to Urban 1 1,123 Open water to Forest 1 1,655 Grassland /Shrub to Barren 1 407 Open Water to Grassland /Shrub 1 3,735 Grassland /Shrub to Forest 1 43,754 Open Water to Agriculture 1 3,245 Grassland /Shrub to Agriculture 1 4,002 Open Water to Wetlands 1 2,855 Grassland /Shrub to Wetlands 1 13,005 Urban to Open Water 1 2,956 Agriculture to Open Water 1 13,184 Urban to Barren 1 158 Agriculture to Urban 1 32,620 Urban to Forest 1 2,01 1 Agriculture to Barren 1 2,655 Urban to Grassland /Shrub 1 1,771 Agriculture to Forest 1 258,407 Urban to Agriculture 1 4,296 Agriculture to Grassland /Shrub 1 30,520 Urban to Wetlands 1 790 Agriculture to Wetlands 1 57,328 Barren to Open Water 1 1,604 Wetlands to Open Water 1 5,786 Barren to Urban 118 Wetlands to Urban 1 4,556 Barren to Forest 1 241 Wetlands to Barren 1 6,019 Barren to Grassland /Shrub 155 Wetlands to Forest 1 58,038 Barren to Agriculture 1 1,446 Wetlands to Grassland /Shrub 1 32,950 Barren to Wetlands 333 Wetlands to Agriculture 60,150 2006 (Figure 4 -2). In Wake County, urban areas increased 16% from 1992 -2001 (Figure 4 -3, Table 4 -5). The impact of increased urban /developed areas on species and ecosystems is not limited to the direct effects of habitat loss associated with land use change. Increases in impervious surface (Figure 4 -4), coupled with reduced habitat connectivity as a result of urban sprawl, pose additional risks to wildlife, particularly in cases in which urban growth encroaches on prior- ity conservation areas. Table 4 -4. Land cover change in coastal regions of North Carolina covered by NOAAs Coastal Change Analysis Program (CCAP) for the period 1996 -2006. Percentage of total area is indicated in parentheses. Land Cover Class Acres 1996 Acres 2006 Percent change High Intensity Developed 2,774 (0.1 %) 3,088 (0.2 %) 11.3% Medium Intensity Developed 6,099 (0.3 %) 6,868 (0.4 %) 12.6% Low Intensity Developed 34,764 (1.9 %) 36,054 (1.9 %) 3.7% Developed Open Space 23,774 (1.3 %) 25,413 (1.4 %) 6.9% Cultivated 388,630 (20.8 %) 392,822 (21.0 %) 1.1% Pasture /Hay 33,089 (1.8 %) 33,060 (1.8 %) -0.1% Grassland 42,344 (2.3 %) 67,610 (3.6 %) 59.7% Deciduous Forest 22,978 (1.2 %) 23,549 (1.3 %) 2.5% Evergreen Forest 331,183 (17.7 %) 270,661 (14.5 %) -18.3% Mixed Forest 33,671 (1.8 %) 34,066 (1.8 %) 1.2% Scrub /Shrub 138,602 (7.4 %) 169,345 (9.1 %) 22.2% Palustrine Forested Wetland 338,939 (18.2 %) 298,950 (16.0 %) -11.8% Palustrine Scrub /Shrub Wetland 56,070 (3.0 %) 79,816 (4.3 %) 42.3% Palustrine Emergent Wetland 17,773 (1.0 %) 24,955 (1.3 %) 40.4% Estuarine Forested Wetland <1 16 Estuarine Scrub /Shrub Wetland 1,109 (0.1 %) 1,221 (0.1 %) 10.1% Estuarine Emergent Wetland 23,975 (1.3 %) 24,102 (1.3 %) 0.5% Unconsolidated Shore 6,438 (0.3 %) 5,995 (0.3 %) -6.9% Bare Land 6,526 (0.3 %) 9,772 (0.5 %) 49.7% Water 358,188 (19.2 %) 359,561 (19.3 %) 0.4% Palustrine Aquatic Bed 10 12 * percentages less than 0. 1 % are not shown Pitt County, North Carolina Develloped Areas,, 119961-2006 IWO Mwelapedl areas ir,'oXvoct lanidx 'ev cW as 2 5 ftniw& NOMA Gr,:L1&M Gporg! e A�,rajgr p P,VgT�Nr, GCAJ;'3 dah hVMI IIIMP WWWW rW,.Jl "., 5 Wnd Gxj 647)0 I'M I w �4m Doo" INmPjtjl j"O'll *1 I.M.11M ,I ,A,Agimmir Mai, Ofim hafth CaoOifnij Nox,AV miflk"%d ftwn h%l� Orm con se ry 0., M n nanO., accvssad L)IMIX-09 O'"r, Pmq M 7'1"rn IIA;W I" isPraprared �by Oetim"Idws of Wildlife Gonservation P�I-qnnwjng Progr9m, Jlmly 2Q'I (1, Corlarl If mp MUVICT�� 11WE&E 11�3 Figure 4-2. Developed areas in Pitt County, North Carolina, including open space, low intensity, medium intensity, and high intensity classifications from the NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program land cover data sets for 1996 (black) and 2006 (red) are overlaid with the NCDENR Biodiversity and Habitat Assessment. Wake, County, Marti Carolina Urban Areas, 2-2.001 „s �� rrrrro / /rrr ° iaaaaaaai/ y� u rxi rrI fly �iY i d V A spy 4, Urbany� M ;k'—)I ✓" J nab r /r 0 �✓/ �� �r i u w °° rat p t -siAU r � rp �' u H Kola yixuu:les Orb"In r"K we rvq 4%far m� -Wir(MN Lard III ORWM", Id�Elypu��Niwtl%X9 [NvY�ra M N�wr N "Ywlr +:q�� Y N �n�ar� NYaaN p �,f1N II�N�V rN�l�li uK DENA,, Sladlverzfty IWIfte AssessnIipent ramDrpt Nafth i onsarvalwor`Y P$ainrring Plbgi n C arraffin BI rahl&Iiel tom .,:Owmw ccvsarpMon,nz, nr,, J 1,A I "V 2010 W01111 COn �1.0 S001.4 P1.1,0 YV 0� I� Afm :.ontact [Drfmmap anthoH. or: Figure 4 -3. Urban areas in Wake County, North Carolina derived from the NLDC 1992/2001 Retrofit Land Cover Change Product (Fry et al. 2009) for 1992 (black) and 2001 (red) are overlaid with the NCDENR Biodi- versity and Habitat Assessment. Table 4 -5. Land cover change in Wake County, North Carolina for the period 1992 -2001 derived from the National Land cover Database (NLCD) 1992/2001 Retrofit Land Cover Change Product (Fry et al. 2009). Percentage of total area is indicated in parentheses. 1i miWii "xi C, ,,DDV4ii°r Class ss Acres 1992 /P'0.cres 200 II lIel6c�eInN Oil Open Water 63,037 (2.6 %) 66,503 (2.7 %) 5.5% Urban 624,842 (25.4 %) 729,958 (29.6 %) 16.8% Barren 3,134 (0.1 %) 3,742 (0.2 %) 19.4% Forest 1,149,219 (46.6 %) 1,018,701 (41.3 %) -11.4% Grassland /Shrub 141,386 (5.7 %) 172,978 (7.0 %) 22.3% Agriculture 407,881 (16.6 %) 396,278 (16.1 %) -2.8% Wetlands 74,929 (3.0 %) 76,268 (3.1 %) 1.8% Urban p th Carolina, e 2, a � Iff 5 Pkrc tm ban impawktsness Aram (he N Nu'W Land Gym, D kNLCUC 2H I Piapwad by (jaknders A'011d i'f° e W inservatn PY rain Ip. ra¢r� U1,7d S ) ju �y 4cl a Map P%i.4, D-Awr I NjAh GaYrYDW w a AP, PDaire ftikD 19033 'u 1""rriOQ4 WuD"Ar ffi u ° a as r.�hd� Mr u' 4a�1r,a� Figure 4 -4. Map of urban imperviousness for North Carolina based on the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2001 Impervious Surface derivative (Homer et al. 2004). Given the rapid rate of land conversion to urban and suburban development, it will be particularly valu- able to understand how future patterns of urbaniza- tion may impact climate- sensitive regions. Theobald (2005) and the EPA (2009) have released a set of tools as part of the Integrated Climate and Land - Use Scenarios (ICLUS) that spatially predicts the impact of development using census data to forecast future housing density patterns. Other modeling frameworks, such as SLEUTH (developed by Keith Clarke, University of California Santa Barbara) utilize land -use change data as the basis for their models. Agarwal et al. (2002) provide a review and assess- ment of a number of different land use models and approaches (see Box 4 -1 for examples). Projec- tions of land use change can be important tools for understanding how patterns of urbanization affect the landscape, particularly at the interface between conservation priority and future urban development areas. Box 4 -1. Examples of tools used to model projected urban development or land use change RENCI Urban Growth Model, UNC- Charlotte: Regional model for projected urban growth by decade through 2030 for a subset of counties in North Carolina. Additional models are in development. The urban growth model developed by RENCI at UNC Charlotte (Renaissance Computing Institute) has been used to look at potential conflicts between development and highly valued natural resources under historical growth patterns and a conservation scenario based on the Green Growth Toolbox (GGT) developed by NCWRC. http: / /renci. uncc.edu /whole -study ICLUS v1.2: Projected U.S. housing density growth across the urban -rural gradient for 2010 -2100 under IPCC scenarios developed by EPA. Implemented as an ArcGIS extension. http: / /cfpub.epa.gov /ncea /cfm /recordisplay. cfm ?deid - 216195 Consortium for Atlantic Regional Assessment: Online maps showing projected change in land use as percentage of land area change of open space by county for 2000 -2050. http: / /www.cara.r)su.edu /land/ landuseproiections.asp Housing Density Maps: State maps produced by the Silvis Lab at the University of Wisconsin- Madison estimate housing density by decade between 1940 -2030. Maps and data are available for download. http: / /silvis.forest. wisc.edu /Library /HousingData.asr) Uplan: Simple rule based urban growth model intended for regional or county level modeling. Implemented within ArcGIS. http: / /ice.ucdavis.edu /project /uplan SLEUTH: Simulation model for projected land use using complex rules. Program is freely available, but requires a fair amount of programming knowledge and has extensive data requirements. http: / /www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/ projects/gig/project giq.htm The Biodiversity and Spatial Information Center (BaSIC) is using a version of SLEUTH in their Designing Sustain- able Landscapes project. The Southeast Regional Assessment Project (SERAP): The first regional assessment funded by the USGS National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center. In addition to developing landscape change datasets that can be used to project changes to the Southeast's climate and ecosystems, SERAP will integrate models of urbanization and vegetation dynamics with regional climate models to assess how landscape change could impact priority species. SERAP is an extension of BaSIC's Designing Sustainable Landscapes project. http: / /seraQ.er.usgs.gov/ The ICLUS tools use a statistical model of urban growth that is directly integrated with ArcGIS and incorporates scenarios of housing density and derived impervious surface cover based on the IPCC social, economic, and demographic storylines (A1, A2, 131, 132). The ICLUS outputs are derived from a pair of models: a demographic model that gener- ates population projections and a spatial allocation model (SERGoM, Theobald 2005). Each scenario is run for the conterminous United States, or for smaller regions as specified by the user, projected through 2100 by decade. Unlike some other model- ing approaches, ICLUS uses projected population growth to estimate future patterns of housing densi- ty and captures a wider gradient of urban land use (e.g. urban vs. rural) than is commonly captured in the categories utilized in land cover data sets such as the NLCD. These projections are based on derived relationships from historic data. An example of the output is shown in Figure 4 -5. This approach differs from that utilized by other models such as SLEUTH, which uses cellular automata to model emergent behavior from a set of initial conditions and behav- ioral rules. Cellular automata models are scale inde- pendent, allowing local, regional and continental Pboto: U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009 scale processes to be described in a single framework. In the Southeast, the Biodiversity and Spatial Infor- mation Center (BaSIC) is currently using SLEUTH - R (Jantz et al. 2010) to model urban growth as part of the "Designing Sustainable Landscapes" project (DSL). The DSL Project uses vegetation and urban dynamics modeling to examine the potential impacts of landscape -level changes on the future capability of habitats to support wildlife populations (BaSIC, personal communication, www.basic.ncsu.edu /dsl). A third approach is being used by researchers from RENCI at UNC Charlotte (Renaissance Computing Institute, http: / /renci.uncc.edu /) who were initial- ly commissioned by the Open Space Protection Collaborative to develop urban growth models for more than 20 counties in the greater Charlotte region. RENCI's model uses satellite imagery to forecast future urban growth using logistic regression models that are integrated with population -based models of urbanization pressure. This work is being expanded to include two- thirds of the state by the end of 2011. The urban growth model developed by UNC Char- lotte has been used to look at potential conflicts Housing IDensity Projections for Wake Co., N rth, Carolina Ba seline and All Er ni signs Sceii ___._.. .... ......... A � illy i e Bv'MA W.Ah1lPiUm lPa d Yty r �Y im q i(rt a � )J r , �Ff / /I /� �!! �i ���9y ��� RI j 1 S �� � � � J � r lop e 2100 basefine j7 ,1100 All scenario P, ki`l fP f r it i flj V "� a� r/ r Housing Drnr r Projecti�ms gnrivralpd uNrig, �G�PA 2! Ppared Iby O l'11 9i 1`8 Of .MIidliIfe i.Mar ea NgIV,1i kA I N unPisimaomnirin ara- dMaan ftr 251 and 210E 7hm� , CLUSALxg 914w,XV9Sp laced ph, Ab 'p. on,"r ato n Planning Program ri x EYE Nfw,Mimmiorm,0Y wo wimme i I'uk'm'00,"� 4,71M May 210,1 D W„Nugwrfriym 116,01,4 Illy" 1 rlfievo 0r]0111a� oa+m#.MhI,40 04 '*L -i* w 3aq , NV1a�1 F'�i�k't'�kYi�rn ��Ih�C'auuzlOza Sr�k�+tl Pa rXC�Pn(G��.f JSO „ arg.za mdH nrra�� �uYirua o��r+dl' „„ i „„ ur Figure 4 -5. The ICLUS tool (EPA 2009b) was used to project mid and end of century housing density for Wake County, North Carolina using a baseline (historic) growth pattern and growth patterns under an AI (IPCC) emissions scenario. Areas assigned the maximum ranking in the NCDENR Biodiversity and Wildlife Assessment are indicated in green. between development and highly valued natural resources under historical growth patterns and a conservation scenario based on the Green Growth Toolbox (GGT) developed by NCWRC. Maps comparing projected development patterns produced using GGT recommendations with projected devel- opment patterns projected from historical trends differed significantly over a 25 -year period. Incor- porating GGT recommendations into development planning for the entire state of North Carolina reduced overlap with conservation priority areas by as much as75% (RENCI at UNC Charlotte 2009). An example from Cabarrus County, in which conser- vation conflicts were reduced by approximately 50% under the GGT conservation planning scenario, is shown in Figure 4 -6. 4, I.2 ' pert,/ /itr1 /}(%t <;' / .a11Gll <;e,, Recommendations for climate change adaptation strategies frequently include expanding protected area networks and connectivity as top priorities (Heller and Zavaleta 2009, Lawler 2009, Mawds- ley et al. 2009), in part to address issues related to species range shifts under climate change. As condi- tions change, some plant and animal populations will be unable to persist in their current locations, but they may be able to disperse into more suitable loca- tions. However, barriers created by human devel- opment (see map of urban imperviousness, Figure 4 -4) may make it difficult for many species to follow Figure 4 -6. Maps of Cabarrus County showing projected growth under historical growth patterns and using a conservation scenario based on the Green Growth Toolbox framework. The same amount of development occurs under each scenario, but conflicts with priority conservation areas are reduced by 49% under the GGT (RENCI at UNC Charlotte, used with permission). climatic gradients and move into new areas of suit- able habitat. In addition, current reserve networks, many of which protect only a small, potentially biased samples of environmental conditions across the range of an individual species or habitat type, are likely to become increasingly less representa- tive under combined impacts of climate change and habitat loss (Dyke 2004). The negative consequences of expanding urban development on species and habitats are well estab- lished (e.g., Chace and Walsh 2006, Hansen et al. 2005, McKinney 2002). Direct habitat loss, habi- tat fragmentation, and isolation can pose signifi- cant threats to population viability on their own. However, interactions between climate change and other drivers, such as land use change, may have greater impacts on biodiversity than any one driver alone (Brook et al. 2008). In a survey of 248 papers from the climate change literature that addressed the conservation and management of biodiversity or ecosystems, Felton et al. (2009) found that fewer than half of the studies addressed climate change in rela- tion to other anthropogenic threats. Recent reviews emphasize that the lack of integration of climate change impacts with other synergistic threats is likely to inadequately capture future impacts on biodiver- sity (Brook et al. 2008, de Chazal and Rounsevell 2009). For example, Warren et al. (2001) exam- ined responses of 46 species of butterflies that were expected to expand their ranges as a result of climate warming over the last 30 years, and found that three - quarters had declined as a result of habitat loss, with sedentary species and habitat specialists among the most adversely affected. Jetz et al. (2007) estimated that globally 10 - 20% of land bird species would be imperiled by climate change and land conversion by 2100, but that differences in species diversity and range will affect the relative influence of these driv- ers. For example, they suggest that climate change will be the principal driver of range contractions at higher latitudes, while land conversion will be the principal driver of species range contractions in the tropics (Jett et al. 2007). However, their analysis did not examine the potential for range shifts (in addi- tion to contractions) to occur as a result of climate change. Projections of species range shifts under climate change often assume that species distributions are limited primarily by temperature without account- ing for the spatial configuration of the landscape or habitat. To address this issue, some authors have attempted to integrate a metapopulation dynam- ics framework with broader scale changes in species ranges. Opdam and Washer (2004) characterize range shifts as the result of extinction of (meta) popu- lations at the warm range limit and colonization into regions that have transitioned into suitable thermal conditions at the cooler end of the range. The ability of a species to shift into more suitable areas will be a function of new climate conditions (e.g. tempera- ture) and extreme weather conditions. However, the authors suggest that some species metapopulations will be unable to persist in areas where fragmenta- tion has severely degraded habitat quality and patch availabilty, and will likely exhibit range contractions ( Opdam and Washer 2004). Modeling work has produced similar results, indicating that extinction thresholds are lower under the combined effects of habitat fragmentation and climate change (Travis 2003). Mclnery et al. (2007) further demonstrated that the effect of habitat fragmentation on range shifts may be dependent on species dispersal charac- teristics and populations dynamics during periods of climate change. Their model suggests that range shifts are more successful in less fragmented (clumped) landscapes for species with low colonization rates. However, for species with especially strong disper- sal and colonization abilities, fragmentation could have the opposite effect, facilitating range shifts so long as the availability of suitable habitat keeps pace with climatic shifts on the landscape (Mclnerny et al. 2007). Urban development, fragmentation, and other land conversions currently threaten many terrestrial habi- tat types in North Carolina (NC WAP), and species already sensitive to habitat fragmentation are likely to be further impacted by climate change. Habi- tat conversion may create barriers to migration, and expanded reserve networks may be required as thermally suitable conditions move across the land- scape. In some areas, development may have already destroyed or converted remaining natural habitat in these areas, limiting the ability of populations to shift. For example, the limited range of Mabee's sala- mander (Ambystoma mabeei) has been highly impact- ed by draining of wetlands and conversion of forest ibi r Il �l A," � ! / br /" 'r ll`l1(0 f / /l €. "C { €' vv�ft� /i t! 11 "G ^tlo;' {t{ 1,f1,.`,.` l,P ("/iFlr<' chv,V11 r< into cropland (Petanka 1988 in NatureServe 2009). Like other ambystomids, which require vernal ponds for breeding, specific habitat requirements and limit- ed movement make the species particularly vulner- able to habitat loss and degredation. Five species of ambystomid are currently identified as prior- ity species in the NC WAR. Of the 31 amphibian species prioritized for conservation in North Caro- lina, many, if not most, have narrow habitat require- ments for at least a portion of their life cycle. Even species occurring primarily in protected areas, such as pine woods littersnake (Rbadinaea flavilata), black swamp snake (Seminatrix pygaea), and Chatta- hoochee slimy salamander (Pletbodon cbattaboocbee, NatureServe 2009) may face increasing threats to habitat availability as habitat conditions are altered by climate change. Species with requirements for large areas of intact habitat may also be particularly vulnerable. For example, a number of forest interior dwelling species, such as black - billed cuckoo (Coccy- zus erytbroptbalmus), cerulean warbler (Dendrica cerulea), magnolia warbler (D. magnolia), Swainson's warbler (Limnotblypis swainsonii), and wood thrush (Hylocicbla mustelina), are identified as avian priority species in the NC WAR. Habitat specialists and species with restricted ranges will likely be some of the greatest affected by the combined effects of habitat loss and climate change. Such populations are more vulnerable to extinction by rare events and susceptible to additional stress - ors such as climate change. For example, Carolina northern flying squirrel (Glaucomy sabrinus coloratus) occurs only in isolated localities in 12 or 13 counties in North Carolina, and Tellico salamander (Oletbod- on aureolus) occurs in only two counties in North Carolina located between the Little Tennessee and Hiwassee rivers (NatureServe 2009). Appalachian cottontail (Sylvilagus obsucurus) is another prior- ity species with a fairly limited geographic distribu- tion that is broken into small isolated populations throughout portions of its range. Species such as rock shrew (Sorex dispar), an Appalachian endemic with very specific habitat requirements (e.g. cool, damp forest with deep talus (NatureServe 2009)), may also be more at risk. Other types of land use, for example logging, may impact priority species such as eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius) and ambystomids such as spotted salamander (Ambystoma rnaculatum) and marbled salamander (A. opacum), which prefer forested areas with significant cover (NatureServe 2009). Conver- sion to pine plantations is a known threat to popu- lations of mimic glass lizard (Opbisaurus mimicus), which has a spotty distribution throughout its range (NatureServe 2009). In addition to densely urban- ized areas, roads pose additional barriers to a number of species, particularly those with limited movement, such as green salamander (Aneides aeneus), barking treefrog (Hyla gratiosa), black swamp snake (Semina- trix pygaea), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene caro- ling) (NatureServe 2009). 4 „2 Rene"NPIrable Il hergy Deve1g,,,:7ilflwnt In the United States, more than 90% of CO2 released comes from the combustion of fossil fuels (Lieber- man et al. 2007). Concerns about global climate change and air quality are driving increased interest in alternative energy resources. Expanding develop- ment and use of renewable energy in the U.S., such as wind, solar, or biofuels, will reduce dependence on fossil fuels and decrease harmful greenhouse gas emis- sion, reduce environmental pollution, and increase energy security. However, the sustainable develop- ment of renewable fuel alternatives will also require an understanding of how alternative energy produc- tion and associated land -use choices may affect important ecological systems (Dale et al. 2010). In the U.S., states have been creating policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions for many years, although efforts have expanded and intensified in the past several years (Rabe 2002). Given the complex- ity and diversity of emissions and mitigation, states have promoted a variety of legislative policies on renewable energy, air pollution control, agriculture, forestry, waste management, transportation, and energy development, among others (Rabe 2002). In almost all cases there have been multiple drivers behind, and multiple benefits from, these state poli- cies (Rabe 2002). In this section, we summarize a few of the relevant federal and state renewable energy incentives avail- able in North Carolina and implications for wildlife and habitat in the state. We also review regions that have been identified as high potential for alterna- tive energy, and evaluate available research on the impacts of biofuels and wind energy production on North Carolinas land use and biodiversity. 4,27 [,?e 1e;'vvahle The state of North Carolina has a 30 plus year history in providing tax incentives for the use and application of alternative energy technologies (NC Department of Revenue 2009). To promote and encourage the increased use of renewable energy, the 1977 session of the North Carolina General Assembly enacted legislation that provided incentives in the form of a tax credit for the construction or installation of solar energy systems to heat, cool, or provide hot water to buildings in North Carolina. Throughout the years, other tax credits encouraging investment in additional renewable resources such as hydroelec- tric, solar and wind energy, or methanol gas, were enacted. The 1999 session of the General Assembly unified these multiple incentives into one statute that addresses nearly all renewables (§ 105- 129.15/16A). This statute provides a tax credit for personal and corporate taxpayers of 35% of the cost of renew- able energy property constructed, purchased or leased by a taxpayer and placed into service in North Carolina during the taxable year (§ 105- 129.15/16A). This effort has provided an important incentive for the development and use of alternative energy in North Carolina. In 2007, the North Carolina legislature took criti- cal steps towards requiring electric utilities to embrace energy alternatives to meet the state's power demands. When signed into law by Governor Easley, North Carolina was the first state in the Southeast to require electric utilities to tap renewable and efficien- cy programs to meet the state's growing energy needs (Murawski 2007). Under the law (S.L. 2007 -397, Box 4 -2) utility companies in the state need to meet the alternative energy criteria set in the "Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard.” By 2021, electric public utilities must meet 12.5% of retail electricity demand through renewable energy or energy efficiency measures, and electric member- ship corporations and municipalities that sell electric power in the state would have to meet a standard of 10% by 2018. Resources that can be used to meet the standard include solar energy, wind ener- gy, hydropower, geothermal energy, ocean current or wave energy, biomass resources, and energy effi- ciency measures. The law also includes provisions to Box 4 -2. North Carolina Session Law 2007 -397 SESSION LAW 2007 -397 SENATE BILL 3 AN ACTTO: 1. PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF RENEW- ABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN THE STATE THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF A RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY PORTFOLIO STANDARD (REPS), 2. ALLOW RECOVERY OF CERTAIN NONFUEL UTILITY COSTSTHROUGH THE FUEL CHARGE ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURE, 3. PROVIDE FOR ONGOING REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND FOR RECOVERY OF COSTS IN RATES IN A GENERAL RATE CASE, 4. ADJUSTTHE PUBLIC UTILITY AND ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION REGULATORY FEES, 5. PROVIDE FOR THE PHASEOUT OF THE TAX ON THE SALE OF ENERGY TO NORTH CAROLINA FARMERS AND MANUFACTURERS, AND 6. ALLOW ATAX CREDITTO CONTRIBUTORS TO 501(C)(3) ORGANIZATIONS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY PROPERTY. encourage the use of solar energy, swine and poultry wastes, as well as implementation of energy efficiency programs (S.L. 2007 -397). Numerous federal programs also support the devel- opment and use of alternative energy in North Carolina. For example, the USDA "Commod- ity Corporations Credits for Production of Ethanol and Biodiesel" encourages bioenergy investments by providing financial support for purchasing agricul- tural commodities to increase ethanol and biodies- el production (Box 4 -3). Production tax credits provided through the "Renewable Energy Produc- tion Incentive" for wind, solar, and other alternative energy sources offer significant incentives for public power and other tax- exempt entities to produce energy from alternative sources (Energy Policy Act 2005, Pub.L. 109 -58). More recently, the Ameri- can Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA Pub.L. 111 -5) provides significant provisions that benefit renewable energy development, including a Treasury Department grant program for renewable energy developers, a long -term extension of the wind energy production tax credit, an Energy Department loan guarantee program for developers and manufac- turers, an expansion of Energy Department research, development and deployment funding, and a tax credit for advanced energy manufacturers. Appro- priations for energy totaled over $61 billion dollars, and included numerous provisions for increasing energy efficiency for state and local governments and improvements in renewable energy technology. These incentives, coupled with increasing public support for developing alternative energy, have provided the demand needed to intensify wind, biofuel, and solar prospects in North Carolina. Box 4 -3. Biodiesel and ethanol credits Commodity Corporation Credits for production of ethanol and biodiesel The U.S. Department of Agriculture established the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Bioenergy Program in Fiscal Year 2001. Under the program, the CCC makes payments to eligible bioenergy producers to encourage increased purchases of agricultural commodi- ties for the purpose of expanding production of bioenergy (ethanol and biodiesel) and to encourage the construction of new produc- tion capacity. The 2002 Farm Bill continued the program through Fiscal Year 2006, providing $150 million annually. Payments are based on the increase in bioenergy production compared to the previous year's production. NC GreenPower is a statewide green power program designed to encourage the use of renewable energy in North Carolina and meet the legislative require- ments outlined in S.L. 2007 -397. NC GreenPower is an independent, nonprofit organization created by state - government officials, electric utilities, nonprofit organizations, consumers, renewable - energy advo- cates and other stakeholders (DSIRE 2010). This program offers production payments for grid -tied electricity generated by solar, wind, small hydro (10 megawatts or less) and biomass resources (DSIRE 2010). North Carolinas three investor -owned utili- ties— Dominion North Carolina Power, Duke Energy, and Progress Energy —and many of the state's munici- pal utilities and electric cooperatives, are participat- ing in the NC GreenPower Program (DSIRE 2010). 4o2_2 V'firid 1 ire °gy 1 gee el(�Irirrre rit With an average annual growth rate of more than 30% over the past half - decade, wind is the fastest growing sector of the energy industry in the United States (Pasqualetti et al. 2007, NRC 2007). Nationally, the cost of wind - generated elec- tricity has fallen from nearly 40 cents per kilowatt hour in the early 1980s to 3 -10 cents per kilo- watt hour, depending on wind speed and project size. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), North Carolina has outstand- ing potential for wind energy. Wind resources vary across the state, and patterns of wind energy devel- opment will likely follow the spatial distribution of these resources. Figure 4 -7. Map of installed wind capacity as of December 31, 2009. As of this date, 34,863 MW of wind power had been installed across the United States (Source DOE 2010b). Wind energy is classified according to wind power classes, which are based on typical wind speeds. These classes range from less than 4 to greater than 10. Areas with annual average wind speeds around 6.5 m/s and greater at 80 m height are generally considered suitable for utility -scale wind develop- ment (DOE 2010a). Although there are clearly opportunities for significant wind development in North Carolina, as of June 2010 wind power install- ments have not been installed (Figure 4 -7, DOE 2010b). However, in 2009, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill signed an agreement with Duke Energy to construct up to three demonstra- tion wind turbines in Pamlico Sound (Duke Ener- gy 2010). Under this agreement Duke Energy will supply and install the wind turbines while the University will conduct research on electricity gener- ation from offshore wind farms in North Carolina. Installation of these turbines is expected to begin in summer 2010. The Department of Energy's Wind Program and NREL recently completed a wind resource map for North Carolina (Figure 4 -8). This new map shows wind speed estimates at 80 meters above the ground and identifies the location of resources that could be used for utility -scale wind development. Figure 4 -8 clearly demonstrates that North Carolina has both offshore and ridgeline wind resources for utility -scale wind production across the state. The best area for wind energy production is along the Atlantic coast and barrier islands followed by the higher ridge crests in western North Carolina. Although land -based wind energy offers a promising alternative to carbon - emitting fossil fuels, wind ener- gy facilities can negatively impact wildlife and habi- tat (USFWS 2003). Birds, especially raptors (Hunt 2002), and bats are particularly sensitive to mortality from the rotor blades, and wind farms may impact bird movements, breeding, and habitat use (Johnson et al. 2002, USFWS 2003). Although wind energy is not an entirely new phenomenon, research on the impacts of turbines on wildlife is relatively recent. Significant concerns about bird mortality were trig- gered by research from the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area in California, where Orloff and Flan- nery (1992) estimated that several hundred raptors were killed each year due to turbine collisions, wire strikes, and electrocutions (USFWS 2003). More recent research has suggested that mortality estimates from this study were statistically biased (Hunt 2002), but the Altamont turbines are still estimated to kill 40 -60 subadult and adult golden eagles each year, as well as several hundred red - tailed hawks and Ameri- can kestrels (USFWS 2003). Erickson et al. (2001) reviewed bird collision reports from 31 studies and showed that 78% of carcasses found at utility -scale wind energy facilities outside of California were songbirds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 United States Code 703 -712) (in Kunz et al. 2007). However, other studies have demonstrated that bird - turbine collisions are much less frequent than collisions with automobiles, buildings and windows, or communication towers (Berg 1996). Indeed, the National Audubon Society strongly supports wind power as a clean alternative energy source that reduces the threat of global warming, as long as proper siting, operation, and mitigation are employed to minimize the impact on birds and other wildlife (Audubon 2010). Recent research on the impact of terrestrial wind energy development on bats suggests that certain species may be disproportionately susceptible to mortality from turbines. A recent review by Arnett et al. (2008) found five key patterns in bat fatalities at wind turbines in the United States: (1) Fatali- ties were heavily skewed toward migratory bats and were dominated by tree - roosting lasiurine species in most studies; (2) Studies consistently reported peak of turbine collision fatality in midsummer through fall; (3) Fatalities were not concentrated at individ- ual turbines (i.e., fatalities were distributed among turbines at facilities), and current studies have not identified consistent relationships with habitat vari- ables; (4) Red - strobe rights recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration did not influence bat fatality; and (5) bat fatalities were highest during periods of low wind speed, and they were related to weather variables associated with the passage of weather fronts. Additional studies have conclud- ed that larger turbines may kill more bats (Cryan and Brown 2007), bat fatalities are more clustered around the base of towers than bird fatalities (Cryan and Bailey 2009), and that there is also evidence on non - collision decompression, a phenomenon in bats where drops in air pressure cause the lungs to overex- pand and fill with fluid (Baerwald et al. 2008). Large numbers of bats have been killed at wind- energy facilities constructed along forested ridge tops in the eastern United States (Arnett 2005, Johnson 2005, Fiedler et al. 2007, Kunz et al. 2007). Cryan and Brown (2007) hypothesize that the dominance of migratory tree bats killed during summer and fall at turbines and other anthropogenic structures is related to flocking and mating behaviors Wind turbines may offer the most prominent feature in a landscape where bats can meet along their migratory routes and breed (Arnett et al. 2008). There is also evidence to support the hypothesis that migratory bats congregate in the fall during migration (Arnett et al. 2008). These mating and migration behav- iors may explain why bats are disproportionately affected by turbine mortality. Unlike birds, bats do not collide with other tall anthropogenic struc- tures with the frequency and magnitude that have been observed at wind turbines (Arnett 2005, Cryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . y., s Fww G A) 4aAL� fin.. r u l d of ,r♦V, ! ' � � Y k Y r wwwwwwwwwsw.�..�.�dk l auw b � f�l(✓� fM� 4� 4 u L° INO, 5- J Zia 61, MWEMM tltiN �eL MM��nwI�i *w rrm 4 �d m d� fl iut% � my Willi 0I Lr.tl!hr. wei'1"dMl'd�,,,M1 ird' ' V0,0b h#nIf pyW imp � M �X� ��'d���M +"dR�� : k$ !M �. "'W Yp�"� 'i'�!&YI VAk h�"wld Pi1W4.x�'d'MWo � ?v 'uvuul liauiu a; do?'.'M"�vu PM*Obw Y,JM n7w tl? YM :F Figure 4 -8. Predicted mean annual wind speeds (meters /second) at 80 -m height for North Carolina (Source: DOE 2010a). and Veilleux 2007). A number of bats species are known, or at least suspected, to be in decline across the U.S. (Racey and Entwistle 2003, Winhold and Kura 2005) at the same time that wind energy devel- opments are increasing (Kunz et al. 2007). Until very recently, U.S. wind turbines have mostly been land -based (USFWS 2003). The wildlife and habitat impacts from off -shore wind turbines differ from those of terrestrial turbines. There are two types of offshore wind turbines: bottom - mounted (installed on or in the seafloor) and floating (Deese and Schmitt 2010). Most existing offshore turbines are bottom - mounted in waters less than 50 feet deep, although a few have been placed in waters that are 150 feet deep. Although the specific impacts on wildlife and habitat will depend on the type and number of turbines, installation on the sea floor and increased ship traffic due to shifts in navigable waters have the potential to interfere with animal behav- ior, communication, physiology, and increase colli- sion risk (Nedwell et al. 2003). However, long -term research on the impacts of offshore wind on wildlife is limited, even from European countries (Sweden, Denmark, and Norway) that have more than ten offshore wind projects in operation (USFWS 2003). Recently published research on the impacts of offshore wind on marine habitat suggests that turbine founda- tions may function as artificial reefs and provide crit- ical habitat for local fish and crabs, and it may even be possible to increase or decrease the abundance of various species by altering the structural design of the foundation (Wilhelmsson 2009). However, the inefficiency of mortality surveys for carcasses at sea or onshore can make measuring the impact of offshore wind turbines on shorebirds, seabirds, and marine mammals more challenging (USFWS 2003). Recent developments in using high definition imag- ery technology for carcass surveys may improve our understanding of the impacts of offshore wind ener- gy on seabirds and marine mammals (Thaxter and Burton 2009). The potential for significant offshore turbine impacts on birds and mammals suggests that Photo: Cooper's Hawk, Alex 2heoharides, 2009 considerable research and monitoring will be needed (USFWS 2003). One of the biggest challenges in understanding the potential impact of turbines on wildlife is that the scale of wind production to date has been relatively small. As the demand for alternative energy increas- es, newly developed facilities with larger turbines may initiate or contribute to the decline of sensitive wildlife (USFWS 2003). However, each individual wind project poses a unique set of circumstances and should be evaluated on its own merits (Audu- bon 2010). Careful evaluation of proposed facilities will be essential to minimizing wildlife mortality and avoiding incompatible land uses. Significant wind potential exists in some of North Carolinas most sensitive biological regions. In the Southern Blue Ridge Ecoregion, for example, some of the highest areas of wind potential in the state ( "outstanding" and "superb ") overlap with, or are adjacent to, high priority biodiversity areas (Figure 4 -9). These areas will not only be sensitive to the construction and placement of the turbines them- selves, but once built, wind turbines may also signifi- cantly affect some of the critical species in greatest conservation need (SGCN) that migrate through or breed in these areas. Given the potential for wind energy development and high biodiversity in the Southern Blue Ridge Ecoregion, it is not surprising that a number of groups have taken an active interest in understand- ing the impacts of turbines in western North Caro- lina. Over 200 avian species breed or regularly occur as migrants or winter residents in the Southern Blue Ridge (Lee et al. 1985, Hunter et al. 1999). The NC WAP has identified 46 avian species in this region as SGCN, 16 of which have state listing status (Special Concern, Significantly Rare, Threatened, or Endangered, Table 4 -6). In addition, the Southern Blue Ridge Ecoregion supports 12 endemic species, including subspecies such as Southern winter wren ( Troglodytes troglodytes pullus ) and Appalachian ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus monticola; Lee and Browning in prep. in Smalling 2003). Many of these are restricted to higher elevation areas that may be potential wind sites (Smalling 2003). Of particular concern in this region is the large number of neotropical migrants that pass through the area on the their way to, or back from, breed- ing grounds. Raptors in particular are known to use the Appalachian corridor for migration (Small- ing 2003) and can be disproportionately affected by wind turbines, particularly if they are sited along ridge lines. Along migration corridors, raptors will often fly directly above the ridges and tend to hug the ridges in flight as wind speed increases (Van Fleet and Small 2010). Specific raptors of concern for North Carolina in this region include Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), sharp- shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Northern saw -whet owl (Aegolius acadicus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). However, raptor species )Afind Power Poi rrti 11 ancl MaxiOum Ranking Biodiversity Areas in terry Forth, Carolina p � �6N1� 1,1 imp , W I� �,., ti �, .... -r �I� w III" �dooadd ��/ i VIII �11 � Ea L41trd � �ilk, Wmo R k '* NORM �i / / /r' 5 Im li /1, �� ✓ »� 4" ' i /r� o si O%i 1 av� i i wue or r�, 1 d r 1 41 %/arm PIP, P l y � J LAV a w,wrWw: ::wwaz; ifRfm INIM PANOUktV d ili k" he P4*41;f Roor uNiVe Enjorrip t rkxvn4y rrCn�^ w c wdr Prepared kJr U '� K'� S IN , Nu al ,r�� Nµ. JA,pq lw➢ 7 ��N lid ' PA, WI w ar rWf w dl KAA Afii*0 i* *1f lain %C11mw Hath 1111'MrWh n tlSTIRIMmy NVIddb'ma9 twiiuim "'Modmmww a mim "'m9m.nc 0"NAa walawal i w: � ` ��oymi UTP�7wn�m��00,0m"m�A&,dir ,dmwnnwa�,�w�mr i 4�ww�mre�wmmw@N'w it aY2010v RK1,Pmr@+ 7Mww74mM D,xmwonim"kwoF'��:mvw �NAU1 WTa '"ma>,rra,q: *Vuw uuwwmhrna:.rumw^Ph IX:m: ird� W'w�WrA Figure 4 -9. Map illustrating areas of significant wind potential and co- occurrence with areas of high biodiver- isity value in western North Carolina. Table 4-6. Priority bird species identified in the NC WAP that occur in habitat types in the Southern Blue Ridge Ecoregion. ScIleirfallfic I'Jarrije Cal irrij irric, rfj I'Jarrije State sta'h'js OF"edeirM sta'U'lis) [1a b, rtattylpe L 0 0 2 < Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk SC x x x x Accipiter striotus Sharp-shinned Hawk SIR x x x x x Aegolius ocodicus Northern Saw-whet Owl T x x Ammodramus sovannorum Grasshopper Sparrow x Caprimulgus vociferous Whip-poor will x x Carduelis in us Pine Siskin x CerthioAmericano I Brown Creeper SC x I x x x Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk x Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo x x x Coccyzus erythropthalmus Black billed Cuckoo SIR x x x Cola ptes ouratus Northern Flicker x x Colinus virginionus Northern Bobwhite x Contopus virens Eastern Wood-Pewee x x Dendroico ceruleon Cerulean Warbler SIR x x Dendroico discolor Prairie Warbler x x Dendroica magnolia Magnolia Warbler SIR x Dendroico pennsylvanico Chestnut-sided Warbler x x x Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink x Empidonax o1norum Alder Flycatcher SIR x X Empidonax traillh Willow Flycatcher X x Eremophila olpestris Horned Lark x Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon E x x Falco sporverius American Kestrel x Helmitheros vermivorous Worm-eating Warbler x x x Hylocichol mustelino Wood Thrush x x Icterus spurious Orchard Oriole x Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler X x Loxio curvirostra Red Crossbill SC X x Melonerpes erythrocepholus Red-headed Woodpecker x x Oporomis formosus Kentucky Warbler x x Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow SIR x Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak x x Picoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker x x x x Poecile atricapilla Black capped Chickadee SC x x x Pooecetes gramineus Vesper Sparrow SIR x Scolopax minor American Woodcock x Sitto pusilla Brown-headed Nuthatch x Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-bellied Sapsucker SC x x x Spizella pusillo Field Sparrow x Stumello ma no Eastern Meadowlark x Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird x Tyto olba Barn Owl x Vermivora chyrsoptera Golden-wing d warbler SIR X x x Vermivorapinus Blue-winged warbler SIR x Wilsonia canodensis Canada Warbler x x x Wilsonia citrine Hooded Warbler x x x Figure 4 -10. Bat diversity across the United States (Source: Cryan 2008, used with permission). that may be impacted by ridgeline wind turbines are not limited to those species that breed in North Caro- lina. The Southern Blue Ridge Ecoregion follows the Appalachian migration corridor, which supports significant aggregations of raptors during migration. Over 20 species of raptors, from golden eagles (Aqui- la chrysaetos) and Northern harriers (Circus cyaneus) to red - tailed hawks (Buteo jam aicensis) and Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), use this corridor during the spring and fall. During a fall 2009 hawk count at the Ashland Nature Center, 18 species and over 13,000 individual raptors were counted (HMANA 2010). Specific considerations for the impacts of ridge wind turbines on raptors will be critical to siting and impact assessments in this region. The negative impact of wind development on bats in the Southern Blue Ridge Ecoregion is also of concern. The western portion of the state has localized regions of fairly high diversity compared to other states in the southeast (Figure 4 -10). The NCWRC has iden- tified seven bat species of greatest conservation need that regularly use this region for breeding, migration, or hibernation (Table 4 -7). All seven species have state listing status and one (Indiana bat) is listed as federally endangered (range map: Figure 4 -11). The Southern Blue Ridge Ecoregion may also be an important migratory corridor for a number of other bat species of regional significance. For example, turbine - sensitive tree bats such as silver - haired (Lasi- onycteris noctivagans), hoary (Lasiurus cinereus,) and Eastern /Western red (Lasiurus borealis and Lasiurus blossevillii) bats have distributions that range across North Carolina and may use the Appalachian corri- dor as a migratory route (Figure 4 -12). In addition, the federally endangered gray bat (Myotis grisescens), and the Ozark and Virginia big -eared bats (Coryno- rhinus townsendii ingens and C. townsendii virgin - ianus) have distributions that cross the Southern Blue Ridge Ecoregion (Figures 4 -13 and 4 -14), and North Carolina may play an important regional role in their conservation. Table 4 -7. Priority bat species identified in the NC WAP that occur in habitat types in the Southern Blue Ridge Ecoregion. Photo: Gray bat ( Myotis grisescens), Adam Mann, Environmental Solutions and Innovations www. fws. govl midwest lendangeredlmammalslgrbat -fc. html a b,rt,wt, 'tsylpe L 0 O v � v 0 0 0 � o � c o - a c o o o c > v w 0 o ' ceijfjt f c Marne Cal rnjrn&aVp IMarne (li e dellM 0 M U 2! Corynorhinusrahnesquii Rafinesque's Big -eared Bat T X Corynorhinus townsendii virginionus Virginia Big -eared Bat E (E) X Losionycterisnoctivagons Silver- haired Bat SR X Myotis grisescens Gray Bat E (E) X Myotisleibii Small- footed Bat SC X X Myotisseptentrionolis Northern Long -eared Bat SC X X Myotissodalis Indiana Bat E (E) X X Photo: Gray bat ( Myotis grisescens), Adam Mann, Environmental Solutions and Innovations www. fws. govl midwest lendangeredlmammalslgrbat -fc. html Figure 4 -11. Range of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). White circles indicate the location of wind energy sites as of 2007, with circle size representing production: 1 -100 megawatts (smallest), 100 -300 Mw, 300 -500 Mw, and (largest) 500 -700 Mw. Since this map was produced, a carcass of this species was found beneath a wind turbine in Indiana in early 2010 (P. Cryan, personal communication; Source: Cryan 2008, used with permission). Figure 4 -12. Path of potential spring migration for hoary bats in North America (Source: Cryan 2010, used with permission). 1, hoory bob:s Figure 4 -13. Range of Ozark and Virginia big -eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens and C.t. virgin - ianus). White circles indicate the location of wind energy sites as of 2007, with circle size representing production: (smallest) 1 -100 megawatts, 100 -300 Mw, 300 -500 Mw, and (largest) 500 -700 Mw. (Source: Cryan 2008, used with permission). Figure 4 -14. Range of Gray bat (Myotis grisenscens). White circles indicate the location of wind energy sites as of 2007, with circle size representing production: (smallest) 1 -100 megawatts, 100 -300 Mw, 300 -500 Mw, and (largest) 500 -700 Mw. (Source: Cryan 2008, used with permission). Significant wind potential also exists off of the coast of North Carolina, however research on the impacts of off -shore and near -shore wind energy development on pelagic and migrating birds, marine mammals, and reptiles is quite limited. Offshore waters off the North Carolina coast provide one of the richest and most important areas for pelagic birds in the western Atlantic, while inshore waters provide important foraging areas for a variety of birds all months of the year (Manning 2004). Although the management of pelagic bird falls under a variety of jurisdictions in North Carolina, the NC WAP iden- tified 23 priority species for the southeastern U.S. including black - capped petrel (Pteroclroma hasitata), Manx shearwater (Puffcnus puffcnus), and the feder- ally endangered Bermuda petrel (Pteroclroma cahow). Although the USFWS has management jurisdiction over pelagic birds, cold inshore waters are a critical zone during winter for gannets, loons, and alcids. Placement of wind turbines in both off -shore and near -shore areas may have a significant impact on these species at that time. Many species associated with beach and dune habitats will utilize both open waters and in -shore areas for foraging and may also be impacted by wind turbine development. The NC WAP identifies 13 priority avian species that rely on beach and dune habitats, including sand - erling (Caliclris alba), red knot (Caliclris canutus), and American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus). Five sea turtles are also associated with this region, including loggerhead (Caretta caretta), leatherback (Dermachelys coriacea), and green (Chelonia myths) turtles. Finally, North Carolinas barrier islands offer an important stopover for thousands of shorebirds during their long migrations to rest, forage, or spend the winter (Dinsmore et al. 1998). Promoting and developing alternative energy is an important part of any state's climate change adapta- tion portfolio. While it is readily apparent that wind energy can and does have impacts on the avian and natural communities, those impacts may be miti- gated or avoided with careful and thorough research of potential sites, and by learning from the experi- Pboto: Red Knot, www. tbinkstock. com ences of other wind development efforts across the country. State agency staff may become involved in reviewing potential impacts of wind on public or private lands through the National Environmen- tal Policy Act or North Carolinas Environmen- tal Policy Act or because of specific expertise (for a review of regulatory context for wind development in NC see Appendix Q. Recent recommendations from the USFWS Wind Turbines Guidelines Advi- sory Committee (WTGAC) provide a framework for developing effective measures to avoid or mini- mize impacts to wildlife and their habitats related to land -based wind energy facilities Although the draft guidelines are currently in review, they are expected to achieve the following (WTGAC 2009): 1. Provide a consistent methodology for conduct- ing pre- construction risk assessments and post - construction impact assessments to guide siting decisions by developers and agencies. 2. Encourage communication and coordination between the developer and relevant state and federal agencies during all phases of wind energy project development. 3. Provide mechanisms to encourage the adoption and use of the guidelines by all federal agencies, as well as the wind energy industry, while recogniz- ing the primary role of the lead agency in coordi- nating specific project assessments. 4. Complement state and tribal efforts to address wind /wildlife interactions and provide a voluntary means for these entities to coordinate and stan- dardize review of wind projects with the USFWS. 5. Provide a clear and consistent approach that increases predictability and reduces the risk of liability exposure under federal wildlife laws. 6. Provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate the diverse geographic and habitat features of different wind development sites. 7. Present mechanisms for determining compensa- tory mitigation, when appropriate, in the event of unforeseen impacts to wildlife during construc- tion or operation of a wind energy project. 8. Define scientifically rigorous and cost - effective study designs that improve the ability to predict direct and indirect wildlife impacts locally and regionally. 9. Include a formal mechanism for revision in order to incorporate experience, technological improve- ments, and scientific advances that reduce uncer- tainty in the interactions between wind energy and wildlife. These voluntary guidelines for land -based turbines, coupled with the recent recommendations for moni- toring the impacts of marine mammals and seabirds (Thaxter and Burton 2009), offer a comprehensive approach to appropriate siting for wind energy development. 4o23 lyl il;�el Devel(,'IIci rie ,t Biofuels are combustible materials that are derived from biomass (e.g. plants, micro - organisms, or organic waste) and potentially offer an alternative energy source that is economically efficient, social- ly equitable, and environmentally sound (Bringezu et al. 2009). There are a number of different types of biofuels that are often categorized into `genera- tions' based on the number of steps it takes to generate usable fuel from the source (Bringezu et al. 2009, Table 4 -8). Each of these types of biofuels is created from different feedstocks, ranging from sunflower and sugarcane to wood and algae, and thus requires different processing techniques and technol- ogy. The potential impact of biofuel production on biodiversity conservation will depend on the source of feedstock and the technology required for process- ing, as well as indirect changes in land use that result from use of the feedstock for fuel. Ethanol, the most common first generation biofuel, is widely used as a gasoline additive in the United States and is growing in demand as renewable fuel stan- dards have increased (RFA 2010). In 2006, the U.S. became the leading fuel ethanol producer (Bringezu et al. 2009) and since that time the number of biore- fineries has tripled (RFA 2010). Most of the ethanol produced in the U.S. is produced from corn (RFA 2010), although interest in alternative sources such as switchgrass and other woody biomass is increas- ing (Bringezu et al. 2009). Because growing corn requires large amounts of fertilizers, pesticides, and fossil fuel inputs for distillation, the environmental benefits of corn ethanol may not outweigh the costs. North Carolinas long growing season is conducive the production of a wide range of biomass resources for alternative energy production, an initiative which the agricultural leadership generally supports (BCNC 2010). The North Carolina Grows Biofuels proj- ect is a statewide effort to determine the extent and potential of biomass for biofuels production in the state (BCNC 2010). Energy crops and fast - growing Table 4 -8. Types of biofuels (Source: Bringezu et al. 2009, © United Nations Environment Programme) f0lllnlle �2 .'1 � bl a9iurds avel-A1, vi vilitl I L .k ,'lG,� (iLtr;Ei4,d�rIO un Ikml' ,x j i i i 1n (G,e s k:r7(,k ?8 Solid biofuels ` Plant oils "' Traditional use of dried biomass for energy 1) As transport fuel: Either adaptation of motors to the use of plant oils; or modification of plant oils to be used in conventional motors 2) For generation of electricity and heat in decentralised power resp. CHP stations Biodiesel Transesterification of oil and fats to provide fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) and use as transport fuel Bioethanol Fermentation (sugar); hydrolysis and fermentation (starch); use as transport fuel Biogas (CH4, COZ, Hz) Solid biofuels Fermentation of biomassused either in decentralised systems or via supply into the gas pipeline system (as purified biomethane); 1) For generation of electricity and heat in power resp. CHP stations 2) As transport fuel: either 100% biogas fuel or blending with natural gas used as fuel 1) Densification of biomass by torrefaction or carbonisation (charcoal); 2) Residuals and waste for generation of electricity and heat (e.g. industrial wastes in CHP) Fuel wood, dried manure 1) Rapeseed oil, sunflower, and other oil plants, waste vegetable oil 2) Rapeseed oil, palm oil, jatropha, and other oil plants Europe: Rapeseed, sunflower, soya USA: Soya, sunflower; Canada: Soya, rapeseed (Canola) South- and Central - America: Soya, palm, jatropha, castor Africa: Palm, soya, sunflower, jatropha Asia: Palm, soya, rapeseed, sunflower, jatropha USA: Corn Brazil: Sugar cane Other South- and Central- America: Sugar cane, cassava Europe: Cereals, sugar beets Canada: Maize, cereals; Asia. Sugar cane, cassava; Africa: Sugar cane, maize Energy crops (e.g. maize, miscanthus, short rotation wood, multiple cropping systems); biodegrable waste materials, including from animal sewage Wood, grass cuttings, switchgrass; grains; charcoal, domestic refuse, and dried manure Oilcake as animal feed Oilcake as animal feed; Glycerine; Oilcake in some palm oil mills used for energy recovery Maize and cereals yield animal feed DDGS (Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles). Sugarcane bagasse is used for energy recovery Residues used as fertiliser (nutrient recycling) Table 4 -8. Types of biofuels (Source: Bringezu et al. 2009, © United Nations Environment Programme) Bioethanol Breakdown of cellulosic biomass in several steps incl. hydrolysis and finally fermentation to bioethanol Biodiesel and range of "designer "- biofuels such as hiohydrogen, biomethanol, DMF * * *, Bio- DME „` *, mixed alcohols Biodiesel, aviation fuels, bioethanol, biobutanol Gasification of low- moisture biomass ( <20% water content) provides "syngas” (with CO, H2, CH4, hydrocarbons) from w liquid fuels and base chemicals are derived Bioreactors for ethanol (production can be linked to sequestering carbon dioxide from power plants); Transesterification and pyrolysis for biodiesel; other technologies under development Ligno - cellulosic biomass like stalks of wheat, corn stover and wood; special- energy -or- biomass crops (e.g. Miscanthus); sugarcane bagasse Ligno - cellulosic biomass like wood, straw, and secondary raw materials like waste plastics Marine macro -algae micro -algae in ponds or bioreactors Fischer - Tropsch synthesis can be used to produce various feedstocks for chemical industry (not only for fuel but also e.g. plastics) High - protein animal feed, biopolymers, agricultural fertilisers Traditional use of biomass included for complete overview Also known as straight vegetable oil. Plant oil used as direct fuel in transport is common in German agriculture with about 838,000 tonnes mostly rapeseed oil in 2007, representing 1.4% of total fuel consumption in transport. 2,5- Dimethylfuran. "Dimethyl ether Source: own compilation after different sources trees, and the technologies needed to convert them, are currently being field tested at the BCNC Biofu- els Campus and at 20 research stations across North Carolina in partnership with the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and NC State University (Figure 4 -15, BCNC 2010). North Carolina already meets 4% of its energy needs using biomass, rank- ing eighth nationwide in biomass utilization (Rich 2007). The majority of this biomass energy comes from wood -fired boilers and landfill gas -to- energy projects, but a small and increasing amount is derived from biofuel production. In an effort to ensure ecologically responsible devel- opment of biofuels, the Biofuels Center of North Carolina (BCNC) has partnered with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources to determine the environmental impact biofuels technology and their suitability for long- term development in the state (BCNC 2010). In addition, the BCNC is partnering with the Environ- mental Defense Fund (EDF) to develop a respon- sible economic framework for developing biomass resources in North Carolina. As a critical first step, EDF and BCNC created "Envisioning North Carolina's Biomass Future - A framework for thought and action" (EDF /BCNC 2009), which outlines the vision, core principles, policy considerations, and recommendations to achieve a sustainable biomass industry in North Carolina. Key raw Conversion Biofuels materials technology P4 J �r. @ raa��.�� maz Uan INN 04�y�1PvIWOpUia TV1qs aI mJ,1oriE l� tr (IVr J/uno . IF ,mal rary����dOlf Hr", ,aan 11 'vovtv,k -00 items%#* ijoovar .�o At,,,uf„mv/a,wt ', nl,"wali(In�$9ti %afa Ir�aW'�i 1/01 , S, Fl ore, r���a � —� I� —� Biodesel Figure 4 -15. Energy crops currently being field - tested in North Carolina for economic viability, and the possible technologies that could lead to biofuels production in this state (Based on "Biomass to Biofuels" (BCNC 2010). The development of a biofuels economy can have an impact on species and habitats at multiple stag- es of production, from land conversion for biofuel feedstocks and the logistics of harvest, to treatment and transportation from field to refinery (Dale et al. 2010). Increased biofuel is associated with clear- ing native habitat, displacing agricultural activi- ties into new areas, and an increasing likelihood of alien species introductions. As demand for ethanol increases and corn prices rise, expanding corn acreage could decrease area available for wildlife. Addition- ally, the building of refineries and their associated infrastructure can change the economic dynamics of rural areas, and thus influence changes in land -use that may impact wildlife and habitat. Although corn is the dominant feedstock currently used in the U.S. for biofuel, current research suggests that there are important environmental drawbacks. For example, Pimental and Pitzek (2005) found that the energy outputs from ethanol produced using corn, switchgrass, and wood biomass were each less than their respective fossil energy inputs. For wild- life, corn monocultures offer few habitat benefits and may exacerbate the impact of fertilizers and pesticides on aquatic systems. Thomas et al. (2009) modeled the water quality impacts of shifting from a corn - soybean rotation to more corn - intensive rotations to simulate increasing demand for biofuels in Indiana. They found that, when managing for continuous corn production, mean annual erosion was signifi- cantly greater than in corn - soybean rotation systems. In conventional agriculture with high levels of chem- ical inputs, erosion leads to water quality degrada- tion as a result of agrochemicals attaching to soil particles and washing into local waterways (Thomas et al. 2009). These agrochemicals may persist in soil sediments or biomagnify and accumulate as toxins in the food chain. Some researchers have suggested that the push to develop and grow biofuel feedstocks may change the way land is used in the U.S., while other studies have demonstrated that biofuel targets can be met with relatively minor adjustments (Dale et al. 2010). Of particular concern is the conversion of currently protected land to monoculture biofuel production. Fargione et al. (2008) have argued that the conver- sion of rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grass- lands would result in 17 to 420 times more carbon dioxide being released than the annual greenhouse gas reductions that these fuels would provide from displacing fossil fuels. A recent paper by Eggers et al. (2009) found that increasing European Union biofuel production targets may have, on balance, a negative impact on biodiversity. They suggested that more of the 313 wildlife species they analyzed would suffer from habitat losses, though the magnitude of impacts varied spatially and with the feedstock type (Eggers et al. 2009). In this same study, woody crops (lignocellulosic) were found to be less detrimental to wildlife than arable crops. Although cellulosic etha- nol is not currently cost - competitive, the Depart- ment of Energy (DOE) is investing in biorefineries that will produce more than 130 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year and projects that cellulosic ethanol will be cost - competitive with gasoline by 2012 (DOE 2007). These impacts may differ in the United States. Kline and Dale (2008) argue that enough land is available for biofuel production in the U.S., and that strategi- cally using previously cleared or other marginal lands would actually enhance environmental and econom- ic sustamability. However, some conservationists are concerned about the potential conversion of privately -owned land that is currently enrolled in federal habitat conservation programs to switchgrass or other monocultures for biofuel production (Kline and Dale 2008). As the financial benefits of biofuel production increase, the incentives to keep privately - owned land in federal conservation programs may diminish. Over 300 million acres (25 million of which are dominated by grasses) are currently enrolled in Photo: www.nj.nrcs.gov the USDA Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) which pays farmers an annual rental rate for retiring land from crop production and planting it for wild- life cover (USDA 2010). According to the Conser- vation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP), CRP land is vital part of grassland bird conservation, and also provides important wildlife benefits for reptiles, amphibians, and pollinators (USDA 2010). Unfor- tunately, almost 60% of the current active acreage in CRP will see contracts expire by the end of 2013 (USDA 2010). If rental rates are far lower than the potential profit from growing biofuels, landown- ers may abandon their enrollment in CRP at the end of their contract. A loss of land that is feder- ally contracted to prohibit disturbance during the breeding season and encourage other wildlife uses could significantly impact the conservation of grass- land species. If land that is currently being used to grow corn were instead used to produce other types of biomass for fuel, there may be a net environmental benefit, as fewer agrochemical inputs and less water may be needed. For example, switchgrass requires less nitrogen and phosphorous input than corn (Pimen- tel and Patzek 2005, Schmer et al. 2008). A reduc- tion in these inputs could reduce aquatic blooms and downstream hypoxia that negatively impacts fish and their associated habitats. In addition, growing bioen- ergy crops where irrigation is not required could result in a net environmental benefit, particularly for water quality (Kline and Dale 2008). However, the likelihood of landowners converting corn acreage to other fuel crops given the high prices and demand for corn ethanol is still an open question. Although the threat of habitat loss due to agricul- tural conversion and loss of CRP lands is widely acknowledged as an impact from biofuel expansion, the potential of increased risk to native habitats by introduced species has received less attention (IUCN 2009). Many of the plant species that are currently being considered for biofuels, such as ligno- ceullu- losic feedstocks and inedible plant oils, are potential- ly invasive and may impact native habitats (IUCN 2009). Although these risks are most pronounced in areas where other impacts, such as drought or fragmentation, are already apparent (e.g. east and southern Africa, IUCN 2009) it will be important for natural resource agencies to consider the invasive properties of plants that are candidates for biofuel production. The IUCN (2009) provides specific guidelines on how to assess invasive potential, includ- ing five key recommendations for reducing the risks of biological invasions as a result of biofuel produc- tion (Box 4 -4). A sustainable and economically responsible biofuel industry will require forethought and careful plan- ning to balance diverse demands for land (Kline and Dale 2008). The Council on Sustainable Biomass Production (CSBP) has developed comprehensive voluntary standards for the production of biomass and its conversion to bioenergy (CSBP 2010). These standards provide criteria for biological diversity, soil, water, and business practices, in an effort to create a third -party certification program. Growers participating in the effort are required to adhere to production and management guidelines that contribute to the conservation or enhancement of biological diversity, in particular native plants and wildlife (CSBP 2010). These efforts provide a valu- able template for evaluating the various tradeoffs and benefits for biofuel production that could be used at the state level. Rich (2007) suggest that North Carolina could meet at least an additional 10% of its energy consumption needs by including forest (6 %), agricultural (1%), and waste Q %) biomass resources in the state's energy portfolio. The production potential for these resources is distributed throughout the state and could include lands that are currently being used for timber production and agriculture, or lands in the CRP. In fact, Rich (2007) included the conversion of 104,000 acres of conservation land to switchgrass and hybrid poplar in their analysis of potential ener- gy production for the state. The unsustainable use of forestlands or the conversion of CRP lands to use for biofuel production has the potential to negatively affect wildlife and habitat in North Carolina. Figure 4 -16 shows that a number of counties in North Carolina with high potential for biomass production also have large amounts of acreage in CRP contracts. Working forests provide a number of ecosystem services including energy production, recreation, wildlife habitat, and carbon sequestration. Hard- woods cover a significant portion of the state of North Carolina (Figure 4 -17), and according to Rich Conservation tion Reserve Program Expiring Corwitrads and IM AM Polenb l I y County Ne h, ( *,ar lln rr•pr° r�rJMSr`Mr t ; IIIIIIIIIIIIIII� 1R v Ilrlrlrlr � �;� SOnmS�, W41 Mr °rnte"serr P-MAIT o 11rW1 ;1,1 "Ault! rwmrr 41011 101Vn r a gI Mi rwrawo!A ON rrili Arid rdw r.g AMA M �kmej�o ila(1 MMMOACmr WrrwAnMrou weatmart M' IT, rrMrrrI rrrMmrrmn 9, "M P witw,�r9at rrMUrw IIIIIIIIMhI�m ! ll1Jl /�91�//�rr� i rMild , "MR, fimul taful fixul u,x*$11i6m.Ki eaxxuk Mn aM g0oerr Ormi we eodmdrd nv!� RAM h hemr M br aw,& cxguly retrPse Me�nu.rem p-Mexighrgunrdlw., a % iM2', bdA vxwfw C WowmbenE Ofwa%fel r �u�wwr ob�rm� iiu����'wrm o�me mwy� mwnkrc�v "�, m rmuuubol mmiawam•tl" a Rota W' N r .A x0JUGr l tv%iCM rya 27M2MMVr,r pfam Ptrio► MAMQ dAzIl ar Il wMu d.a, 'NiI+NP F'nN yp VtlI�,mOJMda'�I ''M A" eali 04rOfP" N&1"wvp%'A , 04Mkr.O0 �u 9mv x7bl� N� „Idh a *0 p MA” Rme, gp4 g tl.W(, 7 wAl"oz 7 04 Mu up ml IN Nw NA auezulta n4i,mdmr m Wive t bam n�!wMg Figure 4 -16. Conservation Reserve Program expiring contracts and biomass potential by county in North Carolina. Dark shaded counties have higher biomass resource potential. The height of the bar in each county indicates the acreage in existing contracts as of 2009 (expiration dates are color coded within the bar). et al. (2007), have the potential to make up 24% of the state's biomass resources. The NC WAP iden- tifies Northern hardwoods, and associated birch/ beech /maple communities, as an important habitat type for numerous wildlife species. Over 30 bird, mammal, and amphibian priority species are associ- ated with northern hardwoods, including the threat- ened Northern saw -whet owl (Aegolius acaclicus), the endangered Northern flying squirrel (Glauco- mys sabrinus), and Weller's salamander (Plethodon welleri), a species of special concern. In addition, Appalachian cove hardwood forests, and associated subtypes, represent some of the most diverse ecosys- tems in the world (Hunter et al. 1999). As identified in the NC WAP, this habitat type supports 33 SGCN including the brown creeper (Certhis Americana) (special concern), the endangered green salaman- der (Aneicles aeneus), the Eastern hog -nosed snake (Heteroclon platirhinos), and the long - tailed weasel (Mustela frenata). In the southern Blue Ridge and Piedmont ecoregions, oak and oak -pine forest dominate (NC WAP) and support a wide variety of important SGCN including golden - winged warblers (Vermivora chrysoptera), Eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), four -toed salamander (Hemiclactylium scuta- tum), and Northern pinesnake (Pituophis melanoleu- cus). Hardwood habitats are also severely threatened by development and non - native pathogens such as the woolly adelgic, gypsy moth, and beech scale. Careful planning and management in hardwood forests will need to evaluate potential impacts on SGCN to ensure biofuel production does not exac- erbate these threats. Softwoods have the potential to make up 21% of North Carolinas biomass resources (Rich et al. 2007). There are over 1 million acres of industri- al timber pine plantations in the Coast Plain (NC WAP). Harvest strategies have generally provided high quality habitat for a number of SGCN species, including worm - eating warbler (Helmitheros vermi- vorous) and Eastern wood - peewee (Contopus vierns), but do not usually support high quality longleaf pine because of fire suppression. Endangered red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horriclus) (Special Concern) and Seminole bat (Lasiurus seminolus), have all been iden- tified as priority species that may be associated with Figure 4 -17. Map of forest resources for North Carolina (Source: North Carolina Di vision of Forest Resources 2009). this habitat. However, loblolly /slash pine forest in North Carolina is mostly made up of planted, rather than natural, pine stands (NC WAP). Conservation actions identified in the NC WAP include manage- ment and protection of non - longleaf pine woodlands with easements, acquisitions, and the reintroduc- tion of fire. However, areas where industrial timber harvesting is already occurring will be likely candi- dates for biomass production. Evaluating the rela- tive importance of competing resource needs will be a critical factor in planning North Carolinas biofuel production future. While biomass production can have impacts on important wildlife habitats, those impacts may be mitigated or avoided with sustainable natural resourc- es planning. Although the U.S. has only recently begun to consider woody biomass as a source of fuel, Box 4 -4. SFSC sustainable forestry criteria examples European countries such as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have been using this source of fuel for more than 30 years (Buford and Neary 2010). Criteria for sustainability that have been developed by some of these countries can be used as preliminary guidelines for woody biomass in the United States. For exam- ple, Sweden's Forestry Stewardship Council (SFSC) promotes environmentally sound, socially beneficial, and economically sustainable forest management (Buford and Neary 2010). Over one third of the country's forests have been certified under the SFSC criteria, which includes specific measurable targets including biodiversity, soil /water balance, and regen- eration (Box 4 -4). The potential for multi- sector state agency involvement in developing and imple- menting certification criteria can provide opportuni- ties to develop a sustainable biomass economy that minimizes negative impacts to wildlife and habitat. • Follow a precautionary approach when choosing feedstocks: Species should be chosen that minimize the risks to ecosystems and livelihoods from invasion, either by the feedstock species, or associated pests and diseases. Developers should also account for the possible costs of an invasion when choosing species. • Work with stakeholders to build capacity: Existing regulations are often robust enough in theory to reduce and contain risks of invasions. The main barrier to their effective enforcement and success comes from a lack of capacity and understanding for the need to follow best practices. • Comply with local, national and regional regulations: Regulations add an administrative and financial burden to developers, but they exist to safeguard the environment, the livelihoods of local communities, and the long -term financial sustainability of projects. • Develop and follow EMPs: Develop appropriate Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) that account for the full range of risks and specify actions to manage the site of production in such a way as to minimize the risk of escape and invasion of surrounding areas, and deal effectively with any potential or actual result- ing invasion. • Extend planning, monitoring and assessments beyond the field: Consider developments within the wider context of the landscapes and ecosystems in which they are situated. Risks may extend beyond the site of production especially where adjacent areas may be more susceptible to invasion and the dispersal mechanism enables species to spread beyond the immediate site of a project. Thus, adopting an ecosys- tem approach when planning developments is preferable to only considering the risks posed by individual species. The impacts of invasive species on native plants, animals, and ecosystems are well documented (e.g., Mack et al. 2000, Mooney and Cleland 2001, Strauss et al. 2006). Invasive species compete with native species for resources, decrease forage quality, alter community structure and ecosystem processes such as nutrient cycling and fire regimes, cause genetic hybridization, increase predation, cause mortality through disease and pest outbreaks, foul and clog waterways, and impact human health as well as economic well being. These threats are recognized in the NC WAP, which states that, "Non- native and invasive species introductions (both plant and animal) continue to pose a threat to native wildlife in North Carolina." In the future, the threat from invasive plants and animals may increase. Climate change and changes in atmospheric CO2 have been found to benefit some invasive species, potentially leading to further increases the number and types of invasive species present in different ecosystems (Dukes and Mooney 1999). Climate changes can benefit invasive species if those changes facilitate increased success at any stage of their life cycle. To become successfully invasive in a new region and spread across the landscape, non- native species must pass through a variety of environ- mental filters at different temporal and spatial scales (Theoharides and Dukes 2007). Success at each of these stages depends on a distinct set of mechanisms, some of which are likely to be affected by climate change (Rahel and Olden 2008). The stages of inva- sion include species transport, colonization, estab- lishment, and landscape spread (Figure 4 -18). To enter a new region, an invasive species must first be transported over long distances and natural barriers, usually as a result of anthropogenic activities. Upon arrival to a new location, local environmental condi- tions, resource availability, biotic interactions and demographic processes control whether a species colonizes and establishes in the new community. Invasive species that are more successful in estab- lishing and becoming abundant in a community will likely have the largest ecological impact on that community. Landscape spread occurs as invasive species establish in new locations. Hellman et al. (2008) outline five potential conse- quences of climate change for invasive species. These include (1) changes to mechanisms of transport and introduction, (2) altered climatic constraints on invasive species, (3) shifts in distribution of existing invasive species, (4) changes in the impact of exist- ing invasive species on the system, and (5) altered effectiveness of management strategies for control- ling invasive species. Changes affecting transport and introduction will pose direct consequence to the first stage in the invasion pathway, whereas changes to climatic constraints can directly impact process- es regulating colonization, establishment, and /or spread. Effects on distribution, impact, and manage- ment strategies may then emerge from climate - induced changes to establishment and /or spread. Human -aided movement of plants and animals, both accidental and deliberate, has increased dramatically in the last 500 years, and especially the last two centu- ries, with increasing human transport and commerce (Mack et al. 2000). Climate change could increase opportunities for invasions of non - native species across the globe by opening up new travel routes and destinations. For example, thinning of the Arctic sea ice could lead to open summer waterways and a longer shipping season by the year 2040, potentially leading to an increase in introductions of non - native species (Dyke et al. 2008). Tourism and commerce may also shift as patterns for recreation and regional use become altered by climate change. Increases in the frequency of extreme weather conditions such as hurricanes or changes in weather patterns could facilitate the dispersal and introduction of invasive species to areas that were previously less exposed to introduction events (Hellmann et al. 2008). Tits A %pate re's it ' ld d tvl dMiFfilee"S VI&V tffl.UWra lzasuwll qn a ftrw ftrg iwctf" , M"M "I bic,twl, Bilrws. dF4 rro, w W41 011,1w d" f',1*J,00,0 Map a V8 h1thO, MAW tiiAbd9't„ EslablishrrIonit gnu Wmc "' 0 pr o e !w 0,#e d �Yl�wr'kl�m{YIY�d"�Wiepgt �NNuu�'alil��aNIRVI�` NIPI,y,; ro,putAuclivo nt&as. I� m 4�YI iq u" Ifrm;��ONir� �"miufil�k��rul�ir�Yt� r n, Figure 4 -18. The four stages of invasion and the factors affecting non - native (nonindigenous) plant species (NIPS) success at each stage. The same processes control invasive animal and disease introductions, and could apply to native species that become invasive as a result of range expansion under climate change (Source: Thecharides and Dukes 2007, © Wiley InterScience, used with permission). Under climate change, current climatic constraints that limit some species' ability to spread will be reduced such that previously benign non - native or current invasive species may pose new or altered threats (Hellmann et al. 2008). Such constraints include factors limiting the length of the grow- ing season, temperature requirements for peri- ods of dormancy, or moisture tolerances. Warmer temperatures or changes in precipitation may alter these constraints, thereby changing the competitive interactions between native and non - native species. Those species tolerant of high temperatures, drought conditions, or more frequent disturbances may do particularly well under climate change. For exam- ple, in the Great Lakes region, populations of the common reed (Phragmites australis), which is listed as a severe threat in North Carolina, expanded with higher than average temperatures and declines in water levels (Wilcox et al. 2003). Further warm- ing and /or increased drought may give this species an advantage over native marsh species, especially in disturbed environments. Climate change may affect the population densi- ties of some invasive species, thereby altering their impact on native species within their current range (Hellman et al. 2008). For example, colder winter temperatures are associated with lower reproduc- tive activity and lower overwinter survival in nutria (Willner et al. 1979). Already, nutria have signifi- cant impacts on wetland vegetation (Fuller et al. 1984, Taylor and Grace 1995, Evers et al. 1998), and projected increases in winter temperatures could favor overwinter survival and increased reproductive rates, resulting in additional herbivory pressure on marsh communities. Many of the traits that allow rapid colonization and establishment in invasive species are the same traits that make a species least at risk to climate change (see Table 1 -2). Native species may have the potential to become invasive when they spread into new locations as a result climate change (Mueller and Hellmann 2008). One example is the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae). Historically, the range of the mountain pine beetle has been limited by cold temperatures at higher altitudes and latitudes that prevent the beetle from completing its life cycle in a single season. However, warmer temperatures in recent years have allowed the beetle to complete its life cycle in a single season. The resulting expansion in the beetle's range has exposed new species of trees to pine beetle infes- tation and produced epidemic breakouts in existing and new environments (Carroll et al. 2003, Logan and Powell 2001). Managers often employ a combination of mechani- cal, chemical, and biological tools to combat invasive species. Some studies predict that invasive species may increase their tolerance of chemical tools such as herbicides and insecticides due to higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, while mechanical methods such as hand- pulling of weeds may become less effective under warmer conditions that no longer limit overwinter survival (Hellmann et al. 2008). Additionally, altered interspecific interactions may change the effectiveness of some biological controls (Rahel and Olden 2008). Some current controls may produce unintended consequences for other organisms. For example, pressure to increase use of herbicides may amplify the negative effects on non - target organisms, such as amphibians or aquatic species (Hellmann et al. 2008). Additional resources related to invasive species, including a list of species occurring in North Caro- lina are included in Appendix D. Photo: Invasive kudzu, www.sarracenia.com 1� u,�, f c r a ,1 �) Agarwal, C., G. M. Green, J. M. Grove, T. P. Evans, and C. M. Schweik. 2002. A review and assessment of land -use change models: Dynamics of space, time and human choice. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. (Retrieved from http: / /nrs.fs.fed.us /pubs /gtr/ gtr_ne297.pdf). Anderson, J. R., E. E. Hardy, J. T. Roach, and R. E. Witmer. 1976. A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. (Retrieved from http: // landcover .usgs.gov /pdf /anderson.pdf). Arnett, E. B. 2005. Relationships between bats and wind turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: An assessment of bat fatality search protocols, patterns of fatality, and behavioral interactions with wind turbines. A final report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative, Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX. (Retrieved from http: / /www. batsandwind. org /pdf/postconpatbatfatal.pdf). Arnett, E. B., W. K. Brown, W. P. Erickson, J. K. Fiedler, B. L. Hamilton, T. H. Henry, A. Jain, G. D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R. R. Koford, C. P. Nicholson, T. J. O'Connell, M. D. Piorkowski, and R. D. Tankersley Jr. 2008. Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 61 -78. Auch, R. F. 2008. Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain [Online]. USGS Land Cover Trends Project. (Retrieved 26 January 2010, from http: // landcovertrends.usgs.gov /east /eco63Report. html) Audubon. 2010. Audubon's Position on Wind Power [Online]. Issues and Action. (Retrieved 23 June 2010, from http: / /www.audubon.org/ campaign /windpowerqa.html). Baerwald, E. F., G. H. D'Amours, B. J. Klug, and R. M. R. Barclay. 2008. Barotrauma is a significant cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Current Biology 18: 695 -696. Berg, P. 1996. The effects of avian impacts on wind energy industry. Undergraduate Engineering Review, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas, Austin. Biofuels Center of North Carolina (BCNC). 2010. Biofuels Center of North Carolina [Online]. (Retrieved 24 June 2010 from http: / /www biofuelscenter.org /). Bringezu, S., H. Schutz, M. O'Brien, L. Kauppi, R. W. Howarth, and J. McNeely. 2009. Towards Sustainable Production and Use of Resources: Assessing Biofuels. United Nations Environment Programme. (Retrieved from http: / /www. unep. fr /scp /rpanel /pdf /Assessing_ Biofuels_Full_Report. pdf) . Brook, B., N. Sodhi, and C. Bradshaw. 2008. Synergies among extinction drivers under global change. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23: 453 -460. Buford, M. A. and D. G. Neary. 2010. Sustainable biofuels from forests: Meeting the challenge. Biofuels and Sustainability Reports. Ecological Society of America, Washington, D.C. Carroll, A. L., S. W. Taylor, J. Regniere, and L. Safranyik. 2003. Effects of climate change on range expansion by the mountain pine beetle in British Columbia. Pages 223 -232 in T. Shore, J. Brooks, and J. Stone, editors. Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium: Challenges and Solutions. October 30 -31, 2003, Kelowna, British Columbia. Information Report BC -X -399. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Center, Victoria, BC. Chace, J. E and J. J. Walsh. 2006. Urban effects on native avifauna: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning 74: 46 -69. de Chazal, J. and M. D. A. Rounsevell. 2009 Land -use and climate change within assessments of biodiversity change: A review. Global Environmental Change 19: 306 -315. Conner, R. C. and A. J. Hartsell. 2002. Forest area and conditions. Pages 357 -402 in. Southern Forest Resource Assessment. General Technical Report SRS -53 (D. N. Wear and J. G. Greis, eds). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. Conservation Trust for North Carolina. 2007. From Rural to Suburban in Less than a Century: Changes in Housing Density in North Carolina from 1940 -2030. (Retrieved from http: // www.landfortomorrow.org /stuff /contentmgr/ files/ 45f0e137afa7ac82a4ab80750004108e/ misc/ 20070717ctnchousingdensity.pdf) Council on Sustainable Biomass Production (CSBP). 2010. Draft provisional standard for sustainable production of agricultural biomass. United States. (Retrieved from http: / /www.csbp. org /files/ survey /CSBP— Provisional — Standard. pdf). Cryan, P. 2008. Overview of issues related to bats and wind energy [Online]. Web version of presentation given to the Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee (Retrieved from: http: / /www.fort.usVs.gov /Products/ Publications /22170/22170.12df). Cryan, P. 2010. Using stable isotopes to trace the migration of United States tree bats [Online]. (Retrieved from: http: / /www.fort.usgs.gov/ resources/research—briefs/bat—isotopes. asp). Cryan, P. and A. Brown. 2007. Migration of bats past a remote island offers clues toward the problem of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Biological Conservation 139: 1 -11. Cryan, P. M. and M. R. Bailey. 2009. Causes of bat fatalities at wind turbines: Hypotheses and predictions. Journal of Mammology 90: 1330- 1340. Cryan, P. M. and J. P. Veilleux. 2007. Migration and use of autumn, winter, and spring roosts by tree bats. Pages 153 -176 in Bats in Forests: Conservation and Management (M. J. Lacki, J. P. Hayes, and A. Kurta, eds). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Dale, V. H., K. L. Kline, J. Wiens, and J. Fargione. 2010. Biofuels: Implications for land use and biodiversity. Biofuels and Sustainability Reports. Ecological Society of America (Retrieved from http://www.esa.org/biofuelsreports/files/ESA Biofuels Report —VH Dale et al.pdf). Dinsmore, S. J., J. A. Collazo, and J. R. Walters. 1998. Seasonal numbers and distribution of shorebirds on North Carolina's Outer Banks. Wilson Bulletin 110: 171 -181. DSIRE. 2010. Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency [Online] . (Retrieved 19 July 2010 from http: / /www.dsireusa.org /). Duke Energy. 2010. Wind Energy [Online]. Duke Energy Initiatives .(Retrieved 19 July 2010 from http: / /www.duke- energy.com /environment/ wind. asp) Dukes, J. S. and H. A. Mooney. 1999. Does global change increase the success of biological invaders? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14: 135 -139. Eggers, J., K. Troltzsch, A. Falcucci, L. Maiorano, P. H. Verburg, E. Framstad, G. Louette, D. Maes, S. Nagy, W. Ozinga, and B. Delbaere. 2009. Is biofuel policy harming biodiversity in Europe? GCB Bioenergy 1: 18 -34. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and Biofuels Center of North Carolina (BCNC). 2009. Envisioning North Carolinas biomass future - A framework for thought and action (Retrieved from http: / /www.biofuelscenter.org /userfiles/ File /BiomassFuture.pdf). Erickson, W. P., G. D. Johnson, M. D. Strickland, K. J. Sernka, and R. E. Good. 2001. Avian collisions with wind turbines: A summary of existing studies and comparisons to other sources of avian collision mortality in the United States. National Wind Coordinating Committee Resource Document, Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, WY. (Retrieved from http: / /www.west- inc.com/ reports /avian—coll is ions.pdf). Evers, D. E., C. Sasser, J. Gosselink, D. Fuller, and J. Visser. 1998. The impact of vertebrate herbivores on wetland vegetation in Atchafalaya Bay, Louisiana. Estuaries and Coasts 21: 1 -13. Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and P. Hawthorne. 2008. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319: 1235 -1238. Felton, A., J. Fischer, D. B. Lindenmayer, R. Montague - Drake, A. R. Lowe, D. Saunders, A. M. Felton, W. Steffen, N. T. Munro, K. Youngentob, J. Gillen, P. Gibbons, J. E. Bruzgul, 1. Fazey, S. J. Bond, C. P. Elliott, B. C. T. Macdonald, L. L. Porfirio, M. Westgate, and M. Worthy. 2009. Climate change, conservation and management: an assessment of the peer- reviewed scientific journal literature. Biodiversity and Conservation 18: 2243 -2253. Fiedler, J. K., T. H. Henry, R. D. Tankersley, C. P. Nicholson, and T. V. Authority. 2007. Results of bat and bird mortality monitoring at the expanded Buffalo Mountain windfarm, 2005. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee. (Retrieved from http: / /www.tva.gov/ environment /bmw— report /results.pdf). Flather, C. H., M. S. Knowles, and L A. Kendall. 1998. Threatened and endangered species geography. BioScience 48: 365 -376. Fuller, D., C. Sasser, W. Johnson, and J. Gosselink. 1984. The effects of herbivory on vegetation on islands in Atchafalaya Bay, Louisiana. Wetlands 4: 105 -114. Hansen, A. J., R. L. Knight, J. M. Marzluff, S. Powell, K. Brown, P. H. Gude, and K. Jones. 2005. Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: Patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecological Applications 15: 1893 -1905. Hawk Migration Association of North America (HMANA). 2010. HawkCount [Online]. (Retrieved 20 July 2010 from http: / /hawkcount. org /) . Heller, N. and E. Zavaleta. 2009. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation 142: 14 -32. Hellmann, J. J., J. E. Byers, B. G. Bierwagen, and J. S. Dukes. 2008. Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conservation Biology 22: 534 -543. Honnay, O., K. Verheyen, J. Butaye, H. Jacquemyn, B. Bossuyt, and M. Hermy. 2002. Possible effects of habitat fragmentation and climate change on the range of forest plant species. Ecology Letters 5: 525 -530. Hunt, G. 2002. Golden eagles in a perilous landscape: Predicting the effects of mitigation for wind turbine blade- strike mortality. California Energy Commission, California . (Retrieved from http: / /www.energy.ca.gov/ reports /2002- 11 -04- 500- 02- 043Epdf). Hunter, W. C., R. Katz, D. Pashley, and B. Ford. 1999. Partners in flight bird conservation plan for the Southern Blue Ridge. American Bird Conservancy, Atlanta, GA. (Retrieved from http://www.partnersinflight.org/bcps/plan/ pl- 23- 10.pdf). IUCN. 2009. Guidelines on biofuels and invasive species. Gland, Switzerland. (Retrieved from http: / /crosdata.iucn.org /downloads /iucn- guidelines—on— biofuels— and — invasive — species —. pdf). Jantz, C. A., S. J. Goetz, D. Donato, and P. Claggett. 2010. Designing and implementing a regional urban modeling system using the SLEUTH cellular urban model. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 34: 1 -16. Jetz, W., D. S. Wilcove, and A. P. Dobson. 2007. Projected impacts of climate and land -use change on the global diversity of birds. PLoS Biology 5: 1211 -1219. Johnson, G. D., W. P. Erickson, M. D. Strickland, M. F. Shepherd, D. A. Shepherd, and S. A. Sarappo. 2002. Collision mortality of local and migrant birds at a large -scale wind -power development on Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 879 -887. Johnson, G. D. 2005. A review of bat mortality at wind - energy developments in the United States. Bat Research News 46: 45 -49. Kline, K. L. and V. Dale. 2008. Biofuels: effects on land and fire. Science 321: 199 -201. Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, W. P. Erickson, A. R. Hoar, G. D. Johnson, R. P. Larkin, M. D. Strickland, R. W. Thresher, and M. D. Tuttle. 2007. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: Questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 315 -324. Lawler, J. J. 2009. Climate change adaptation strategies for resource management and conservation planning. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1162: 79 -98. Lee, D. S., D. Audet, and B. Tarr. 1985. Summer Bird Fauna of North Carolinas Grandfather Mountain. Chat 49: 1 -14. Lieberman, D., M. Jonas, Z. Nahorski, and S. Nilsson (eds). 2007. Accounting for Climate Change: Uncertainty in Greenhouse Gas Inventories - Verification, Compliance, and Trading. Springer, The Netherlands. Logan, J. A. and J. A. Powell. 2001. Ghost forests, global warming, and the mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). American Entomologist 47: 160 -172. Loveland, T. R. and W. Acevedo. 2010. Land cover change in the eastern United States [Online]. USGS Land Cover Trends Project. (Retrieved 28 January 2010 from http: / /landcovertrends. usgs.gov /east /regional Summary. html) Mack, R. N., D. Simberloff, W. Mark Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, and E A. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10: 689 -710. Manning, P. 2004. North Carolinas coastal plain in: Important Bird Areas of North Carolina (M. Golder, ed.) Audubon, Wilmington, NC. Mawdsley, J. R., R. O'Malley, and D. S. Ojima. 2009. A review of climate - change adaptation strategies for wildlife management and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 23: 1080 -1089. Mclnerny, G., J. M. J. Travis, and C. Dytham. 2007. Range shifting on a fragmented landscape. Ecological Informatics 2: 1 -8. McKinney, M. L. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience 52: 883 -890. Mooney, H. A. and E. E. Cleland. 2001. The evolutionary impact of invasive species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98 5446-5451. Mueller, J. M. and J. J. Hellmann. 2008. An assessment of invasion risk from assisted migration. Conservation Biology 22:562 -567 Murawski, J. 2007. Easely: Energy Bill Needs aTuneup [Online]. Charlotte Observer. (Retrieved 20 July 2010 from http: / /www2. nccommerce .com /eclipsfiles /17388.pdf) Napton, D. E. 2008. Piedmont [Online]. USGS Land Cover Trends Project. (Retrieved 26 January 2010 from http: Mandcovertrends. usgs. gov /east /eco45 Report. html) National Research Council. 2007. Environmental impacts of wind - energy projects. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application] . Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. (Retrieved from http: / /www.natureserve.org/ explorer) North Carolina Department of Revenue. 2009. Website [Online]. (Retrieved 23 June 2010 from http: / /www.dornc.com /). Nedwell, J.R, J. Langworthy, and Howell, D. 2003. Assessment of sub -sea acoustic noise and vibration from offshore wind turbines and its impact on marine wildlife; initial measurements of underwater noise during construction of offshore windfarms, and comparison with background noise. Subacoustech Report No. 544R0424 commissioned by COWRIE. North Carolina Division of Forest Resources. 2009. [Online]. North Carolinas Forests. (Retrieved 23 July 2010 from http: // www.ncforestassessment.com/pdf/gis/ NCForestGroups.pdf). North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh, NC. Opdam, P. and D. Wascher. 2004. Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: Linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. Biological Conservation 117: 285 -297. Orloff, S. and A. Flannery. 1992. Wind turbine effects on avian activity, habitat use, and mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano county wind resource areas - 1989 -1991. Report to the Planning Departments of Alameda, Contra Costa and Solano Counties and the California Energy Commission, Bio- Systems Analysis, Tiburon, California. Pasqualetti, M., R. Richter, and P. Gipe. 2007. History of wind energy. Pages 421 -422 in Encyclopedia of Energy, Vol. 6 (C. J. Cleveland, ed.) Elsevier Academy Press, Amsterdam. Pimentel, D., and T.W. Patzek. 2005. Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower. Natural Resources Research 14: 65 -76. Pyke, C. R., R. Thomas, R. D. Porter, J. J. Hellmann, J. S. Dukes, D. M. Lodge, and G. Chavarria. 2008. Current practices and future opportunities for policy on climate change and invasive species. Conservation Biology 22 585 -592. Pyke, C. R. 2004. Habitat loss confounds climate change impacts. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2: 178 -182. Rabe, B. 2002. Greenhouse and statehouse: The evolving state government role in climate change. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. (Retrieved from http: / /www. greenbiz.com /sites /default /files /document/ CustomO16C45F38844.pdf). Rahel, E J. and J. D. Olden. 2008. Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive species. Conservation Biology 22: 521 -533. Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). 2010. Website [Online]. Ethanol Facts. (Retrieved 20 July 2010 from http: / /www.ethanolrfa.org//). Rich, B. 2007. The North Carolina Biomass Roadmap: Recommendations for Fossil Fuel Displacement Through Biomass Utilization. Abridged version, North Carolina Solar Center, North Carolina. (Retrieved from http: / /www. ncsc. ncsu .edu /bioenergy /docs /NC— Biomass- Roadmap —Ab ridged. pdf) . Richter, B. D., D. P. Braun, M. A. Mendelson, and L. L. Master. 1997. Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology 11: 1081 -1093. Schmer, M.R., K.P. Vogel, R.B. Mitchell, and R.K. Perrin. 2008. Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105: 464 -469. Smalling, C. 2003. Potential avian impacts of wind energy development in western North Carolina: A literature review. Appalachian State University, Boone, N.C. (Retrieved from http: // www.wind.appstate.edu/reports/OVERVIEW doc). Sohl, T. L. 2010. Southeastern Plains [Online]. USGS Land Cover Trends Project. (Retrieved 27 January 2010 from http: / /landcovertrends. usgs.gov /east /eco65Report.html). Strauss, S. Y., J. A. Lau, and S. P. Carroll. 2006. Evolutionary responses of natives to introduced species: what do introductions tell us about natural communities? Ecology Letters 9: 357 -374. Taylor, J. L. and R. Kurtz. 2008. Blue Ridge Mountains [Online]. USGS Land Cover Trends Project. (Retrieved 26 January 2010 from http: // landcovertrends.usgs.gov/east/eco66Report.html) Taylor, K. and J. Grace. 1995. The effects of vertebrate herbivory on plant community structure in the coastal marshes of the Pearl River, Louisiana, USA. Wetlands 15: 68 -73. Thaxter, C. B. and N. H. K. Burton. 2009. High definition imagery for surveying seabirds and marine mammals: A review of recent trials and development of protocols. British Trust for Ornithology Report Commissioned by Cowrie Ltd. (Retrieved from http: / /www. offshorewindfarms.co.uk /Assets /COWRIE High Definition Imagery Final Report 20091130.pdf). Theobald, D. M. 2005. Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020 Ecology and Society 10: 32. Thecharides, K. A. and J. S. Dukes. 2007. Plant invasion across space and time: Factors affecting nonindigenous species success during four stages of invasion. New Phytologist 176: 256 -273. Thomas, M. A., B. A. Engel, and L Chaubey. 2009. Water quality impacts of corn production to meet biofuel demands. Journal of Environmental Engineering 135: 1123 -1135. Travis, J. M. J. 2003. Climate change and habitat destruction: a deadly anthropogenic cocktail. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 270: 467 -473. U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2010. USGS Land Cover Trends Project [Online]. (Retrieved 26 January 2010 from http: / /Iandcovertrends.usgs. gov /). U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2004. 2001 statistical abstract of the United States [Online]. (Retrieved 9 July 2010 from http: / /www.census. gov/prod/2002pubs/Olstatab/stat-abOl.html). U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2010. Conservation Reserve Program [Online]. (Retrieved 25 June 25 2010 from http: / /www. fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject- copr&topic=crp). U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2010a. Wind Powering America: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity and Wind Project Locations [Online]. Wind and Water Program. (Retrieved 23 June 2010 from http: / /www.windpoweringamerica. gov /wind - installed - capacity. asp) U.S. Department of Energy. 2010b. Wind Powering America: Wind Maps and Wind Resource Potential Estimates [Online]. Wind and Water Program. (Retrieved 23 June 2010 from http: www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind-maps. asp) . U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2007. DOE Selects Six Cellulosic Ethanol Plants for Up to $385 Million in Federal Funding [Online]. News Archive. (Retrieved 22 July 2010 from http: / /energy.gov /news /archives /4827.htm). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Land -use scenarios: National -scale housing - density scenarios consistent with climate change storylines (Final Report, EPA /600/R- 08/076F). Global Change Research Program, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Service Interim Guidance on Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines. (Retrieved 26 January 2010,from http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/ Service %201nterim %20Guidelines.pdf) Van Fleet, K. and S. Small. 2010. Ridgetop Important Bird Areas, Raptors, and Wind Turbines [Online]. Audubon Pennsylvania. (Retrieved 24 June 2010 from http: // pa.audubon.org/news-20060119.html). Warren, M. S., J. K. Hill, J. A. Thomas, J. Asher, R. Fox, B. Huntley, D. B. Roy, M. G. Telfer, S. Jeffcoate, P. Harding, G. Jeffcoate, S. G. Willlis, J. N. Greatorex- Davies, D. Moss, and C. D. Thomas. 2001. Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414: 65 -69. Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48: 607 -615. Wilcox, K. L., S. A. Petrie, L. A. Maynard, and S. W. Meyer. 2003. Historical distribution and abundance of Phragmites australis at Long Point, Lake Erie, Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes Research 29: 664 -680. Wilhelmsson, D. 2009. Aspects of offshore renewable energy and the alteration of marine habitats. Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University, Stockholm. Williams, J. E., J. E. Johnson, D. A. Hendrickson, S. Contreras - Balderas, J. D. Williams, M. Navarro- Mendoza, D. E. McAllister, and J. E. Deacon. 1989. Fishes of North America endangered, threatened, or of special concern: 1989. Fisheries 14: 2 -20. Willner, G. R., J. A. Chapman, and D. Pursley. 1979. Reproduction, physiological responses, food habits, and abundance of nutria on Maryland marshes. Wildlife Monographs: 3 -43. Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee (WTGAC). 2009. Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee Recommendations (Draft). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Winhold, L. and A. Kurta. 2006. Are red bats (Lasiurus borealis) declining in southern Michigan? Bat Research News 46:229. .............. CO 7 m i n O a=+ O Q n� W 0 4 ate-+ W . O O N 0)(D D O0) O -0 ca 0 a� V- cu Q 0 (i Z a� a� U c6 U) U a� O Q- -r- 0) O O 2 a� > ll�^ VJ c 0 0 V- 0 Q U) c cu (D cu U) I- C%4 O N Cb 0 N 0 Q Q cu E CU U i N O O cn d O N E E cn o L cu Q- E Q cu cu 0 cu rn c c O CU O C CU " O O Q > N O U cu L cn a, N c -r- 0 cu cu cn N N U N � O N Q E O CU 0 0 Q Q cn cu c U _ T a) z a) L- `4^' v) U U N C cu � � O N O -t N (6 tf O Q M .cu 0 C � cn M N m O U) M N N 0) (D U E N 00 tf 00 O N — C, T- oN U o (D aa) z m�-o E nU >> L- `4^' v) — zoo cu � a) Q m E N E .1.0 OD ew r 0) 0 0 D.M. :1 0 m 00 C) C: CU L- `4^' v) N O O N .cu U_ o-0 U N cu O N V- U ~ (D (U O C: 00 cu U cn O Q X C Q LO cu O W U) Q N E cu E CU O O O C L =3 (D CU E O cu a) U (� O - O O O c� E cu CL CU O ? > CU 0) cu 0) 0 p " U O c)) 0 0 (.5 (D O L � .0 N ~- Cl) 0 � (U (� O i Climate Should You Trust Climate Science? Maybe Eclipse At ieft, a lbse;rv'in ; a solar e.a,i'ilCpse; 'iin Ilindlaaule s: as 'iin 2016. At rigllhd, as de.lC..r'ia:,d oin of Ga:aHle o sllhov ing dllle. ICpoe t Joplin WPtoin n s telc:;aa:,olpe:. LEFT: ALOES RUDIANTO / ANA60LU AGENCY, VIA GETTY IMAGES; RIGHT: BETTMANN, VIA GETTY IMAGES AUGUST 18, 2017 mania will peak on Monday, when millions of Americans will upend their lives in response to a scientific prediction. Friends of mine in Georgia plan to drive 70 miles to find the perfect Justin Gillis spot on a South Carolina golf course to observe the ;soala..rr „_e..a;°:ll i ).s. °.. Many BY DI GIRT IES Americans will drive farther than that, or fly, to situate themselves in the "path of totality,” the strip of the country where the rrrrrr „r.. is predicted to blot out the sun entirely. Thanks to the work of scientists, people will know exactly what time to expect the eclipse. In less entertaining but more important ways, we respond to scientific predictions all the time, even though we have no independent capacity to verify the calculations. We tend to trust scientists. For years now, atmospheric scientists have been handing us a set of predictions about the likely consequences of our emissions of industrial gases. These forecasts are critically important, because this group of experts sees grave risks to our civilization. And yet, when it comes to reacting to the warnings of climate science, we have done little. Interested in Climate Change? Siglrr UP 10 receive OUir iirr -r elpth jaauimr .- Ihsm x:7b<..rUI dhirnc!rote change around the oir..rrlld. SIGN UP If the science were brand new, that might make sense, but climate scientists have been making predictions since the end of the 19th century. This is the acid test of any scientific theory: Does it make predictions that ultimately come true? ADVER71 ISFMFNI relativity predicted that gravity would cause light to bend. It sounded crazy, but a solar eclipse in 1919 provided the opportunity to test it as starlight passed near the blotted -out sun. Einstein's theory was proved, turning him into a celebrity overnight. When medicine delivered a wave of vaccines in the loth century, doctors predicted that widespread use would cause childhood deaths from illnesses like whooping cough and diphtheria to fall. The public trusted the doctors, and those deaths plummeted. So what predictions has climate science made, and have they come true? The earliest, made by a Swede named. ;viar2Le; fr12e r2 i Ll , in 1897, was simply that the;;waa1.a, would heat up in response to emissions. That has been proved: The global average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Celsius, or almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit, a substantial change for a whole planet. By the 196os and'70s, climate scientists were making more detailed predictions. They said that as the surface of the Earth warmed, the temperature in the highest reaches of the atmosphere would fall. That is exactly what happened. Gii- applhlic II Its II4:n�i Y:nauu° IIn- mg1iu"na�ilic:ni in Saun"nvin -n n•rs Am GeU„tliu"ng III�IIIc:n�U~tein,� Su.uir nir nee- ter nlCperacau.ures have ;nIh ifted toward r nu -e exar�eir ne heat over- all e past seveI ul decades, 01, 61 > M The scientists told us that the Arctic would warm especially fast. They told us to expect heavier „a;aa, aa;sl,aa;a a;aas, They told us . e.. al:a<ar�aves.,, would soar. They told us that the oceans would rise. All of those things have come to pass. Considering this most basic test of a scientific theory, the test of prediction, climate science has established its validity. That does not mean it is perfect, nor that every single prediction is correct. While climate scientists have forecast the long -term rise of global temperatures pretty accurately, they have not been as good — yet — about predicting the short -term jitters. ADVER71 ISFMFNI In other fields, we do not demand absolute certainty from our scientists, because that is an impossible standard. When you let doctors inject vaccines into your children, you are responding to a prediction — based on evidence, of course — about how their bodies will react. Yet the vaccines do pose some risks, and a small proportion of children suffer .s ide. effects. .......................................... Gii- applhlic II 9S.- IlDegii- Days: III�IIIc:n w IE.i:us�h— n"n'n III�111eat C:naulld Sp ii -ead Acii °c:ncsus the VWc.nn °Ild IExareir ndy Ihot days are exlCpec:,a<.d to Ile rynuuc:lh r nor-e pre qu.ueint 'ii n all e c: ebryding decades, Il:roteinUa Hya cUsr�u.up:r�bi ng our everyday I'iVes, w; When your aging mother is found to have cancer, the recommended treatment will be rooted in a statistical model of how tumors respond to the available medicines. Your family is likely to follow that advice, even though you know the drugs are imperfect and may not save her. We trust scientific expertise on many issues; it is, after all, the best advice we can get. Yet on .cIi maata ° „_chaarioe, we have largely ignored the scientists' work. While it is true that we have started to spend money to clean up our emissions, the global response is in no way commensurate with the risks outlined by the experts. Why? Sheer inertia is one of many reasons. The changes we need to make are hard, and they demand large - scale, collective action: to rebuild our energy system, to save our forests, to change our cars, to create radically better buildings. But a bigger reason is that these changes threaten vested economic interests. Commodity companies benefit from exploiting forests. Fossil -fuel companies, to protect their profits, spent decades throwing up a smoke screen about the risks of climate change. Most of them now say they have stopped funding climate denial, but they still finance the careers of politicians who say they are skeptical of climate science and who play down the risks. In the face of such attacks, the scientists soldier on, offering us more predictions even as the old ones come true. ADVER71IS=MFNI They tell us that we are now at risk of causing the great ice sheets in Greenland and west Antarctica to collapse, which would raise the sea level 30 feet or more over some unknown period, wiping out many of the world's great cities. They tell us that under a worst -case scenario, it might get so hot across large parts of the world that people would be unable to work outdoors without risking death. They tell us that we stand a good chance of causing the sixth mass extinction of plants and animals in the Earth's history. These kinds of forecasts are painful to consider. By contrast, something like a solar eclipse is just fun. But as you watch it on Monday, spare a moment to think about the role of science in society. When the moon throws Corvallis, Ore., into near - darkness at io:16 a.m. local time, or eclipses the sun over Kansas City, Mo., at 1:o8 p.m., or Nashville at 1:27 p.m., think about the long scientific journey that allowed us to know precisely when it would happen. Think about Galileo standing in the dock of the Inquisition, forced to recant his belief that the Earth moves around the sun. Legend has it that he whispered under his breath: "And yet it moves." Think about the centuries of patient effort that followed to work out the precise motions of the solar system, now understood so thoroughly that we can use them to predict eclipses centuries in advance. If you respect and honor the scientists who did this work, then spare another moment to think about the scientists whose work is under attack today, and why. E.o.].11.2.w...... ),INy.".�.. Il,ii „in; at c�ir�.......11 °ii.:ttei:. RELATED COVERAGE C' - apllic I...:lo A nnerica ns `I`llli nk About Cli nnate I;Iuabn e, ill Six Maps 4S MAR 21, 2017 If You Fix "I` ➢n ➢�, You Fix a Big Discs of ffie Climate Puzzle JUL 13, 2017 Atlantic Burning Fossil Fuels Almost Ended All Life on Earth A road trip through the geological ruins of our planet's worst mass extinction. Lightning strikes near Devil's Tower National Monument in Wyorning. Devil's Tower is surrounded by the red rocks of the Permian period. Mike Hollingshead / Corbis / Getty PETER BRANNEN i JUL 11, 2017 ! '° C, =.. ` HO YOU WITH ?" "I'm a science journalist," I said, jolted from my reverie on the shoulder of I -68 in Maryland, where a crowd of geologists had gathered on a field trip to poke at some rocks revealed by the highway department's dynamite. The rocks, slate gray and studded with pebbles from a punishing ice age, spoke to a mysterious global die -off at the end of the Devonian period, hundreds of millions of years ago. "I'm researching a book on mass extinctions," I said. "Cool, I work on the end - Permian boundary in Wyoming." My ears perked up. He was talking about a line in the rocks that recorded the greatest catastrophe the Earth has endured in its entire history. "I didn't really realize there was a —" "Let's go out there. Want to go out next week ?" This was my introduction to Jonathan Knapp, a PhD candidate at West Virginia University. The surprisingly bold introductory exchange, I would later learn, was not atypical for Knapp, for whom there are no half measures. A week later I was in his passenger seat on a road trip across the country to Wyoming to see the worst thing that's ever happened in person: the end - Permian mass extinction. Imagine you took a random spin in a time machine and ended up in the Permian. Now imagine the time machine breaks down. You slam your fists on the dashboard and a digital red "2 51.9 MYA' dimly flickers and dies. The view out the cockpit window reveals red sand dunes and little else. From what you remember of your geology training you know that 2 5 2 million years ago is just about the worst thing you could possibly read on your display. You kick the door open and —holy hell is it hot. You scarcely believe your breath. As you reach for the latch to slam it shut you're startled by a thundering roar coming from the other side of the dunes. Curious, you step out into the primeval landscape. There's no life, save a wilting weed here or there, where the dunes give way to barren soils, cracked and crusted with salt. The sandblasted husk of some odd creature sprawls across the wastes, its fangs bared. A sole mayfly buzzes in and out of your sight —its presence in this desolate wilderness is comforting. Scrambling over the red sand, and gasping for air, you follow the distant roar. You notice that, though the sun is out, there's a funereal gloom to the day. As you crest the dunes you see why. A strange ocean spreads out before you, hosting the largest waves you've ever seen. They're eerily backlit and slosh a sickly purple and green. Through the haze, and over the roiling ocean, a sublime darkness organizes on the horizon. You walk down to the shoreline and take a few steps into the lapping waters, drawn toward the enveloping gloom. The seawater is almost painfully hot. There's nothing alive under the waves. There doesn't seem to be anything alive anywhere really. You squint and marvel at the growing terror on the horizon. You've seen billowing thunderclouds before, but this panoramic tempest seems to tower into eternity. Wild hot winds begin to whip in all directions. You find it difficult to breathe. Slowly baking, you know should head back to the temporary safety of the ship, but you linger here all alone on the dimming coast, transfixed by the blossoming apocalypse just over the Earth's curve. A putrid odor begins to ride in on the swirling winds and, as you finally turn back in a panic, you pass out. Before long, this doomsday storm makes landfall, and what meager life clings to this country is stamped out for millions of years. This is one vision of what it might have been like to visit the world as it ended a quarter billion years ago during the end - Permian mass extinction —the worst moment in the planet's entire history. The nightmare was sketched for me by the head of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University, Lee Kump, whose "horror movie" speculation was that there might have turbocharged "hypercanes" of almost unbelievable intensity assaulting the supercontinent Pangaea —the result of runaway global warming. These mega- storms might have had 500 -mph winds, filled with poisonous hydrogen sulfide sucked out of a rotting ocean that topped 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Admittedly, this is mostly Kump's speculation, but we do know that something apocalyptic was unfolding then, when the Earth suffered a catastrophe that nearly sterilized the planet. Once magnificent coral reefs, built of strange Paleozoic creatures, and hosting a party of tentacles, trilobites and technicolor fish, were turned into piles of bacterial slime, as oxygen - starved and rapidly acidifying seas spread out onto the shelves, killing almost everything in the ocean. The planet's forests all but disappeared for almost 10 million years. With Earth's vegetation destroyed, rivers stopped meandering in narrow channels, instead spilling forth in wide, sloppily braiding torrents. Even insects suffered a mass extinction, their only such misfortune across all of natural history. Meanwhile an odd menagerie of misfit proto - mammalian offshoots —some rhinolike and lumbering, others lupine and athletic —seem to have been nearly wiped out. Fungus spread across the Earth. The cause of all this misery —a growing consensus of paleontologists and geologists believe —was burning fossil fuels. Though acid rain and a ravaged ozone layer likely played a role as well, geochemical signals in the layers of ancient rock that capture the global die -off suggest a carbon dioxide - driven global warming catastrophe —one so profound it would dwarf even the extraterrestrial disaster that cut short the dinosaurs' reign almost 200 million years later. Near the top of the supercontinent Pangaea in what is now Siberia, a gigantic plume of magma— enough to cover the lower 48 states a kilometer deep —was burbling through one of the most coal -rich regions in the world and covering millions of square miles of Pangaean countryside in basalt lava. As the molten rock ponded underground, seeping sideways into the crust, it incinerated not only untold seams of coal laid down by ancient forests in the hundred million years before, but huge deposits of oil and natural gas as well. The ignited oil and gas exploded at the surface, leaving behind half -mile craters. The volcanoes injected as much as 40,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere. This unthinkable volcanism, and the greenhouse gases it liberated, account for the extreme global warming and ocean acidification seen in the rocks spanning the dreaded Permian - Triassic boundary. It's even been called The Great Dying. Carbon dioxide, it seems, nearly killed the planet. WAS PICKED up at Midway Airport in Chicago in a forest -green Jeep Wrangler. Knapp, an oil geologist, had plastered a geological time scale to the center console, and the trunk was filled to the roof with rocks, camping equipment and two luxuriant, wool - lined, full- length farwa coats he had picked up in Saudi Arabia. The farwas, he said, would protect us from the brutal mid - continental Wyoming November cold. If having a good conversation partner is the key to a successful road trip, Knapp should be inducted into the road -trip hall of fame. Not only has he accumulated an endless supply of good stories in his young but colorful life aboard oil rigs —from the Gulf of Mexico to North Dakota to Nigeria ( "people would go up to the pipeline and make holes in it in and fill their Zodiac boats with crude oil ") —but he can illuminate the featureless stretches of middle America with the revelatory light of geology. The unassuming, diffuse infrastructure of flyover land is, in fact, the country's circulatory system. Western Kansas is crushingly boring to drive across, but a little less so when you realize its flatness belies a former life at the bottom of the Cretaceous Interior Seaway, an inland ocean filled with 50- foot -long killer mosasaurs. Knapp can convincingly hold forth on virtually anything you point at —which is exactly what I did as we drove through the long, drawing board -flat monotony of the heartland. "Natural gas compression station," he said, as I pointed to an anonymous facility in the distance. "Natural gas pipeline transfer station," he said, when I indicated another. And another. "Unconventional well pad," he said. "It probably goes down a mile and then goes over two miles." In the hubbub of a New York City or San Francisco one gets the intoxicating sense that the city streets and skyscrapers are where the business of the country is conducted —that that's where the action is. But driving around the heartland with an oil geologist you realize these glitzy coastal diversions are a facade. The unassuming, diffuse infrastructure of flyover land is, in fact, the country's circulatory system: unmarked metal boxes on the side of the highway, inscrutable pipes and polished valves behind fences at the edge of the prairie. This is the inconspicuous hardware that delivers the glowing screens and cheap meat of modernity. The road trip reminded me that the coasts are separated by a sea, just as they were a hundred million of years ago, but this one is made of corn and soy rather than seawater. These amber waves of grain are fed by fertilizers synthesized from fossil fuels. The artificial bounty is then transformed into the millions of cows crowded on the vast, sweeping feedlots of western Kansas and eastern Colorado that we passed along a 150 -mile stretch of road that smelled like shit, even with the windows rolled up. In some of these roadside tableaus the entire modern life cycle was in view, with oil pumpjacks bobbing up and down in the middle of the vast cattle multitudes, whose farts account for a more than a quarter of US methane emissions. Knapp noted that the road we were driving on was made of asphaltene, the heaviest component of crude oil. Food, livestock, electricity, pharmaceuticals, roads, plastics —it's fossil fuels all the way down. "ExxonMobil is a chemical company," says Knapp. "That's what we forget." Those who rail against the corporate sins of companies like Exxon tend not to appreciate the extent to which their existence, as well as the entire upside -down ecosystem of modernity, depends on it. And now that we have 7 billion people, most of whom sprang from this artificial surfeit of geological energy, it will be far harder to put that genie back in the bottle than most imagine. But the failure to do so will mean the end of the world as we know it. Knapp's familiarity with burning hydrocarbons and coal wasn't incidental to his study of the worst mass extinction in Earth's history. It was the kill mechanism. "Need petroleum ?" Knapp asked me, offering chapstick. No industry is more responsible for our knowledge of the ancient Earth than fossil fuel companies, which have funded much of the world's geology research for over a century. It makes their calculated and coordinated misdirection on the topic of climate change all the more jarring. At a recent geology conference, sponsors like Hess and Exxon were prominently thanked for their generosity, while climate change activists and academics like Naomi Oreskes and James Hansen were invited to take center stage as honorees and keynote speakers. The energy industry is schizophrenic: at its best, staffed with brilliant geochemists who understand the carbon cycle better than anyone on Earth and, at its worst, recklessly following economic incentives into a civilization- threatening tailspin. Knapp provided an insider's perspective on the industry: he champions natural gas as a "bridge fuel" to a zero - carbon economy (certainly a debatable strategy at this late stage in the world's carbon budget crisis) and is the part -owner of a drill rig in Michigan, but insists that if we burn all our coal, an end - Permian catastrophe isn't out of the question. Near Lawrence, Kansas, at the gateway to the prairie, Knapp swerved off the highway and pulled over next to an unremarkable road cut. He invited me to look closer. There were fossil seashells everywhere and, in some of the layers, ancient plant roots dug down into the fossilized muck. He pointed toward an oval knob sticking out of the ancient strata. "Lungfish burrow," he said. "This was normal. This was life. There was everything here. The world was happy." This was before the Permian. After driving for three more hours into south - central Kansas on the border with Oklahoma, the prairie fell away and the landscape suddenly took on an alien aspect. Everything went rusty red, and the unending flatness gave way to ragged crimson hills and buttes. Shimmering seams of salt and gypsum crystals from dried up seas slumped out of the hillsides like shattered glass. There were no more shells, no more lungfish burrows, no fossils, nothing. It didn't look like any version of Kansas I had ever pictured, or really much like any place I'd ever seen, for that matter. Once again Knapp swerved onto to the shoulder. "Permian ?" I asked. Knapp nodded as he stepped out of the car and pulled a thicket of tumbleweed out of a gully. He invited me to crawl under a barbed -wire fence to take a closer look at the rocks. I grumbled that I wasn't eager to be shot for trespassing. "Trespassing is a vital skill for geologists," he retorted. These were the Gyp Hills near the border of Oklahoma in central Kansas. The unusually hilly terrain (for Kansas) is a product of the enormous Permian salt layers that had dissolved underground, giving the region its strange topography. Some of the hills had crosses on them (memorials for the Permian, I liked to imagine). This was no country for Kansas farmland. Here the earth was literally salted, from dried -up Permian seas. Some of these dissolved Permian salt layers have formed caverns underground, which are used to store reservoirs of fossil fuel. Earlier in the trip we'd dropped by the University of Kansas core lab in Lawrence, Kansas, an Indiana Jones -style warehouse of ancient wonders: cylinders of rock drilled out from the far corners of the state. Knapp pulled out a famous core from the same rocks as those we'd seen in the Gyp Hills, a core that had been drilled a half - century ago by Amoco in search of oil. The rock alternated between Martian - looking dusty reds to huge sections of pure salt. In 2013 Knapp's advisor at West Virginia, Kathleen Benison (then at the University of Kansas) found that lake water trapped in the salt reached literally otherworldly temperatures on the day that it was sealed away in these rocks, as high as 163.4 degrees Fahrenheit. "These are the most extreme conditions in all of Earth's history that we have a record of," says Knapp. Even stranger, this was happening on an Earth that, not long before, had had ice on its poles. "It's a different planet." Unsurprisingly, there's no life in these ghastly rocks (even most plant life checks out at temperatures not much more than 40 degrees Celsius), making them exceedingly difficult to date. "There's absolutely nothing to date in any of these rocks because everything's dead," says Knapp. "But what we can say is that this is definitely Permian." "It should be a national priority to study the Permian to figure out what the hell happened." The rocks most likely predate the greatest mass extinction of all time, possibly by millions of years. They may be indicative of a world that was stumbling toward its date with Armageddon, its supercontinental configuration malting life on Earth increasingly unpleasant. The period is punctuated with mysterious minor extinctions, like one that might have taken out sail - backed proto - mammals— creatures like science museum star Dimetrodon, whose bones are mostly known from neighboring Oklahoma and Texas. As the Permian planet limped to its finale plants and animals would continue to thrive elsewhere and, to the south, coral reefs in Texas would blossom as well, leaving behind the Guadalupe Mountains and a trillion of dollars of oil —but here in Kansas it was hell. Rocks similar to the Gyp Hills extend all the way to North Dakota, indicating that this wasn't some quirk of local geography like Death Valley. "This isn't local," says Knapp. "This is all of central Pangaea." Southern Methodist University geologist Neil Tabor has dubbed these vast lethal expanses that tools over the middle of the planet in the Permian the "wastelands of tropical Pangea." To Knapp the Kansan rocks indicated that much of the world was already getting quite weird in the run -up to the greatest mass extinction ever. One speculation, borne out by modeling, is that supercontinents promote giant and interiors that shut down the processes of rock weathering —the planet's most effective way of drawing down excess carbon dioxide over geological time spans. As a result, the Permian planet might have been less effective at regulating its temperature. "So what I like to talk about is 'the Great Weirding' and not just the Great Dying because the Great Dying seems to have been a relatively quick event at the very end. But if you just talk about the Great Dying you're missing all of this other crazy stuff that led up to it," he said. "The Earth was getting really weird in the Permian. So we're getting these huge lakes with these negative pHs, which is really weird, we don't know why that happened. Another thing is that the whole world turned red. Everything got red. You walk around today and you're like, 'Hey, there's a red bed, I bet it's Permian or Triassic.' The planet started looking like Mars. So that's really weird. We don't know why it turned red. Then you have a supercontinent, which is weird in the first place. Plate tectonics has to be acting strangely when you have all the continents together. Eventually it rifts apart and we go back into normal plate tectonics mode, but during the Permian - Triassic everything's jammed together. So there has to be something strange going on. And then at the end, the Earth opens up and there's all these volcanoes. But we're not talking about normal volcanoes, we're talking about weird volcanoes." As we continued north on Route 287, over the Colorado - Wyoming border, the trappings of society fell away and the sun set again over the pale grasslands. Driving through Carbon County, Wyoming, the unending darkness of the barren plains was pierced by a glittering Oz on the prairie. This was Sinclair, Wyoming, (named after the oil company) and an enormous, illuminated refinery twinkled like a lonely Manhattan, ceaselessly digesting carbon from the ancient seafloor day and night. "If we understood why things got so crazy in the Permian I would be a lot more comfortable," Knapp said, breaking the silence. To some geologists, the extraordinary nature of the end - Permian catastrophe represents a level of environmental chaos so extreme that humanity could never hope to emulate it. But Knapp wasn't so sure. "I see [a few] possibilities. The first is that things just really got that crazy. Shit happened. The second is that we just really don't understand positive feedback loops yet. That's the scary option. The third is that you can't do it without a supercontinent. We need to be studying these time periods when carbon dioxide caused problems, because right now we don't understand them at all. It should be a national priority to study the Permian to figure out what the hell happened." xH NEXT morning we set out from Rawlins, Wyoming, for the extinction boundary. But we couldn't look at the prototypical rock section, first described in the 1960s. "It's on a ranch and they won't let you access it anymore," Knapp said, eyes blearily searching the horizon, pulling from a cup of cheap coffee. "They say it's a liability thing but I think it's because they don't like geology and global warming and think the Earth's 6,000 years old. That's been the most challenging part of my work. I can't get access to any of the outcrops because they're all on ranches." The end - Permian rocks of Wyoming can be seen from space, or (more easily) from Google Maps. They appear as strange little shocks of crimson peeking out from under the faded tans of the prairie. In the northeast corner of the state they fleck the periphery of Devil's Tower. But there aren't many people studying these rocks. When Knapp returns to the same outcrop in central Wyoming every few years he finds his rock hammer on the same rock he left it on. We drove over a ridge that looked out over an empty basin and pulled off the road and into a small canyon of red rocks. At the top of the canyon the rocks gave up their Martian hue at long last, and were etched with the geological traces of tranquil lakes and river channels and even dinosaur footprints. Up in those rocks the Earth was finally recovering, and the reptiles of the Earth's most storied age —the Mesozoic — were making their tentative claims to a world that they would come to rule for more than 100 million years. But down here along the dusty trail was the end of the Permian, and the planet was still fighting for its life. In the huge stacks of red rock Knapp saw an alternating hellscape of sheet floods and red desert soils, and even some piles of bacterial slime that festered in grotesque ephemeral lakes. "One thing I don't see anywhere here is roots," he said. "At the top of that rock over therein the Triassic, we start to see tons of roots. It's the same depositional environment as here. But here everything's dead." Here, at the end of my pilgrimage, I picked off a rock from this end - Permian wall and turned it over in my hand. As this pebble was forged, 90% of life on Earth was going extinct, even at the poles. Faraway in northern Pangaea volcanoes burning through fossil fuels were ruining the planet for everyone, driving global warming and ocean chemistry changes that nearly rid the planet of complex life. E STILL HAD one final sightseeing adventure in Wyoming, a four -hour detour. We were off to see an open -pit coal mine. And not just any open -pit coal mine, the largest surface coal mine in North America. Though there aren't many landmarks to lead you through eastern Wyoming —save prairie grass —the colossal open -pit coal mines of the Powder River Basin are easy to find. "We've just got to follow the train tracks," Knapp said. We kept the tracks to our left and kept pace with a ceaseless parade of empty train cars rolling headlong toward the Powder River Basin to be refreshed with coal. The train tracks they glided along were immaculately well - maintained, and why shouldn't they be? Their precious cargo was the lifeblood of civilization. The empty train cars were returning from the nodes of civilization, like spent red blood cells, to this giant, unyielding pump of geological energy in the prairie. The train cars heading out of the basin, freshly topped off with jet black mounds of fossil jungles from the Paleocene. They were shuttled along the infrastructural aorta before branching into capillaries where they'd deliver their carbon to far off power plants to be metabolized near cities, by metropolitan mitochondria. The trains pulled in and out of the Powder River Basin all day and all night, every day, every year without interruption. Finally, after taking some wrong dirt roads and being rebuffed by surly coal mine security workers —and even scarier signs ( "ORANGE CLOUD POSSIBLE AVOID CONTACT ") —we found an overlook into the manmade chasms. As you've probably heard about large industrial mining operations, encountering their inhuman scale in person is stupefying. It's the biggest thing you've ever seen happen. The walls of these manmade canyons were shaded mostly in dull grays and browns, but hundreds of feet down at the very bottom was a 25- foot -tall stripe of pure black that wrapped around the entire pit. Here a tiny earthmover came face -to -face with the planet's history and dug in. It pulled out forests from 60 million years ago, when atmospheric carbon dioxide was much higher and Wyoming was a lush swampy Eden haunted by crocodiles. The little toy trucks shuffled this trapped sunlight, stored in the earth, up the sides of the pit wall to be delivered to the far corners of the world and burned. After visiting ancient fossil reefs and lifeless rock exposures, this might have been my best view of what was happening at the end of the Permian. As far as we can tell, we're shooting carbon dioxide up into the atmosphere ten times faster than the ancient volcanoes of Russia did during the end - Permian mass extinction, an episode that almost ended the project of complex life on Earth. Our planet is once again at a crossroads, and the tangled path to redemption is still very much open. But we now find ourselves falling towards the first steps down an older, much darker road. "What we're doing is the equivalent of that supervolcano going through Siberia," Knapp said, overlooking the pit. "By stripping out all of the coal from everywhere it exists on Earth and burning it. And we're doing it really, really fast. So we have an analog in Earth's history. And it's fucking scary." Related Video To read an annotated version of this article, complete with interviews with scientists and lin s o further re ding, tfickl here. 6� `.Doom L sday' , 4± 14 (?� Peering beyond scientific reticence. It is, I promise, worse than you think. If your anxiety about global warming is dominated by fears of sea -level rise, you are barely scratching the surface of what terrors are possible, even within the lifetime of a teenager today. And yet the swelling seas — and the cities they will drown — have so dominated the picture of global warming, and so overwhelmed our capacity for climate panic, that they have occluded our perception of other threats, many much closer at hand. Rising oceans are bad, in fact very bad; but fleeing the coastline will not be enough. Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century. Even when we train our eyes on climate change, we are unable to comprehend its scope, This past winter, a string of days 60 and 70 degrees warmer than normal baked the North Pole, melting the permafrost that encased Norway's Svalbard seed vault — a global food bank nicknamed "Doomsday," designed to ensure that our agriculture survives any catastrophe, and which appeared to have been flooded by climate change less than ten years after being built. The Doomsday vault is fine, for now: The structure has been secured and the seeds are safe. But treating the episode as a parable of impending flooding missed the more important news. Until recently, permafrost was not a major concern of climate scientists, because, as the name suggests, it was soil that stayed permanently frozen. But Arctic permafrost contains 1.8 trillion tons of carbon, more than twice as much as is currently suspended in the Earth's atmosphere. When it thaws and is released, that carbon may evaporate as methane, which is 34 times as powerful a greenhouse -gas warming blanket as carbon dioxide when judged on the timescale of a century; when judged on the timescale of two decades, it is 86 times as powerful. In other words, we have, trapped in Arctic permafrost, twice as much carbon as is currently wrecking the atmosphere of the planet, all of it scheduled to be released at a date that keeps getting moved up, partially in the form of a gas that multiplies its warming power 86 times over. Maybe you know that already — there are alarming stories in the news every day, like those, last month, that seemed to suggest satellite data showed the globe warming since 1998 more than twice as fast as scientists had thought (in fact, the underlying story was considerably less alarming than the headlines). Or the news from Antarctica this past May, when a crack in an ice shelf grew 11 miles in six days, then kept going; the break now has just three miles to go — by the time you read this, it may *'.already have rnet the open water, where it will drop into the sea one of the biggest icebergs ever, a process known poetically as "calving." But no matter how well- informed you are, you are surely not alarmed enough. Over the past decades, our culture has gone apocalyptic with zombie movies and Pfad Pvtax dystopiras, perhaps the collective result of displaced climate anxiety, and yet when it comes to contemplating real -world warming dangers, we suffer from an incredible failure of imagination. The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called "scientific reticence" in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn't even see warming as a problem worth addressing; the way that climate denialism has made scientists even more cautious in offering speculative warnings; the simple speed of change and, also, its slowness, such that we are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past; our uncertainty about uncertainty, which the climate writer Naomi Oreskes in particular has suggested stops us from preparing as though anything worse than a median outcome were even possible; the way we assume climate change will hit hardest elsewhere, not everywhere; the smallness (two degrees) and largeness (1.8 trillion tons) and abstractness (400 parts per million) of the numbers; the discomfort of considering a problem that is very difficult, if not impossible, to solve; the altogether incomprehensible scale of that problem, which amounts to the prospect of our own annihilation; simple fear. But aversion arising from fear is a form of denial, too. In between scientific reticence and science fiction is science itself. This article is the result of dozens of interviews and exchanges with climatologists and researchers in related fields and reflects hundreds of scientific papers on the subject of climate change. What follows is not a series of predictions of what will happen — that will be determined in large part by the much -less- certain science of human response. Instead, it is a portrait of our best understanding of where the planet is heading absent aggressive action. It is unlikely that all of these warming scenarios will be fully realized, largely because the devastation along the way will shake our complacency. But those scenarios, and not the present climate, are the baseline. In fact, they are our schedule. The present tense of climate change — the destruction we've already baked into our future — is horrifying enough. Most people talk as if Miami and Bangladesh still have a chance of surviving; most of the scientists I spoke with assume we'll lose them within the century, even if we stop burning fossil fuel in the next decade. Two degrees of warming used to be considered the threshold of catastrophe: tens of millions of climate refugees unleashed upon an unprepared world. Now two degrees is our goal, per the Paris climate accords, and experts give us only slim odds of hitting it. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues serial reports, often called the "gold standard" of climate research; the most recent one projects us to hit four degrees of warming by the beginning of the next century, should we stay the present course. But that's just a median projection. The upper end of the probability curve runs as high as eight degrees — and the authors still haven't figured out how to deal with that permafrost melt. The IPCC reports also don't fully account for the albedo effect (less ice means less reflected and more absorbed sunlight, hence more warming); more cloud cover (which traps heat); or the dieback of forests and other flora (which extract carbon from the atmosphere). Each of these promises to accelerate warming, and the history of the planet shows that temperature can shift as much as five degrees Celsius within thirteen years. The last time the planet was even four degrees warmer, Peter Brannan points out in The Ends of the World, his new history of the planet's major extinction events, the oceans were hundreds of feet higher.* The Earth has experienced five mass extinctions before the one we are living through now, each so complete a slate- wiping of the evolutionary record it functioned as a resetting of the planetary clock, and many climate scientists will tell you they are the best analog for the ecological future we are diving headlong into. Unless you are a teenager, you probably read in your high - school textbooks that these extinctions were the result of asteroids. In fact, all but the one that killed the dinosaurs were caused by climate change produced by greenhouse gas. The most notorious was 252 million years ago; it began when carbon warmed the planet by five degrees, accelerated when that warming triggered the release of methane in the Arctic, and ended with 97 percent of all life on Earth dead. We are currently adding carbon to the atmosphere at a considerably faster rate; by most estimates, at least ten times faster. The rate is accelerating. This is what Stephen Hawking had in mind when he. said, this spring, that the species needs to colonize other planets in the next century to survive, and what drove Elon Musk, last month, to unveil his plans to build a Mars habitat in 40 to 100 years. These are nonspecialists, of course, and probably as inclined to irrational panic as you or I. But the many sober - minded scientists I interviewed over the past several months — the most credentialed and tenured in the field, few of them inclined to alarmism and many advisers to the IPCC who nevertheless criticize its conservatism — have quietly reached an apocalyptic conclusion, too: No plausible program of emissions reductions alone can prevent climate disaster. Over the past few decades, the term "Anthropocene" has climbed out of academic discourse and into the popular imag nation — a name given to the geologic era we live in now, and a way to signal that it is a new era, defined on the wall chart of deep history by human intervention. One problem with the term is that it implies a conquest of nature (and even echoes the biblical "dominion "). And however sanguine you might be about the proposition that we have already ravaged the natural world, which we surely have, it is another thing entirely to consider the possibility that we have only provoked it, engineering first in ignorance and then in denial a climate system that will now go to war with us for many centuries, perhaps until it destroys us. That is what Wallace Smith Broecker, the avuncular oceanographer who coined the term "global warming," means when he calls the planet an "angry beast." You could also go with "war machine." Each day we arm it more. II. Heat Death The bahraining of New York. In the sugarcane region of El Salvador, as much as one -fifth of the population has chronic kidney disease, the presumed result of dehydration from working the fields they were able to comfortably harvest as recently as two decades ago. Photo: Heartless Machine Humans, like all mammals, are heat engines; surviving means having to continually cool off, like panting dogs. For that, the temperature needs to be low enough for the air to act as a kind of refrigerant, drawing heat off the skin so the engine can keep pumping. At seven degrees of warming, that would become impossible for large portions of the planet's equatorial band, and especially the tropics, where humidity adds to the problem; in the jungles of Costa Rica, for instance, where humidity routinely tops 90 percent, simply moving around outside when it's over 105 degrees Fahrenheit would be lethal. And the effect would be fast: Within a few hours, a human body would be cooked to death from both inside and out. Climate- change skeptics point out that the planet has warmed and cooled many times before, but the climate window that has allowed for human life is very narrow, even by the standards of planetary history. At 11 or 12 degrees of warming, more than half the world's population, as distributed today, would die of direct heat. Things almost certainly won't get that hot this century, though models of unabated emissions do bring us that far eventually. This century, and especially in the tropics, the pain points will pinch much more quickly even than an increase of seven degrees. The key factor is something called wet -bulb temperature, which is a term of measurement as home - laboratory-kit as it sounds: the heat registered on a thermometer wrapped in a damp sock as it's swung around in the air (since the moisture evaporates from a sock more quickly in dry air, this single number reflects both heat and humidity). At present, most regions reach a wet -bulb maximum of 26 or 27 degrees Celsius; the true red line for habitability is 35 degrees. What is called heat stress comes much sooner. Actually, we're about there already. Since 1980, the planet has experienced a 50 -fold increase in the number of places experiencing dangerous or extreme heat; a bigger increase is to come. The five warmest summers in Europe since 1500 have all occurred since 2002, and soon, the IPCC warns, simply being outdoors that time of year will be unhealthy for much of the globe. Even if we meet the Paris goals of two degrees warming, cities like Karachi and Kolkata will become close to uninhabitable, annually encountering deadly heat waves like those that crippled them in 2015. At four degrees, the deadly European heat wave of 2003, which killed as many as 2,000 people a day, will be a normal summer. At six, according to an assessment focused only on effects within the U.S, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, summer labor of any kind would become impossible in the lower Mississippi Valley, and everybody in the country east of the Rockies would be under more heat stress than anyone, anywhere, in the world today. As Joseph Romm has put it in his authoritative primer Clrniate Change: What Evewyvne heeds to Know, heat stress in New York City would exceed that of present -day Bahrain, one of the planet's hottest spots, and the temperature in Bahrain "would induce hyperthermia in even sleeping humans:' The high -end IPCC estimate, remember, is two degrees warmer still. By the end of the century, the World Bank has estimated, the coolest months in tropical South America, Africa, and the Pacific are likely to be warmer than the warmest months at the end of the 20th century. Air - conditioning can help but will ultimately only add to the carbon problem; plus, the climate - controlled malls of the Arab emirates aside, it is not remotely plausible to wholesale air - condition all the hottest parts of the world, many of them also the poorest. And indeed, the crisis will be most dramatic across the Middle East and Persian Gulf, where in 2015 the heat index registered temperatures as high as 163 degrees Fahrenheit. As soon as several decades from now, the hajj will become physically impossible for the 2 million Muslims who make the pilgrimage each year. It is not just the hajj, and it is not just Mecca; heat is already killing us. In the sugarcane region of El Salvador, as much as one -fifth of the population has chronic kidney disease, including over a quarter of the men, the presumed result of dehydration from working the fields they were able to comfortably harvest as recently as two decades ago. With dialysis, which is expensive, those with kidney failure can expect to live five years; without it, life expectancy is in the weeks. Of course, heat stress promises to pummel us in places other than our kidneys, too. As I type that sentence, in the California desert in mid -June, it is 121 degrees outside my door. It is not a record high. III. The End of Food Praying for cornfields in the tundra. Climates differ and plants vary, but the basic rule for staple cereal crops grown at optimal temperature is that for every degree of warming, yields decline by 10 percent. Some estimates run as high as 15 or even 17 percent. Which means that if the planet is five degrees warmer at the end of the century, we may have as many as 50 percent more people to feed and 50 percent less grain to give them. And proteins are worse: It takes 16 calories of grain to produce just a single calorie of hamburger meat, butchered from a cow that spent its life polluting the climate with methane farts. Pollyannaish plant physiologists will point out that the cereal -crop math applies only to those regions already at peak growing temperature, and they are right theoretically, a warmer climate will make it easier to grow corn in Greenland. But as the pathbreaking work by Rosamond Naylor and David Battisti has shown, the tropics are already too hot to efficiently grow grain, and those places where grain is produced today are already at optimal growing temperature —which means even a small warming will push them down the slope of declining productivity. And you can't easily move croplands north a few hundred miles, because yields in places like remote Canada and Russia are limited by the quality of soil there; it takes many centuries for the planet to produce optimally fertile dirt. Drought might be an even bigger problem than heat, with some of the world's most arable land turning quickly to desert. Precipitation is notoriously hard to model, yet predictions for later this century are basically unanimous: unprecedented droughts nearly everywhere food is today produced. By 2080, without dramatic reductions in emissions, southern Europe will be in permanent extreme drought, much worse than the American dust bowl ever was. The same will be true in Iraq and Syria and much of the rest of the Middle East; some of the most densely populated parts of Australia, Africa, and South America; and the breadbasket regions of China. None of these places, which today supply much of the world's food, will be reliable sources of any. As for the original dust bowl: The droughts in the American plains and Southwest would not just be worse than in the 1930s, a 2015 NASA study predicted, but worse than any droughts in a thousand years — and that includes those that struck between 1100 and 1300, which "dried up all the rivers East of the Sierra Nevada mountains" and may have been responsible for the death of the Anasazi civilization. Remember, we do not live in a world without hunger as it is. Far from it: Most estimates put the number of undernourished at 800 million globally. In case you haven't heard, this spring has already brought an unprecedented quadruple famine to Africa and the Middle East; the U.N. has warned that separate starvation events in Somalia, South Sudan, Nigeria, and Yemen could kill 20 million this year alone. IV. Climate Plagues What happens when the bubonic ice melts? Rock, in the right spot, is a record of planetary history, eras as long as millions of years flattened by the forces of geological time into strata with amplitudes of just inches, orjust an inch, or even less. Ice works that way, too, as a climate ledger, but it is also frozen history, some of which can be reanimated when unfrozen. There are now, trapped in Arctic ice, diseases that have not circulated in the air for millions of years — in some cases, since before humans were around to encounter them. Which means our immune systems would have no idea how to fight back when those prehistoric plagues emerge from the ice. The Arctic also stores terrifying bugs from more recent times. In Alaska, already, researchers have discovered remnants of the 1918 flu that infected as many as 500 million and killed as many as 100 million — about 5 percent of the world's population and almost six times as many as had died in the world war for which the pandemic served as a kind of gruesome capstone. As the BBC mported in May, scientists suspect smallpox and the bubonic plague are trapped in Siberian ice, too — an abridged history of devastating human sickness, left out like egg salad in the Arctic sun. Experts caution that many of these organisms won't actually survive the thaw and point to the fastidious lab conditions under which they have already reanimated several of them — the 32,000 - year -old "extremophile" bacteria revived in 2005, an 8 million - year -old bug brought back to life in 2007, the 3.5 million–year–old one a Russian scientist : elf-injected just out of curiosity — to suggest that those are necessary conditions for the return of such ancient plagues. But already last year, a boy was killed and 20 others infected by anthrax released when retreating permafrost exposed the frozen carcass of a reindeer killed by the bacteria at least 75 years earlier; 2,000 present -day reindeer were infected, too, carrying and spreading the disease beyond the tundra. What concerns epidemiologists more than ancient diseases are existing scourges relocated, rewired, or even re- evolved by warming. The first effect is geographical. Before the early- modern period, when adventuring sailboats accelerated the mixing of peoples and their bugs, human provinciality was a guard against pandemic. Today, even with globalization and the enormous intermingling of human populations, our ecosystems are mostly stable, and this functions as another limit, but global warming will scramble those ecosystems and help disease trespass those limits as surely as Cartes did. You don't worry much about dengue or malaria if you are living in Maine or France. But as the tropics creep northward and mosquitoes migrate with them, you will. You didn't much worry about Zika a couple of years ago, either. As it happens, Zika may also be a good model of the second worrying effect — disease mutation. One reason you hadn't heard about Zika until recently is that it had been trapped in Uganda; another is that it did not, until recently, appear to cause birth defects. Scientists still don't entirely understand what happened, or what they missed. But there are things we do know for sure about how climate affects some diseases: Malaria, for instance, thrives in hotter regions not just because the mosquitoes that carry it do, too, but because for every degree increase in temperature, the parasite reproduces ten times faster. Which is one reason that the World Bank estimates that by 2050, 5.2 billion people will be reckoning with it. V. Unbreathable Air A rolling death smog that suffocates millions. By the end of the century, the coolest months in tropical South America, Africa, and the Pacific are likely to be warmer than the warmest months at the end of the 20th century. Photo: Heartless Machine Our lungs need oxygen, but that is only a fraction of what we breathe. The fraction of carbon dioxide is growing: It just crossed 400 parts per million, and high -end estimates extrapolating from current trends suggest it will hit 1,000 ppm by 2100. At that concentration, compared to the air we breathe now, human cognitive ability declines by 21 percent. Other stuff in the hotter air is even scarier, with small increases in pollution capable of shortening life spans by ten years. The warmer the planet gets, the more ozone forms, and by mid - century, Americans will likely suffer a 70 percent increase in unhealthy ozone smog, the National Center for Atmospheric Research has projected. By 2090, as many as 2 billion people globally will be breathing air above the WHO "safe" level; one paper last month showed that, among other effects, a pregnant mother's exposure to ozone raises the child's risk of autism (as much as tenfold, combined with other environmental factors). Which does make you think again about the autism epidemic in West Hollywood. Already, more than 10,000 people die each day from the small particles emitted from fossil -fuel burning; each year, 339,000 people die from wildfire smoke, in part because climate change has extended forest -fire season (in the U.S., it's increased by 78 days since 1970). By 2050, according to the U.S. Forts s4 Service, wildfires will be twice as destructive as they are today; in some places, the area burned could grow fivefold. What worries people even more is the effect that would have on emissions, especially when the fires ravage forests arising out of peat. Peatland fires in Indonesia in 1997, for instance, added to the global CO2 release by up to 40 percent, and more burning only means more warming only means more burning. There is also the terrifying possibility that rain forests like the Amazon, which in 2010 suffered its second "hundred -year drought" in the space of five years, could dry out enough to become vulnerable to these kinds of devastating, rolling forest fires — which would not only expel enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere but also shrink the size of the forest. That is especially bad because the Amazon alone provides 20 percent of our oxygen. Then there are the more familiar forms of pollution. In 2013, melting Arctic ice remodeled Asian weather patterns, depriving industrial China of the natural ventilation systems it had come to depend on, which blanketed much of the country's north in an unbreathable smog. Literally unbreathable. A metric called the Air Quality Index categorizes the risks and tops out at the 301 -to -500 range, warning of "serious aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly" and, for all others, "serious risk of respiratory effects "; at that level, "everyone should avoid all outdoor exertion." The Chinese "airpocalypse" of 2013 peaked at what would have been an Air Quality Index of over 800. That year, smog was responsible for a third of all deaths in the country. V7. Perpetual War The violence baked into heat. Climatologists are very careful when talking about Syria. They want you to know that while climate change did produce a drought that contributed to civil war, it is not exactly fair to saythat the conflict is the result of warming; next door, for instance, Lebanon suffered the same crop failures. But researchers like Marshall Burke and Solomon Hsiang have managed to quantify some of the non - obvious relationships between temperature and violence: For every half- degree of warming, they say, societies will see between a 10 and 20 percent increase in the likelihood of armed conflict. In climate science, nothing is simple, but the arithmetic is harrowing: A planet five degrees warmer would have at least half again as many wars as we do today. Overall, social conflict could more than double this century. This is one reason that, as nearly every climate scientist I spoke to pointed out, the U.S. military is obsessed with climate change: The drowning of all American Navy bases by sea -level rise is trouble enough, but being the world's policeman is quite a bit harder when the crime rate doubles. Of course, it's not just Syria where climate has contributed to conflict. Some speculate that the elevated level of strife across the Middle East over the past generation reflects the pressures of global warming — a hypothesis all the more cruel considering that warming began accelerating when the industrialized world extracted and then burned the region's oil. What accounts for the relationship between climate and conflict? Some of it comes down to agriculture and economics; a lot has to do with forced migration, already at a record high, with at least 65 million displaced people wandering the planet right now. But there is also the simple fact of individual irritability. Heat increases municipal crime rates, and swearing on social media, and the likelihood that a major - league pitcher, coming to the mound after his teammate has been hit by a pitch, will hit an opposing batter in retaliation. And the arrival of air - conditioning in the developed world, in the middle of the past century, did little to solve the problem of the summer crime wave. VII. Permanent Economic Collapse Dismal capitalism in a half - poorer world The murmuring mantra of global neoliberalism, which prevailed between the end of the Cold War and the onset of the Great Recession, is that economic growth would save us from anything and everything. But in the aftermath of the 2008 crash, a growing number of historians studying what they call "fossil capitalism" have begun to suggest that the entire history of swift economic growth, which began somewhat suddenly in the 18th century, is not the result of innovation or trade or the dynamics of global capitalism but simply our discovery of fossil fuels and all their raw power— a onetime injection of new "value" into a system that had previously been characterized by global subsistence living. Before fossil fuels, nobody lived better than their parents or grandparents or ancestors from 500 years before, except in the immediate aftermath of a great plague like the Black Death, which allowed the lucky survivors to gobble up the resources liberated by mass graves. After we've burned all the fossil fuels, these scholars suggest, perhaps we will return to a "steady state" global economy. Of course, that onetime injection has a devastating long -term cost: climate change. The most exciting research on the economics of warming has also come from Hsiang and his colleagues, who are not historians of fossil capitalism but who offer some very bleak analysis of their own: Every degree Celsius of warming costs, on average, 1.2 percent of GDP (an enormous number, considering we count growth in the low single digits as "strong "), This is the sterling work in the field, and their median projection is for a 23 percent loss in per capita earning globally by the end of this century (resulting from changes in agriculture, crime, storms, energy, mortality, and labor). Tracing the shape of the probability curve is even scarier: There is a 12 percent chance that climate change will reduce global output by more than 50 percent by 2100, they say, and a 51 percent chance that it lowers per capita GDP by 20 percent or more by then, unless emissions decline. By comparison, the Great Recession lowered global GDP by about 6 percent, in a onetime shock; Hsiang and his colleagues estimate a one -in -eight chance of an ongoing and irreversible effect by the end of the century that is eight times worse. The scale of that economic devastation is hard to comprehend, but you can start by imagining what the world would look like today with an economy half as big, which would produce only half as much value, generating only half as much to offer the workers of the world. It makes the grounding of flights out of heat - stricken Phoenix last month seem like pathetically small economic potatoes. And, among other things, it makes the idea of postponing government action on reducing emissions and relying solely on growth and technology to solve the problem an absurd business calculation. Every round -trip ticket on flights from New York to London, keep in mind, costs the Arctic three more square meters of ice. VIII. Poisoned Oceans Sulfide burps off the skeleton coast That the sea will become a killer is a given. Barring a radical reduction of emissions, we will see at least four feet of sea -level rise and possibly ten by the end of the century. A third of the world's major cities are on the coast, not to mention its power plants, ports, navy bases, farmlands, fisheries, river deltas, marshlands, and rice -paddy empires, and even those above ten feet will flood much more easily, and much more regularly, if the water gets that high. At least 600 million people live within ten meters of sea level today. But the drowning of those homelands is just the start. At present, more than a third of the world's carbon is sucked up by the oceans — thank God, or else we'd have that much more warming already. But the result is what's called "ocean acidification," which, on its own, may add a half a degree to warming this century. It is also already burning through the planet's water basins — you may remember these as the place where life arose in the first place. You have probably heard of "coral bleaching" — that is, coral dying —which is very bad news, because reefs support as much as a quarter of all marine life and supply food for half a billion people. Ocean acidification will fry fish populations directly, too, though scientists aren't yet sure how to predict the effects on the stuff we haul out of the ocean to eat; they do know that in acid waters, oysters and mussels will struggle to grow their shells, and that when the pH of human blood drops as much as the oceans' pH has over the past generation, it induces seizures, comas, and sudden death. That isn't all that ocean acidification can do. Carbon absorption can initiate a feedback loop in which underoxygenated waters breed different kinds of microbes that turn the water still more "anoxic," first in deep ocean "dead zones," then gradually up toward the surface. There, the small fish die out, unable to breathe, which means oxygen- eating bacteria thrive, and the feedback loop doubles back. This process, in which dead zones grow like cancers, choking off marine life and wiping out fisheries, is already quite advanced in parts of the Gulf of Mexico and just off Namibia, where hydrogen sulfide is bubbling out of the sea along a thousand -mile stretch of land known as the "Skeleton Coast." The name originally referred to the detritus of the whaling industry, but today it's more apt than ever. Hydrogen sulfide is so toxic that evolution has trained us to recognize the tiniest, safest traces of it, which is why our noses are so exquisitely skilled at registering flatulence. Hydrogen sulfide is also the thing that finally did us in that time 97 percent of all life on Earth died, once all the feedback loops had been triggered and the circulating jet streams of a warmed ocean ground to a halt — it's the planet's preferred gas for a natural holocaust. Gradually, the ocean's dead zones spread, killing off marine species that had dominated the oceans for hundreds of millions of years, and the gas the inert waters gave off into the atmosphere poisoned everything on land. Plants, too. It was millions of years before the oceans recovered. IX. The Great Filter Our present eeriness cannot last So why can't we see it? In his recent book - length essay Thc. G;caat De>rangetnemr, the Indian novelist Amitav Ghosh wonders why global warming and natural disaster haven't become major subjects of contemporary fiction —why we don't seem able to imagine climate catastrophe, and why we haven't yet had a spate of novels in the genre he basically imagines into half- existence and names "the environmental uncanny.' "Consider, for example, the stories that congeal around questions like, 'Where were you when the Berlin Wall fell ?' or'Where were you on 9/11?"' he writes. "Will it ever be possible to ask, in the same vein, 'Where were you at 400 ppm ?' or'Where were you when the Larsen B ice shelf broke up?'" His answer: Probably not, because the dilemmas and dramas of climate change are simply incompatible with the kinds of stories we tell ourselves about ourselves, especially in novels, which tend to emphasize the journey of an individual conscience rather than the poisonous miasma of social fate. Surely this blindness will not last —the world we are about to inhabit will not permit it. In a six - degree - warmer world, the Earth's ecosystem will boil with so many natural disasters that we will just start calling them "weather ": a constant swarm of out -of- control typhoons and tornadoes and floods and droughts, the planet assaulted regularly with climate events that not so long ago destroyed whole civilizations. The strongest hurricanes will come more often, and we'll have to invent new categories with which to describe them; tornadoes will grow longer and wider and strike much more frequently, and hail rocks will quadruple in size. Humans used to watch the weather to prophesy the future; going forward, we will see in its wrath the vengeance of the past. Early naturalists talked often about "deep time" — the perception they had, contemplating the grandeur of this valley or that rock basin, of the profound slowness of nature. What lies in store for us is more like what the Victorian anthropologists identified as "dreamtime," or "everywhen ": the semi - mythical experience, described by Aboriginal Australians, of encountering, in the present moment, an out -of- time past, when ancestors, heroes, and demigods crowded an epic stage. You can find it already watching footage of an iceberg collapsing into the sea — a feeling of history happening all at once. It is. Many people perceive climate change as a sort of moral and economic debt, accumulated since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and now come due after several centuries — a helpful perspective, in a way, since it is the carbon - burning processes that began in 18th- century England that lit the fuse of everything that followed. But more than half of the carbon humanity has exhaled into the atmosphere in its entire history has been emitted in just the past three decades; since the end of World War Il, the figure is 85 percent. Which means that, in the length of a single generation, global warming has brought us to the brink of planetary catastrophe, and that the story of the industrial world's kamikaze mission is also the story of a single lifetime. My father's, for instance: born in 1938, among his first memories the news of Pearl Harbor and the mythic Air Force of the propaganda films that followed, films that doubled as advertisements for imperial- American industrial might; and among his last memories the coverage of the desperate signing of the Paris climate accords on cable news, ten weeks before he died of lung cancer last July. Or my mother's: born in 1945, to German Jews fleeing the smokestacks through which their relatives were incinerated, now enjoying her 72nd year in an American commodity paradise, a paradise supported by the supply chains of an industrialized developing world. She has been smoking for 57 of those years, unfiltered. Or the scientists'. Some of the men who first identified a changing climate (and given the generation, those who became famous were men) are still alive; a few are even still working. Wally Broecker is 84 years old and drives to work at the Lamont - Doherty Earth Observatory across the Hudson every day from the Upper West Side. Like most of those who first raised the alarm, he believes that no amount of emissions reduction alone can meaningfully help avoid disaster. Instead, he puts his faith in carbon capture — untested technology to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which Broecker estimates will cost at least several trillion dollars — and various forms of "geoengineering," the catchall name for a variety of moon- shot technologies far - fetched enough that many climate scientists prefer to regard them as dreams, or nightmares, from science fiction. He is especially focused on what's called the aerosol approach — dispersing so much sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere that when it converts to sulfuric acid, it will cloud a fifth of the horizon and reflect back 2 percent of the sun's rays, buying the planet at least a little wiggle room, heat -wise. "Of course, that would make our sunsets very red, would bleach the sky, would make more acid rain,' he says. "But you have to look at the magnitude of the problem. You got to watch that you don't say the giant problem shouldn't be solved because the solution causes some smaller problems." He won't be around to see that, he told me. 'But in your lifetime ..." Jim Hansen is another member of this godfather generation. Born in 1941, he became a climatologist at the University of Iowa, developed the groundbreaking "Zero Model" for projecting climate change, and later became the head of climate research at NASA, only to leave under pressure when, while still a federal employee, he filed a lawsuit against the federal government charging inaction on warming (along the way he got arrested a few times for protesting, too). The lawsuit, which is brought by a collective called Our Children's Trust and is often described as "kids versus climate change,' is built on an appeal to the equal - protection clause, namely, that in failing to take action on warming, the government is violating it by imposing massive costs on future generations; it is scheduled to be heard this winter in Oregon district court. Hansen has recently given up on solving the climate problem with a carbon tax alone, which had been his preferred approach, and has set about calculating the total cost of the additional measure of extracting carbon from the atmosphere. Hansen began his career studying Venus, which was once a very Earth -like planet with plenty of life- supporting water before runaway climate change rapidly transformed it into an arid and uninhabitable sphere enveloped in an unbreathable gas; he switched to studying our planet by 30, wondering why he should be squinting across the solar system to explore rapid environmental change when he could see it all around him on the planet he was standing on. "When we wrote our first paper on this, in 1981," he told me, "I remember saying to one of my co- authors, 'This is going to be very interesting. Sometime during our careers, we're going to see these things beginning to happen."' Several of the scientists I spoke with proposed global warming as the solution to Fermi's famous paradox, which asks, If the universe is so big, then why haven't we encountered any other intelligent life in it? The answer, they suggested, is that the natural life span of a civilization may be only several thousand years, and the life span of an industrial civilization perhaps only several hundred. In a universe that is many billions of years old, with star systems separated as much by time as by space, civilizations might emerge and develop and burn themselves up simply too fast to ever find one another, Peter Ward, a charismatic paleontologist among those responsible for discovering that the planet's mass extinctions were caused by greenhouse gas, calls this the "Great Filter ": "Civilizations rise, but there's an environmental filter that causes them to die off again and disappear fairly quickly," he told me. "If you look at planet Earth, the filtering we've had in the past has been in these mass extinctions." The mass extinction we are now living through has only just begun; so much more dying is coming. And yet, improbably, Ward is an optimist. So are Broecker and Hansen and many of the other scientists I spoke to. We have not developed much of a religion of meaning around climate change that might comfort us, or give us purpose, in the face of possible annihilation. But climate scientists have a strange kind of faith: We will find a way to forestall radical warming, they say, because we must. It is not easy to know how much to be reassured by that bleak certainty, and how much to wonder whether it is another form of delusion; for global warming to work as parable, of course, someone needs to survive to tell the story. The scientists know that to even meet the Paris goals, by 2050, carbon emissions from energy and industry, which are still rising, will have to fall by half each decade; emissions from land use (deforestation, cow farts, etc.) will have to zero out; and we will need to have invented technologies to extract, annually, twice as much carbon from the atmosphere as the entire planet's plants now do. Nevertheless, by and large, the scientists have an enormous confidence in the ingenuity of humans — a confidence perhaps bolstered by their appreciation for climate change, which is, after all, a human invention, too. They point to the Apollo project, the hole in the ozone we patched in the 1980s, the passing of the fear of mutually assured destruction. Now we've found a way to engineer our own doomsday, and surely we will find a way to engineer our way out of it, one way or another. The planet is not used to being provoked like this, and climate systems designed to give feedback over centuries or millennia prevent us — even those who may be watching closely —from fully imagining the damage done already to the planet. But when we do truly see the world we've made, they say, we will also find a way to make it livable. For them, the alternative is simply unimaginable. *This article appears in the July 10, 2017, issue of New York Magazine. *This article has been updated to provide context for the recent news reports about revisions to a satellite data set, to more accurately reflect the rate of warming during the Paleocene – Eocene Thermal Maximum, to clarify a reference to Peter Brannen's The Ends of the World, and to make clear that James Hansen still supports a carbon -tax based approach to emissions. Rehaed The Uninhabitable Earth, Annotated Edition CONNECT: 2017, New York Media LLC.