**5. Conclusions**

This framework is intended for widespread application and accumulation of results for many vegetation types. The summary spatial units chosen, including 100 km<sup>2</sup> hexagons and ecoregion units, appear to be practical for this purpose. Some of the input raster layers (30–800 m pixel resolution) are also quite useful for subsequent application to decision making.

These outputs are also compatible with e fforts to gauge the range-wide conservation status or risk of range-wide ecosystem collapse. For example, under the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems framework [52,53], Criterion C3 addresses environmental degradation over a 50-year timeframe including the current time period where degradation is expressed in terms of relative proportional extent of and ecosystem type a ffected at varying levels of relative severity. Since our results can express relative severity (i.e., very high–low climate change vulnerability) in 100 km<sup>2</sup> increments across the range-wide extent of the type, they could apply directly to measuring C3 for red listing.

We believe that the framework illustrated provides a practical basis for accumulating spatially explicit scores for climate change vulnerability of major vegetation types. It also includes su fficient specificity to inform adaptive managemen<sup>t</sup> responses. Continued investment in this type of analysis, encompassing more types and across national and international scales, should yield benefits to natural resource managers and conservation practitioners as they navigate the challenges posed by climate change over the upcoming decades.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following are available online at https://databasin.org/galleries/ 6704179ca499490bafd2e9080df1908a.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, P.J.C. and H.H.H.; Data curation, J.C.H., S.L.A. and R.L.S.; Formal analysis, P.J.C., J.C.H., S.L.A. and M.M.K.; Funding acquisition, P.J.C. and H.H.H.; Investigation, P.J.C., J.C.H., M.S.R., S.L.A. and K.A.S.; Methodology, P.J.C., J.C.H., M.S.R., S.L.A., H.H.H. and M.M.K.; Project administration, P.J.C. and M.S.R.; Software, J.C.H. and S.L.A.; Supervision, H.H.H.; Validation, P.J.C., J.C.H., S.L.A., R.L.S. and M.M.K.; Visualization, P.J.C., M.S.R., S.L.A., H.H.H., R.L.S. and M.M.K.; Writing—original draft, P.J.C.; Writing—review & editing, J.C.H., S.L.A., H.H.H. and M.M.K.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the USDOI Bureau of Land Management, cooperative agreemen<sup>t</sup> number L13AC00243.

**Acknowledgments:** We wish to acknowledge the support of U.S. Department of Interior agencies, primarily the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who have provided resources for this research. Numerous experts have provided review and insights throughout the design of this method and its implementation. Geoff Hammerson conducted climate change vulnerability assessments for animal species involved in this research. Patrick McIntyre provided technical interpretation for some vegetation types, and Don Faber-Langendoen provided editorial review. Mary Harkness and Kristin Snow provided essential support for database design and management.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

#### **Appendix A. Methods Detail for Resilience Measures**

Individual measures for resilience were applied to each type. This appendix provides detailed explanation of procedures used for each measurement.
