[Senate Hearing 111-239]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-239
IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
TO NATIONAL PARKS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE CURRENT AND EXPECTED IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
ON UNITS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
__________
OCTOBER 28, 2009
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-563 PDF WASHINGTON: 2010
________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
(202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
MARK UDALL, Colorado Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana BOB CORKER, Tennessee
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator From North Carolina............. 2
Jarvis, Jonathan B., Director, National Park Service, Department
of the Interior................................................ 3
McMahan, Iliff, Jr., Mayor, Cocke County, Newport, TN............ 25
Noss, Reed F., Ph.D., Davis-Shine Professor of Conservation
Biology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL............ 29
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado..................... 1
Williams, Steven, Ph.D., President, Wildlife Management
Institute, Gardners, PA........................................ 19
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 41
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 43
IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
TO NATIONAL PARKS
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
COLORADO
Senator Udall. The Subcommittee on National Parks will come
to order.
Good afternoon. Welcome to all of you. This is a hearing I
have been looking forward to holding for a number of months.
I want to start with an opening statement. I will turn to
the ranking member for his opening statement, and then we will
turn to the Director of the National Park Service for his
comments.
The purpose of today's hearing is to consider the impacts
of climate change on the National Park System. Understanding
the challenges of climate change and how they are affecting the
National Park Service is an issue that is important to me and
certainly is one of the major management challenges facing the
National Park Service.
Last August, the subcommittee held a hearing in Estes Park,
Colorado to better understand the impacts of climate change on
national parks in Colorado. I was pleased that Senator McCain
was able to join me at that hearing, and we had a very good
discussion on the climate-related challenges facing Rocky
Mountain National Park and other parks in Colorado. I hope to
use today's hearing to continue to build upon that discussion
by broadening the scope to look at climate-related impacts to
all units of the National Park System throughout the country.
The recent Ken Burns' PBS documentary on national parks
reminded millions of Americans of the incredible and varied
resources that are conserved and protected in the National Park
System. As the documentary showed, it took incredible vision to
set aside these lands during a period of development,
expansion, and growth in our country. Despite the challenges
that were overcome to protect these areas, they now face new
threats to their long-term viability, and I am not sure of any
long-term management issue more significant than climate
change.
The climate issue is unique in that it is sweeping and
unprecedented in scope. While many of our parks are relatively
pristine, they are not immune to the rising temperatures that
threaten fish and wildlife habitat, the increase in invasive
species that displace native plant life, and the loss of
irreplaceable artifacts and archeology that may be submerged
with rising sea levels. While climate impacts can vary across
individual regions and landscapes, it is likely that many parks
will see drier summers, fewer snowfalls, and more intense
wildfires. Temperatures are expected to rise most dramatically
in higher latitudes, affecting high alpine ecosystems and
habitat.
To a large degree, our Nation's parks are the canary in the
coal mine when it comes to the on-the-ground changes due to the
impacts of a warming climate. These impacts are real,
significant, and can have lasting effects on these resources
and our ability to protect them.
Senator McCain and I took a brief tour of Rocky Mountain
National Park before the August hearing to look at places where
climate change impacts are occurring. Unfortunately, the sorts
of things we saw--such as trees killed by a bark beetle
epidemic that has been exacerbated by a warming climate--are
being felt throughout the National Park System.
As an avid park supporter, I want to ensure that our
national treasures are understood and protected for generations
of Americans to come. I am looking forward to learning about
the impacts and the challenges we face in managing the park
system in light of the challenges posed by climate change.
As I mentioned earlier, in a few minutes we will hear from
the new Director--congratulations again, Director Jarvis--of
the National Park Service who has a long history of working on
this issue, and we also have a distinguished panel of
witnesses, each of whom brings a unique perspective to this
issue.
At this time, I would like to recognize my friend and the
ranking member of the subcommittee, the Senator from North
Carolina, Mr. Burr.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
Mr. Jarvis, I welcome you, as I will our other panelists.
I want to thank you for holding this subcommittee hearing.
It has been about 3 months since we have had the opportunity to
have a hearing and address the issue of the changing climate as
it relates to our national parks.
Our parks provide Americans with an excellent source of
solitude, wilderness, and a glimpse in our Nation's history. I
agree with you, the PBS special that was run--I have contacted
PBS and asked that 99 copies be delivered to other members'
offices so that those that did not have an opportunity to see
it will have that opportunity.
We must be good stewards of these national treasures so
that they are preserved for the enjoyment of future
generations.
I also hope that my colleagues, both sides of the Congress,
will allow science and science alone to drive our policies in
the future and, more importantly, our investments as it relates
to the efforts on climate change.
I look forward to the witnesses today, what they provide as
a snapshot at this point in time. I believe that policy of this
significance is snapshots over a continual period of time as we
see changes that we might not have anticipated or changes that
alter what in fact we anticipated.
I also look forward to hearing from the director today
specifically on how climate affects our parks, and we might
sneak in some other questions since he has come into this
position.
I also want to thank the chairman for the time he has
provided.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Burr.
Without further ado, let us move to Director Jarvis. Again,
welcome. It is a treat to have you here and we look forward to
your testimony. then we will direct some questions your way
when you are finished.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN B. JARVIS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, members of the
committee. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to come to
this body and speak on this major issue of climate change.
For nearly a century, the National Park Service has been
charged with managing the parks, as mandated by the Organic Act
of 1916. In that history, as well articulated by Mr. Burns, we
have faced a lot of challenges, but the challenge of climate
change is probably one of our greatest. It is a challenge to
maintaining America's natural and cultural heritage unimpaired
for future generations.
Secretary Salazar has prioritized the issue of climate
change within the Department of the Interior and recently
issued a secretarial order on September 14, 2009, establishing
a climate change strategy to integrate the work of the various
Department of the Interior bureaus to mitigate and adapt to the
effects that we are already seeing and those that we anticipate
from climate change.
The National Park Service's climate change strategy will
complement the secretarial order by developing a focus on sort
of three areas. Collaboration at the landscape scale, amongst
all of the bureaus, particularly to derive appropriate
scientific information and to develop adaptation strategies.
There will be a mitigation strategy as well that is developed
through and incorporated into all of our planning processes and
a communications strategy that relates to both communication
internally and with the public about the climate change effects
that we are seeing.
The management implications for protecting species,
biological communities, our visitor facilities, and cultural
resources within park boundaries in a rapidly changing climate
are very complex and frankly without precedent. We are already
documenting accelerated melting of mountain glaciers in places
like Glacier National Park and the North Cascades and reduced
snowpacks and changing in the timing of stream flows that
affect terrestrial and aquatic communities in our mountain
parks. These have direct effects on species such as wolverine
and lynx which depend on winter snow and icepacks.
The coastal parks are already seeing changes to their
shorelines and their boundaries and expect even greater as sea
levels rise. Marine ecosystems already show signs of coral
bleaching and disease caused by increased sea surface
temperatures that have resulted in the loss of more than 50
percent of the reef-building corals in the Virgin Island parks
since 2005.
Fire ignitions are occurring both earlier and later in the
seasons and now fires in some places have increased in both
frequency and intensity, changing native and animal plant
communities and contributing to the spread of exotic species.
Cultural resources are often, I think, forgotten in this
process are also going to be affected by sea level rise and
climate change. For instance, archeological sites and historic
structures are being already damaged by these effects at Fort
Jefferson, Dry Tortugas, and at Jamestown in Colonial National
Historic Park.
As I mentioned, we are developing a strategic framework
that I will detail briefly but am open to any questions in
terms of mitigation, adaptation, and communication.
First in the area of mitigation, the NPS is leading by
example by reducing our own park carbon footprint and promoting
sustainable operational practices. We have set a goal in the
National Park Service to exceed the Federal requirements for
reducing total energy use in NPS operations, and we have
established very specific goals to reach by 2016, which is the
100th anniversary of the National Park System. We want to
establish a leadership role in sustainability and meeting and
exceeding the Department of the Interior greenhouse gas
emission goals. We already have programs like the Climate
Friendly Parks Program and the Energy SmartPARKS Program as key
ways that NPS can use to reduce greenhouse gases through
emission inventories, climate action planning, energy
conservation, and renewable energy.
There are already activities in these fields. In the
Pacific West, where I was the regional director for the last 7
years, we have heavily implemented the Climate Friendly Parks
Program and we are now generating over 4 percent of our own
energy from renewables.
Today the U.S. Department of Energy is honoring two NPS
facilities in their annual Federal Energy and Water Management
Awards, one of which is the visitors center at Lassen Volcanic
National Park which is receiving an award for achieving the
leadership in energy and environmental design, or LEED,
certification at platinum. That is the highest level that can
be achieved. This is the first year-around visitor center in
the National Park System to achieve a LEED platinum. It is also
the first Federal building in the State of California to
achieve LEED platinum. The Blue Ridge Parkway Destination
Center, which opened in 2007, achieved a LEED certification of
gold for its green roofing and low-flow plumbing.
So all of these kinds of efforts are great because they
reduce our footprint, but they are also opportunities to
demonstrate sustainability to the public.
We have 84 photovoltaic solar panels now operational on and
around the Grand Canyon visitor center, which reduces 30
percent of their energy demand for that facility.
The second piece is adaptation, and in this case the broad
impacts of climate change require us to begin to think and act
at the landscape scale. The NPS will fully participate in the
Department of the Interior-proposed landscape conservation
cooperatives and the regional climate change response centers
that will include partners like universities, tribes, States,
other Federal agencies, private landholders, and all the other
partners out there that have a stake in the changes that we are
going to see at the landscape scale.
These are integral to providing the key scientific and
technical support to managers and to partners for developing
and implementing conservation strategies at the landscape
scale. We hope to use new technologies and new strategies to
help our parks be more resilient to the changes we expect to
see.
The third leg of the stool is communication. With 275
million visitors to our national parks annually, we can serve
as models of sustainability, adaptation, and as platforms to
effectively communicate information about the effects of
climate change. Information that parks provide can be a
catalyst for visitors to do their own part to assist in energy
conservation and the effects of climate.
The National Park Service, in conjunction with other
Federal agencies, has developed a Climate Change, Wildlife and
Wildlands Toolkit that interpreters in parks, zoos, aquariums,
science centers, and outdoor classrooms across the country can
use to help us talk about climate change.
We are also in parks making climate change information
available through brochures, wayside exhibits, interpretive
programs, and handouts. Information is also available on our
Web site.
This administration has embarked on an ambitious and much-
needed strategy to reduce the generation of greenhouse gases
and our dependence on foreign oil. The National Park Service
supports this effort and is committed to working with
Department of the Interior and other agencies to ensure that
this is done in a way that protects our national parks and our
natural and cultural heritage.
Renewable energy development is not without its
environmental impacts. We must make sure that these are the
right projects, they are being permitted in the right
locations, and they are done in the right way. The National
Park Service is committed to engaging actively with all the
agencies that are involved in this for proposed renewable
energy projects near or adjacent to national parks.
In conclusion, our efforts to date are significant but
there is much work to be done. Our actions will require
involving interagency and intra-agency cooperation and
leadership to build on the collective knowledge and to create
solutions for protecting resources and resource values and
providing for appropriate visitor enjoyment. Parks are
reference markers upon which we can measure the effects of
climate change. So one of our most precious values is our
ability to teach us about ourselves and how we relate to the
natural world. This important role may prove invaluable in the
near future as we strive to understand and adapt to a changing
climate.
Thank you for this opportunity to present this testimony,
and I am ready for any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan B. Jarvis, Director, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony on the impacts of climate change to
National Parks. For nearly a century, the National Park Service (NPS)
has been charged with managing the parks within the breadth and
complexity of our mission as mandated by the Organic Act of 1916. While
the NPS has faced daunting challenges to effective natural and cultural
resource management since its inception, park managers are currently
facing an increasing array of dynamic issues and unprecedented
challenges, more than any encountered in the history of the National
Park System. Climate change is our newest, greatest challenge to
maintaining America's natural and cultural heritage unimpaired for
future generations.
Secretary Salazar has prioritized the issue of climate change
within the Department of the Interior (DOI). Secretarial Order No. 3289
of September 14, 2009, established a climate change strategy to
integrate the work of each DOI bureau to mitigate and adapt to the
effects of climate change in the pursuit of their respective missions.
Recently, DOI met with Congressional staff to describe this new
approach to climate change adaptation and mitigation activities.
The NPS Climate Change Strategy will complement the Secretarial
Order. We are holding scenario planning workshops, assessing the
vulnerability of facilities and cultural and natural resources,
acquiring data and implementing a climate friendly parks program. Our
climate change response steering committee is developing a strategic
plan that will be presented to me and my NPS National Leadership
Council. This plan will include action items for responding to the
Secretarial Order and will focus on collaboration at the regional and
landscape level to develop scientific information and adaptation
strategies; mitigate greenhouse gases; incorporate climate change into
park planning processes; and communicate internally and with the public
about climate change issues.
The National Park Service Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units,
Research Learning Centers, and Inventory and Monitoring networks have
been designed to link science to management issues and they will be
tapped to ensure that NPS needs and interests are addressed through the
Regional Climate Change Response Centers and Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives. Finally, with respect to the mitigation elements of the
Secretarial Order, the NPS has taken a leadership role through the
Climate Friendly Parks Program.
Since implementation of the Natural Resource Challenge nearly a
decade ago, the NPS has been increasing its science capacity and the
professional expertise of natural resource managers. However, there is
still much to be done. Earlier this month, I announced the appointment
of our first ever science advisor to the director. This new and
important position will help build on existing NPS science programs and
advance the role of science within our bureau as we meet the challenges
and opportunities of the 21st century.
DOI and NPS are rising to this challenge, and today my testimony
will focus on our observations of the effects and potential future
changes related to climate change in national park units. I will also
discuss the NPS actions and programs underway that will prepare us for
the current and anticipated impacts from climate change.
the effects of climate change in national park units
In October 2009, the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and the
Natural Resource Defense Council published a report entitled National
Parks in Peril. The Threats of Climate Disruption. The report cited
human disruption of climate as the ``greatest threat ever to our
national parks'' and identified eleven types of risks our parks are
facing. These risks include loss of ice and snow; loss of water; higher
seas and stronger coastal storms; more downpours and flooding; loss of
plant communities; loss of wildlife; loss of historical and cultural
resources; intolerable heat; loss of fishing; and more air pollution.
This report shows broad public concern over the impacts of climate
change to parks.
We have documented accelerated melting of mountain glaciers in
national parks such as Glacier and North Cascades, disappearance of
perennial snowfields in Alaska parks, reduced snowpacks and changes in
the timing and amount of stream flow that affect terrestrial and
aquatic communities in mountain parks. These impacts not only affect
recreational opportunities including cross-country skiing and fishing,
but the very species that depend upon winter snow and icepacks such as
the ice worm, wolverine, and lynx.
Alaskan parks are seeing some of the earliest impacts of possible
climate change--melting sea ice threatens marine mammals as well as
coastal communities, thawing permafrost destabilizes buildings, roads,
and other facilities. Parks such as Yosemite and Great Basin are seeing
high-elevation species, such as the alpine chipmunk, moving upslope,
thereby reducing the effective area for their survival as well as those
species that prey upon them. (Moritz et. al. 2008)
Coastal parks are a central concern. The NPS manages 74 coastal
units encompassing more than 5,100 miles of coast and three million
acres of submerged resources including beaches, wetlands, estuaries,
coral reefs, and kelp forests. These parks attract more than 75 million
visitors every year, and generate over $2.5 billion in economic
benefits to local communities. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program
Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1 on Coastal Sensitivity to Sea
Level Rise (2009) states:
Critical coastal ecosystems such as wetlands, estuaries, and
coral reefs are particularly vulnerable to climate change. Such
ecosystems are among the most biologically productive
environments in the world.
Park coastal ecosystems are significant habitats for the production
and health of recreationally and commercially valuable fish and
shellfish; they provide important ecosystem services, and offer
beautiful landscapes for marine recreation and wildlife watching. The
U.S. government's recently-released landmark report, Climate Change
Impacts in the United States (2009), identifies a variety of changes
these ecosystems are forecast to undergo. Such changes in a park
context may include shoreline and park boundary changes as sea level
rises. Already observed changes in marine ecosystems include coral
bleaching and disease caused by increased sea surface temperatures that
have led to the loss of more than 50 percent of reef-building corals in
the Virgin Islands park units since 2005 (IPCC 2007, Hoegh-Guldberg
1999, Buddemeier 2004).
NPS data indicate that fire ignitions are occurring both earlier
and later in the season now and the average duration of time that a
wildfire burns has increased from less than 10 days to more than a
month. Fires in some places may be increasing in both frequency and
intensity, changing native plant and animal communities and
contributing to the spread of invasive exotic species (Westerling et
al. 2006). Wildland fire frequency and intensity also are impacting
cultural resources, as hotter fires and our efforts to fight them
directly damage both surficial and buried archeological sites.
Because the amount of precipitation stored as snowpack is expected
to decrease and annual snowmelt is expected to commence earlier in the
spring in mountain states such as Colorado, the overall expected effect
will be decreasing volume of water available annually for storage in
Colorado River basin reservoirs (IPCC 2007). It is also thought that
there will be increased year-to-year variability in basin hydrologic
conditions and decreased certainty as to the amount of annual water
production (Guido 2008 and Knowles et al 2006). Given these expected
changes and the present allocation of Colorado River Basin water
resources and the ever-increasing demand for water in the southwest,
the expected changes will present challenges to both water and park
resource managers.
While some impacts from climate change are already measurable, the
long-range effects of climate disruption on park natural and cultural
resources, developed infrastructure, and visitor experience are just
beginning to be understood. The management implications for protecting
species, biological communities, and physical resources within finite
land management boundaries in a rapidly changing climate are complex
and without precedent.
Cultural resources are also expected to be significantly affected
by climate change. For example, rising water levels are already
damaging archeological sites, historic structures, and cultural
landscapes such as Fort Jefferson in Dry Tortugas National Park
(Florida), Jamestown in Colonial National Historical Park (Virginia),
and Ellis Island National Monument and the Statue of Liberty National
Monument in Upper New York Bay. Sea level rise and storms threaten the
tangible remains of some of the earliest human occupation sites, dating
back over 10,000 years, along the west coast, as well as associated
Native American burial grounds at places like Channel Islands National
Park and ancient shell middens at George Washington's Birthplace
National Monument and on the coast of Everglades National Park.
Decreasing lake levels expose vulnerable archeological resources and
critical park infrastructure in places like Lake Mead National
Recreation Area. Our nation's maritime history, including lighthouses
from Massachusetts to Oregon, historic forts including Fort Jefferson
and Fort Sumter, and historic coastal communities also face accelerated
erosion from rising seas and more intense storm surges.
The focus of the climate change discussion has largely shifted from
the evidence that climate change is occurring to what we can do about
it. As stewards of our nation's natural and cultural heritage, we have
an obligation to act now.
current climate change actions and programs
To effectively respond to climate change challenges to parks, NPS
is working with DOI to undertake a collective and coordinated strategy
that builds upon and expands existing partnerships such as those
between NPS, other bureaus, and non-governmental stakeholders. Building
the capacity to respond to climate change will involve identifying,
linking, prioritizing, and implementing a range of short and long-term
activities. NPS's ability to work cooperatively with other federal
agencies, states, local agencies and the public to address the
cumulative impacts of climate change on park natural resources was
greatly improved with the passage of section 301 of the Consolidated
Natural Resources Act of 2008, which authorizes NPS to spend
appropriated funds cooperatively on work conducted outside park
boundaries for the purpose of protecting park natural resources.
The NPS now is developing a strategic framework for action that
will detail short and long-term actions in three major areas:
mitigation, adaptation, and communication. The framework will address
park, regional and national-level needs and concerns by incorporating
actions to address the core elements associated with proactive climate
change impact management--Legal and Policy; Planning; Science; Resource
Stewardship; Greenhouse Gas Emission and Sustainable Operations; and
Communication.
Some of our key actions to date include:
Initiating the Climate Friendly Parks Program in 2003 in
conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency. The
program promotes sustainable operations in parks and creates
park climate action plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
It now involves almost 60 parks.
Utilizing Environmental Management System Plans to track and
reduce park environmental impacts and set targets for
sustainable park operations.
Hosting or participating in a series of regional and
interagency workshops to explore climate change impacts and
coping strategies over the past three years.
Adopting an Ocean Park Stewardship Action Plan in 2006 to
guide actions to address ocean-related climate change impacts.
Forming a service-wide Climate Change Response Steering
Committee to foster communications, provide recommendations,
and serve as an advisory body to NPS leadership.
Successful park approaches to mitigating climate change impacts
require the very best science, including physical, biological, social,
and cultural disciplines. Since 1999, NPS has used strategically placed
Research Learning Centers throughout the country, in addition to the
Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESU) Network to collaborate with
leading research institutions, including universities, NGOs and State
and federal partners, to provide the necessary science for informing
sustainable adaptive management of park resources. The 17 CESUs in the
network cover all regions of the country, with a total of 250 partners
including 13 federal agencies. The program has been highly successful
in producing cutting edge collaborative research and providing
technical assistance and capacity building for the NPS, State and local
agencies, and other federal and non-governmental partners.
looking to the future--mitigation, adaptation, communication
While efforts to date are significant, much work lies ahead to
address climate change impacts on park resources and visitor enjoyment
and to respond strategically to those impacts in ways that are
compatible with park purposes and values. Our actions will necessarily
involve strong intra-and interagency cooperation and leadership to
build on collective knowledge and to create new solutions for
protecting resources and resource values and providing for appropriate
enjoyment.
mitigation--leading by example
In the area of mitigation, the NPS is leading by example by
reducing park carbon footprints and promoting sustainable operational
practices. The NPS has set a goal to significantly exceed the federal
requirements for reducing total energy use in NPS operations and having
a portion of park energy come from renewables by 2016, the 100th year
anniversary of the establishment of the National Park Service. We also
look forward to taking a leadership role in meeting or exceeding the
DOI greenhouse gas emission reduction goals developed in response to
Executive Order 13514 on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy,
and Economic Performance issued October 5, 2009.
The Climate Friendly Parks Program and the Energy SmartPARKS
Program are two of the key ways that NPS is mitigating greenhouse gases
through these areas of emphasis:
Emissions Inventories: Parks quantify and track their
emissions and identify specific areas where reductions can be
most readily achieved.
Climate Action Planning: Parks use the Climate Leadership in
Parks (CLIP) tool to identify carbon reduction goals and
actions to follow through on these goals. Almost sixty parks
are now in the process of completing these plans.
Energy Conservation: Significant portions of greenhouse gas
emissions in parks come from transportation, energy consumption
in buildings, and waste management. Mitigation solutions
include sustainable design and construction, adaptive ``green''
reuse of historic structures, use of high-mileage and
alternative-fuel vehicles, solid waste reduction, and
alternative transportation systems that integrate all modes of
travel within a park, including land and water-based vehicles.
Renewable Energy: An increasing number of parks are
generating energy from renewable sources, such as photovoltaic
systems and geothermal heat exchangers. The Energy SmartPARKS
program is a partnership with the Department of Energy that is
focusing on generating renewable energy and showcasing
sustainable energy practices in parks. Currently, NPS-wide,
3.8% of energy in parks comes from renewable sources.
NPS regions are also moving forward with their own climate change
initiatives. For example, the Pacific West Region (PWR) has a very
ambitious Climate Change Leadership Initiative that promotes Climate
Friendly Parks. The overall objective is to support Executive Order
13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation
Management, by setting greenhouse gas targets. The 58 parks in the
region have set a target of becoming carbon neutral for park operations
by 2016 and now generate over 4% of their energy from renewable
sources.
safeguarding and protecting park resources, structures, and uses--
adaptation planning and implementation
While mitigating the causes of climate change is essential, parks
must plan now for adapting to the resource and visitor use impacts of
climate change. Worldwide, national parks and protected areas represent
the core areas, refugia, and often, habitat and source populations for
species which disperse nationally and internationally.
Within North America, declines in native species populations and
their ability to persist have been observed, and climate change and
habitat loss and fragmentation are among the factors contributing to
these declines. Over 800 animal species that occur in national parks
migrate beyond boundaries through air, water, and over land. Because
animal species do not detect jurisdictional boundaries, the success of
recovery programs for imperiled or at-risk species often depends on
cooperation and collaboration among our nation's governmental agencies,
non-governmental organizations, private landowners, and the
international community.
Given the broad impacts of climate change, management responses to
such impacts must be coordinated on a landscape-level basis. Enhancing
scientific expertise within the Service will enable NPS to expand
formal relationships with partners outside park units who share our
concerns, and will foster development of cooperative projects to
further conservation of shared species and their habitats.
The NPS will fully participate with each of the DOI-proposed
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) and Regional Climate Change
Response Centers (RCC) including universities, tribes, states, federal
agencies and other partners and stakeholders. The LCCs and the Regional
Climate Change Response Centers are integral to climate adaptation
efforts, providing scientific and technical support to managers and
partnerships responsible for developing and implementing conservation
strategies at landscape scales in a changing climate. With these
partners and others, we will use new technologies and strategies in a
more unified approach to make parks key participants in continental
conservation.
For adaptation planning and implementation, our highest priority is
to support the ability of species, communities, and ecosystems to
respond to changing conditions. For example, changes in weather
patterns, water availability, and wildland fire will stimulate changes
in the distribution and abundance of plants, animals, and ecological
communities through both adaptation and migration. NPS actions to build
resilience and reduce other ecosystem stressors, especially the effects
of exotic species, will help to reduce the extent or intensity of some
of the most deleterious impacts on park resources from climate change.
NPS actions to restore currently degraded natural ecosystems can make
them more resilient to future effects of climate change. These types of
resource management activities are already occurring in national parks,
but will become increasingly important as park management priorities.
We need to intensify our exotic species control work and subsequent
ecosystem restoration by developing comprehensive resiliency strategies
for four initial focus areas: high altitude, high latitude, southwest
arid lands, and ocean ecosystems. Examples of our current activities
include the restoration of major ecosystems such as the Everglades; the
establishment of marine reserves in units of the National Park System;
removal of invasive exotic animals such as Burmese pythons, feral pigs,
and goats; and reduction of the abundance and impact of exotic plant
species.
A critical component for adaptation planning and implementation
involves continuing to build our long-term science information and
ecosystem monitoring (Vital Signs) capacities. The National Park System
represents a wide range of ecosystems scattered across the nation, and
therefore, embraces a broad spectrum of diverse natural environments.
Because of this diversity, parks present tremendous opportunities to
observe the effects of climate change on known resource conditions that
park scientists and managers have documented over decades.
The NPS Inventory and Monitoring program includes 32 networks
serving more than 270 parks, and data from this program are presently
being summarized and synthesized to better establish the current
condition of park resources and to provide a baseline against which to
better assess and understand future natural resource conditions.
Inventory and Monitoring networks are strategically positioned to help
parks acquire the information they need to make informed decisions, to
employ adaptive management, and to test alternative strategies for
adapting park resources and visitor uses to the effects of climate
change.
In addition to natural resource monitoring and condition
assessments, we conduct condition assessments of cultural resources and
ethnographic studies that include information on past and current
subsistence uses of park natural resources. Information from these
programs also informs state and other members of landscape-scale
partnerships and provides valuable site-specific information for use by
scientists looking at regional and national scale trends.
Although resource management planning for future decision-making
must be based on expectations of future conditions, in an era of
climate change, the future will be characterized by highly
consequential and unprecedented changes that cannot be forecast with as
much accuracy and precision as we would like. Consequently, during the
next ten years the NPS will utilize a scenario planning approach that
uses the best available science to explore a range of plausible
``multiple working futures'' and consider appropriate actions within
each of those possible futures, including changes in park zoning, the
landscaping of developed park areas with native rather than exotic
species, and the design or location of buildings and roads and
infrastructure. Scenario planning is being specifically designed to
help managers identify policies and actions that will be most effective
across a range of potential futures and to promote tactical adaptation
responses that are compatible with the NPS mission and contribute to
landscape-scale partnerships.
parks serve as models of sustainability and places to communicate
climate change information
There is a great need at this time to communicate the complexities
of climate change and the actions that can be taken. With 275 million
visits annually, the parks can serve as models of sustainability and
adaptation and as platforms to effectively communicate information
about the effects of climate change. Information that parks provide can
be a catalyst for visitors to do their part for climate friendly parks
and beyond.
NPS is instituting a number of efforts to communicate the effects
of climate change and its impacts to national parks. These include a
monthly web-based seminar series featuring climate change experts on
science, communication, and management topics. They also include
interpretive training using a decision-tree for developing knowledge
around individual aspects of climate change that will help park rangers
to frame interpretive programs and answer visitor questions. The NPS,
in conjunction with other federal agencies, has developed a ``Climate
Change, Wildlife and Wildlands Toolkit'' that interpreters in parks,
zoos, aquariums, science centers and outdoor and classroom educators
across the country may use to talk about climate change. In addition,
NPS in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service together are
creating summaries of climate change knowledge for specific
bioregions--a series of 11 bioregional documents envisioned to date--to
summarize the current state of knowledge about climate change and
impacts to protected areas in those bioregions, with a focus on
national parks and refuges.
Looking forward, the NPS has a goal of every park having climate
change information available through brochures, wayside exhibits,
interpretive programs and handouts, and park websites. The Climate
Friendly Parks Program has encouraged achieving this goal, and many
parks, including Point Reyes National Seashore, Glacier National Park,
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Everglades National Park, Dry
Tortugas National Park, and Kenai Fjords National Park, make climate
change information readily available to the public. The NPS is
currently developing and supporting a new and exciting ``Visitor--Do
Your Part Program'' which will have visitors voluntarily measure and
reduce their own carbon footprints. In addition, NPS also is exploring
ways to utilize its national preservation programs, such as
Preservation Assistance and the National Center for Preservation
Technology, to develop and disseminate information on sustainability,
historic preservation, and guidance for adaptive reuse of historic
buildings.
meeting our nation's renewable energy goals while protecting treasured
landscapes
The Administration has embarked on an ambitious and much needed
strategy to reduce the generation of greenhouse gases and our national
dependence on foreign oil in a way that safeguards our environment. As
part of that strategy, the Secretary has set specific goals for
generating renewable energy from the public lands and the outer
continental shelf, including solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and
hydroelectric projects. The Secretary has committed to fast tracking
the compliance and the development of corridors to carry this energy to
the areas of greatest demand. He also has made clear that he is
committed to doing so in a manner that protects the environment,
including our treasured landscapes.
The NPS supports this effort, and is committed to working with DOI
and others to ensure that the siting and permitting of renewable energy
development, including energy transmission and needed ancillary
facilities, is done in a way that protects our natural and cultural
heritage. We definitely need to be ``smart from the start.'' Renewable
energy development is not without its environmental impacts. We must be
sure that the right projects are being permitted in the right locations
and in the right way.
The NPS is pro-actively engaging other agencies and project
proponents to resolve concerns associated with proposed renewable
energy projects adjacent to park boundaries. I will be meeting with my
counterparts in DOI to further this coordination and collaboration.
conclusion
Our national park units provide environmental baselines to track
and assess change, and they stand as some of the last vestiges where
species populations, essential habitats, and ecological components
function naturally. National parks also serve as core essential
habitats as well as critical habitats for source populations of
species. To succeed in the face of climate change, the NPS must lead by
example in minimizing carbon footprints and promoting sustainable
operational practices to ensure that intact ecosystem services are
sustained within and outside of park boundaries.
One of the most precious values of the national parks is their
ability to teach us about ourselves and how we relate to the natural
world. This important role may prove invaluable in the near future as
we strive to understand and adapt to a changing climate. We must engage
in an unprecedented level of collaboration and cooperation with other
agencies and partners to ensure that scientific information is
collected, analyzed, and applied to better protect resources and
explain the benefits and necessity of natural and cultural resource
conservation across the nation and the world.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. I am
pleased to answer any questions members of the committee may have.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Director Jarvis.
Let me recognize myself first to begin a round of
questions.
As Senator Burr mentioned, we ought to really focus on
science. I understand that there is a general consensus among
scientists that park resources are being affected as the result
of climate change in a wide variety of environments, whether
they be coastal or alpine or desert, what have you.
Do you feel that the Park Service has a good handle on
where these effects are happening and the severity of them? If
not, what else would you like to see done?
Mr. Jarvis. First, I agree absolutely that the key to
developing adaptation strategies and resilience and even
communicating to the public--we need a very robust science
program. As you may have heard, I have added to my National
Park Service staff a science advisor, Dr. Gary Machlis, who is
here with us today, to serve in that role, to help us
synthesize and direct both the science we have and to help us
procure and obtain the science that we need in order to better
understand this.
The Department of the Interior is, in cooperation with the
other bureaus and particularly led by the U.S. Geological
Survey, going to launch a series of regional climate change
response centers which are intended to be, for the most part,
university-based, geographically focused on developing specific
science, specific research that will help us design our future
adaptation programs. It is intended to be applied science that
will really assist our managers. I think the role of Dr.
Machlis and our organization is to ensure that our managers are
actually getting the science they need to address these things.
I think in some areas we have fairly good science, and there
are a lot of areas we really do not yet understand what these
effects may mean.
Senator Udall. In your testimony, you discussed the role of
renewable energy on public lands. Director Jarvis, could you
expand on how the NPS is working more broadly with the
Department itself on developing renewable energy?
Mr. Jarvis. In two areas. One, in sort of our own house, we
are looking to where renewables may be appropriate that are for
our operations. We are really not looking on national park
lands, nor should we frankly, to be producing renewable powers
for export.
However, on the public lands that in many cases are
immediately adjacent or within the environs of national parks,
such as BLM lands, there are large proposals for major
development of solar arrays, hydro-solar, hydro-kinetics, wind
energy, all of those kinds of things. Then that energy must be
moved via corridors across the landscape from perhaps places
that energy can be developed to energy where it is really
needed.
My experience thus far within the Department of the
Interior where most of this work is being done has been a very
robust and very cooperative relationship where all of us are at
the table to ensure that as these developments are completed--
and many of them are on fast tracks to get them done--that the
National Park Service's concerns for connectivity, for wildlife
corridors, for viewsheds, for water, for cultural resources
effects are all being strongly considered as we develop this on
a landscape scale. So we are very actively engaged in all of
this at this time.
Senator Udall. My time is expiring, but let me at least ask
you one question that may take additional testimony for the
record.
You have to manage within finite boundaries in an
increasingly complex and rapidly changing environment and
really without precedent, as you point out. Do you think you
have the authority to manage for the ongoing and expected
effects of climate change or those effects related to climate
change?
Mr. Jarvis. At this time, I cannot specify any additional
authorities that I think the National Park Service needs.
If there is any silver lining to climate change, it forces
us as a country, as particularly Federal agencies that have
this responsibility, to think and act at the landscape scale.
As you well know, the Federal estate of this country or the
entire estate was divided up into specific boundaries, whether
it was military reservations or Indian reservations or national
parks or forests or BLM lands and then the private side as
well. For many years, we have managed those with some
expectation of predictability about their long-term
sustainability and climate change challenges that, challenges
us in a very large way, that perhaps for migratory species like
migratory waterfowl, that these wetlands will no longer be
there.
So the question becomes, where are they going to be, where
should they be?
At this point, we are in that dialog. We are in that
discussion, and I do not think we are ready yet to say we need
new authorities. What we need is the commitment on the part of
the Congress and the President and the Department of the
Interior and the Department of Agriculture, as the other major
land managers here, to really work cooperatively to look at
strategies for long-term sustainability of these ecosystems.
Senator Udall. Thank you for those answers.
Senator Burr.
Senator Burr. Mr. Jarvis, welcome. Let me go straight to
sort of the Pacific West where you instituted a goal in 58
parks to have a carbon-neutral park operation by 2016. Let me
ask, if I could, what was the cost of that program projected
over that period of time?
Mr. Jarvis. We found that it depends on which--we set that
goal and then we began to dive down into it to really
understand it. A lot of it depends----
Senator Burr. But you had started instituting things, I
think I heard you say in your testimony.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, we had.
Senator Burr. What was the achievement of a carbon-neutral
parks operation in 58 parks going to cost?
Mr. Jarvis. I do not have the bottom line figure on that. I
do not know what that total would cost.
Senator Burr. So the Park Service, before starting this
program, did not ask for what the price tag was going to be.
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir, we did not.
Senator Burr. Let me ask for a clarification. You talked
about the reduction of electricity at the Grand Canyon by 30
percent, if I understood you, for Grand Canyon facilities.
Mr. Jarvis. That one facility.
Senator Burr. That one facility.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir.
Senator Burr. Since the Grand Canyon derives their power
from the Hoover Dam, therefore, reducing that electricity did
not reduce carbon at all. Is that a wise investment if the goal
is to reduce the carbon footprint?
Mr. Jarvis. As I understand the electrical system in this
country, it is very much of an integrated system, and there is
sort of a total demand and then some of that demand comes from
green power and some of it comes from coal-fired powerplants or
a variety of other sources. I think the goal here is, where we
can, to look for those opportunities to add renewables where it
is appropriate. I think what it does is it offsets the overall
demand in that case.
Senator Burr. You are right in a general sense, but from
the standpoint of our inability to store electricity when you
have got something as massive as the Hoover Dam project, it
means that that is either consumed or you cut back on your
generating capacity. Yet, you still have the water flow. I only
point out the point because you made it perfectly clear. The
goal is to reduce carbon, to become carbon-neutral. I just
found it odd that that would have been a project that we would
have invested in since it had no impact on what the goal was.
Do you intend to expand this program park-wide?
Mr. Jarvis. We have not done the analysis nationwide to
figure out how we would get our organization to sort of a
carbon-neutral standpoint.
Senator Burr. So we would not know what that would cost for
the entire park system.
Mr. Jarvis. No.
Senator Burr. I have heard that there is a goal of 2016,
and I have heard that the 2016 was removed. Can you clarify
that for me?
Mr. Jarvis. We are reconsidering whether or not we can
bring the Pacific West--let me get down into the details on
that. Under current regulations for power in, for instance,
southern California, essentially if you are an agency like the
National Park Service, we can produce power at the local site
but, as they say, behind the meter. So I would have to, under
current regulatory law, build enough solar arrays in Yosemite
National Park in order to offset its use. That would be
unacceptable for a variety of reasons. It is fairly obvious
that you would not want to build that kind of solar array in
Yosemite National Park. What I would like to be able to do is
to build a solar array on other lands, perhaps abandoned mine
lands some place like within the Mojave, that could offset
Yosemite. But we do not have the regulatory authorities to do
that at this time and that is one of the things we have been
negotiating with the regulators and the power producers who are
actually very supportive of this in concept, but in terms of
current authorities, we are not there.
Senator Burr. Are you not also talking about regulating
land adjacent to parks, buffer zones that are not under Park
Service jurisdiction?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir, we are not proposing any type
regulation or buffer zones outside----
Senator Burr. Would you agree that to do that, you would
have to have legislation passed in Congress in some fashion
that would----
Mr. Jarvis. In order to regulate?
Senator Burr. Sure.
Mr. Jarvis. Absolutely. We are not proposing or even asking
for that.
Senator Burr. Let me ask for just a clarification on your
point about the increased fire hazards in parks and climate
playing a role in that. Would it be wise for us to consider a
timber harvest program more aggressive so that we can get some
of that dry timber out to reduce the fire impact?
Mr. Jarvis. In the National Park Service, we do not allow
that kind of timber harvest because it is in conflict with our
organic legislation, and I really cannot speak to the other
public lands in that regard.
I think what we need to do in my opinion is reevaluate our
fire policies in terms of both how we use wildland fire,
prescribed fire, as well as fuel reduction.
Senator Burr. I spoke incorrectly. I meant the fuel
reduction program.
I thank the chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Burr.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations, Mr. Jarvis, on your recent approval.
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. I share the concern that you and the
chairman have expressed about the impact that climate change is
having on our national parks and applaud efforts to mitigate in
whatever way you can those impacts and believe that what we
need is legislation at the Federal level that is going to
address this issue throughout the country, not just in the
national parks.
While we do not have any national parks in New Hampshire,
we are the home to Ken Burns who is the documentary filmmaker
of the national park series, and he said that that has been one
of the series that he has enjoyed most. So it is truly an
impressive film.
I am actually here not, however, to discuss with you the
impacts of climate change on our national parks, but to raise
another concern that we have in the Northeast about what is
happening with reorganization of the park office in the
Northeast Region. As you may recall, I raised this concern with
you at your nomination hearing. The reorganization is leading
to the reduction of staff from 107 to 45 in the Boston regional
office, a loss of 62 positions that are going to be replaced in
Philadelphia actually, as I understand, with even more
positions. The real impact for us is what is happening with
parks programs in the Northeast and particularly in New
Hampshire, the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance
Program is one that we have relied on. It has made a huge
difference for us as we have tried to protect special places in
New Hampshire. I am very concerned about what the impact of
this reorganization is going to be on that program and other
Park Service programs in New Hampshire and throughout New
England.
I understand that the plan has been in the works for some
time. But when you were here at your confirmation hearing, I
asked you about the status of the reorganization, and you
committed that you would take a close look at what is being
proposed once you were confirmed. You said--and I quote--``my
commitment to you is to take a very close look at what is being
proposed in the Northeast Region and work with your office to
find a solution.''
Unfortunately, since we spoke, I received a letter that
indicates to me at least that the decision has already been
made, that the reorganization is going forward. I found that
very disappointing and just wondered if you could clarify the
status of the reorganization and whether, in fact, you are
going to have an opportunity to take a close look at what is
being proposed and consider whether to go forward with that.
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you, Senator. I actually have looked into
this with some detail, and there are three parts to it. As you
indicated, a lot of these actions, particularly the personnel
actions, at the time of my confirmation hearing were already in
play and related to offers of early retirement for, I believe,
22 employees, of which a number took those opportunities as
Federal employees, which they can.
But I did insist on a reevaluation with the Regional
Director of the Northeast, Dennis Reidenbach, to give me an
alternative reorganization, which retained most of the existing
staff in that office, which he has presented to me. We had a
conversation on it this past week, which I think will retain
pretty much all of the existing staff in that office.
The third piece, though, is that the Rivers and Trails
Conservation Assistance Program, which is the community
assistance arm of the National Park Service (it has nothing
really to do with the units) it has been in decline for 8 years
in terms of the budget. So those positions have just--I mean,
you speak specifically of your home State, but across the
country, these positions have been in decline. So it is an area
that I want to regrow in the organization. I have hired a
deputy director for community assistance, feeling that these
are very important individuals and assets for the program. But
that is an appropriations issue, but it is my intent--although
fiscal year 2011 is really the first budget that I am having an
opportunity to have any influence over--to talk about
rebuilding the RTCA program, which can be collocated pretty
much anywhere and certainly in your State.
So I am on top of this and would be glad to come by and
give you the details on our proposed alternative.
Senator Shaheen. I would appreciate that, and we will
contact your office about setting up a time. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
I think we will do a second round, and let me recognize
myself.
Director Jarvis, you talked about several park units that
face a potential threat from rising sea levels. Could you talk
about specific management tools that you are beginning to
utilize to protect cultural resources in national parks from
the effects of climate change? Of course, it would not just
apply to coastal areas but those are very, very obvious.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, chairman. The coastal areas are one of our
highest concerns in terms of cultural resources. We have
literally thousands of miles of coastal resources in national
park units. For instance, in the Hawaii Islands on the big
island of Hawaii, there are cultural resources that are very
important to native Hawaiians like at Kaloko-Honokohau or
Puukohola Heiau, and these potentially will be impacted by sea
level rise. So No. 1 is prioritizing their inventory to
determine what is truly at risk, and if possible, in some
cases, documenting them or, in some cases, collecting them if
we really feel that they are going to be damaged by sea level
rise or storm surge. I think in some cases it is going to
require us to do a triage to say what is our highest value and
what can be protected.
The second question, just what is uphill, we are working
with the U.S. Geological Survey to do detailed mapping of our
coastlines within the national parks, down to fairly tight
detail, and then taking the predictive models of sea level rise
to sort of look at what zone will have the predominant both
effect of a sea level rise, as well as storm surge, and then
refocusing our priorities in terms of inventory of cultural
resources within those zones.
Senator Udall. One of the most interesting adventures I had
through the years was hiking the Olympic seashore during the
winter during a high tide cycle and a storm cycle. Those are
small beaches.
Mr. Jarvis. Did you make it up the slope before the waves
hit----
Senator Udall. There were some fairly desperate beach
crossings trying to time it and not be caught up in the
backwash of the huge logs and all the rest that the surf picks
up. But I think just about that area and how it would be
affected.
A little closer to home, talking about fish and wildlife, I
was recently notified in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison
National Park that the native Colorado cutthroat which has
refuge there has lost 90 percent of its historic range
according to experts. What will you do to ensure that fish and
wildlife habitat remains intact across park units? What can you
do, I should add.
Mr. Jarvis. I think particularly fish species that have
depended upon snowpack, which as it melts through the summers,
really retains the cool temperatures particularly that trout
need, are going to be one of our greatest challenges.
Our two best partners in preserving wildlife and fish are
the States and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I think
these landscape conservation cooperatives that are being
designed and being launched--there is funding in fiscal 1910
and fiscal 1911 to stand these up. We are already starting to
make a determination of where the most sensitive environments
are that we really need to stand these up and to put wildlife,
in particular fish and wildlife which certainly do not pay any
attention to administrative boundaries, are going to be the
absolute key to figure out how we preserve these over the long
term where these animals are going to have to move to in order
to survive.
Senator Udall. The National Park Service management
policies say very little that directly refers to climate
change. Should that document reflect more broadly the state of
our knowledge and concern about climate change?
Mr. Jarvis. At some point, yes, but the management policies
currently provide us, I think, the appropriate level of
guidance in order to begin this process of understanding
climate change and the effects. But I think within 3 or 4
years, when we really get these landscape conservation
cooperatives up, we begin to really focus the science and
better understand these effects, then I think there are going
to have to be at least some amendments ultimately to our
management policies. But not at the moment.
Senator Udall. Not at the moment. You would wait until we
had more developed knowledge and----
Mr. Jarvis. Yes.
Senator Udall [continuing]. Had a better sense of the field
of play. Then that knowledge could inform revision of those
policies.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir.
Senator Udall. Senator Burr.
Senator Burr. Mr. Chairman, I will be really quick.
Mr. Jarvis, I am really searching for your help in leading
me in the direction to convince people on the Outer Banks of
North Carolina, some old enough to remember when most of the
banks were covered in ocean, that there is a fear for the
developed end of those, as well as the Hatteras National
Seashore area, that climate change makes them susceptible now
to those barrier islands being gone, given that they remember
when they were not there. How do I explain that to them?
Mr. Jarvis. I think it is a challenge, Senator. I think
that climate change is a tough concept for a lot of folks to
get their grips on. Our frame of reference as humans tends to
be fairly short. Some of us have been around a long time, so it
seems long. But I think that this is an effect that has been
building for some time. I think this is one of the roles of the
National Park Service.
For instance, at Mount Rainier National Park where I was
the superintendent, we have folks that have been coming there
for generations. They ask, well, what about the ice caves? I
used to go in the ice caves. The ice caves are long gone. It
gives them sort of a frame of reference.
We have fairly good data that can link the loss of the ice
caves and the retreat of the glaciers to climate change.
Senator Burr. But can you do a similar thing as it
relates--I will ask Dr. Noss the same thing because he goes
into great depth about water levels. How do you make the
connection when those barrier islands were covered prior to us
producing the level of carbon that we are doing today? I am not
sure that you can all do it on currents, which do have an
impact on where an inlet is cut but not necessarily whether an
entire barrier island is under water. At what point do you
require science to say here is the link?
Mr. Jarvis. I think that personally I am not qualified to
speak to that particular issue in terms of how you link climate
change to the barrier islands, and I would defer to Dr. Noss to
answer that question.
But I think it is a challenge for us to make it relevant,
to make these issues understandable enough for individuals to
take action and be concerned. I think that is a challenge.
Senator Burr. Let me just say, Mr. Jarvis, that is exactly
the point I wanted to make, that if you want the American
people to buy into an effort--because this is their parks. This
is their investment. Ken Burns said it is about the future and
future generations, and I believe in that. But without the
willingness of the American people to make the investment, we
will come up woefully short of what you might want to do or
what science might suggest that we want to do. I think every
step that we make has to be one that we get the buy-in from the
person who actually signs the check, and that is the American
taxpayer, that this is beneficial.
I think when we have areas that we cannot make the direct
connection--to me, I will not try to go sell that the water
rise is a function of climate change to people on the coast
that probably are over 80-some years old because they can
remember when the islands were covered, and you lose the
credibility right then. So my point to you is we have got to
think through what we do about the way that we communicate it,
but it has to be sellable.
Mr. Jarvis. I could not agree more. I think it is a
responsibility, and I think it is one of the unique
responsibilities of the National Park Service to help
communicate it. But we cannot be hysterical about it and we
cannot take it beyond what the science really supports either.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Burr.
I want to thank you, Director Jarvis. If you had any final
comments for the record, I am happy to either hear them now or
you can certainly direct them to us over the next couple weeks.
I did want to also mention when you mentioned your stint at
Mount Rainier, we have been blessed on the committee with the
services of one of the NPS' finest, Mike Gauthier, who is also
known as ``Gator.'' He is sitting behind me here, and we want
you to know that we appreciate his service and his knowledge of
the National Park Service and the great work the flat hats do.
But thank you again for being here today.
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Udall. We will ask the second panel to take your
seats and we will turn right to your testimony.
Gentlemen, welcome. Let me turn immediately to Dr. Williams
who is the President of the Wildlife Management Institute from
Gardners, Pennsylvania. We would like to hear your testimony,
and then we will come across to the other two witnesses, and
then we will come back around for a series of questions. If you
can keep your remarks in that 5- or 6-minute timeframe, that
would be appreciated so we can then have some time for an
exchange of ideas and questions. Dr. Williams, the floor is
yours.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN WILLIAMS, PH.D., PRESIDENT, WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, GARDNERS, PA
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee for this opportunity to address the impacts of
climate change on our National Park System.
I am Steve Williams, the President of the Wildlife
Management Institute. We are a nonprofit organization founded
in 1911. It is a scientific and educational organization
dedicated to conservation of North America's wildlife and
natural resources.
Prior to serving in this capacity, I had the honor to serve
as the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and in
addition have 17 years of experience working for three State
fish and wildlife agencies.
I sit here today before the subcommittee not as an expert
in the origin or solution to climate change, but as a wildlife
professional who has had the good fortune of experiencing most
of the major biomes on this continent and the ability to
interact with professional managers of those properties.
Climate change, I believe, whether a function of natural
processes, human processes, or probably more likely a
combination of both, is occurring across the continent. I make
this statement based on my understanding of the scientific
literature, discussions with Federal, State, and academicians,
and some of my personal experiences.
Very briefly, in terms of short-term observations, not
scientific, but anecdotal, I just bring up, I guess, two
situations.
Thirty years ago, my wife and I on our honeymoon went to
Glacier National Park. We had the good fortune about 4 years
ago to return to that park, and both remarked on the loss of
glaciers that we thought we observed. Looking at the pictorial
history of Glacier, our observations were confirmed.
In a similar vein, over the last 35 years, I have spent a
fair amount of time in Grand Teton National Park, worked there
for 7 years guiding float trips on the Snake River and
experienced the same loss in glaciers.
Warmer and drier climates are expected to alter weather
patterns, and I will not go through all those details. I think
Director Jarvis did a good job of hitting on those. But those
changes will have impacts on the timing and process of plant
and animal life cycles, and they will also have an impact on a
species' ability to reproduce and survive. If you combine those
climate change impacts with human impacts on the environment
related to energy development, population growth, just
development of places to live, transportation, and so on, that
impact is really quite substantial. If we view it over
thousands of generations that have resulted in what we observe
in the wild today, I do not think there is any question that
the last 100 years has really caused a different set of
circumstances in how those species have evolved.
The National Park Service has an excellent--along with some
of our other public lands--but provide an excellent venue as a
natural laboratory, if you will, to measure some of the impacts
of climate change. Are species moving up attitudinally? What
are the impacts on forage production on those national park
lands, fish health studies, and so on?
So that is sort of the ecological side of it.
If I could, just for the last part of my comments, focus
more on the management challenges for the National Park Service
just in general.
Director Jarvis mentioned in the Organic Act the reference
to leaving these lands unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations. That is the language in the act.
I think a challenge for the service will be to try to meet
that goal--as the entire landscape changes in response to
climate change, to meet that goal of areas within portions of
that whole natural landscape.
Second, that is the way the Park Service has been managing,
rightfully so, for the life span of the agency. I suspect that
there may be some challenges in trying to meet that mission and
some of the realities of climate-induced change.
I am very happy to hear and understand that the National
Park Service is also putting together a strategic plan, similar
to the draft the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has put
together. I hope that strategic plan is flexible and adaptive.
I hope that that plan recognizes the uncertainty associated
with climate change, adaptive management processes, and the
potential scenarios that may face parks.
I will conclude by saying that adaptation funding, which
fortunately is included in the climate change legislation that
Congress is considering now, will be absolutely essential for
our national parks, national forest, national wildlife refuges,
and even some of the State conservation lands to monitor
climate change impacts, survey plant and animal species and
their distribution, restore and manage habitats, deal with
impacts to wetlands, and so on and so forth.
We have invested a lot in our national parks and public
lands through the years, and the past political leaders and
members of the administration and Congress have created a very
powerful conservation legacy that we all enjoy. I hope that as
we move forward, the way we treat our national parks and other
public lands will speak volumes, I believe, with regard to our
commitment to the past, certainly our commitment to the future
and our own conservation legacy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven Williams, Ph.D., President, Wildlife
Management Institute, Gardners, PA
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to address the issue of current and expected impacts of
climate change on the National Park System.
I am Steve Williams, President of the Wildlife Management
Institute. Founded in 1911, WMI is a private, nonprofit, scientific and
educational organization, dedicated to the conservation, enhancement
and professional management of North America's wildlife and natural
resources. Prior to serving in this capacity, I had the honor of
serving as the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In
addition, I have 17 years of experience working for three state fish
and wildlife agencies. I serve on the Board of Directors of the
American Wildlife Conservation Partners, the Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
and the Conservation Committee of the Boone and Crockett Club.
I come before you today not as an expert in the origin or solution
to climate change, rather as a wildlife professional who has had the
opportunity to experience most of the major biomes of this continent
and to interact with the professional resource managers responsible for
their management. Climate change, whether a function of natural
processes, human processes, or a combination of both, is occurring
across the continent. I make this statement based on my understanding
of the scientific literature, my discussions with federal, state, and
academic scientists, and my personal experiences.
First from a personal and admittedly anecdotal perspective, I can
identify two National Parks where I believe, in my short life span, I
have seen the effects of climate change. The first is Glacier National
Park. Thirty years ago while on our honeymoon, my wife and I visited
the Canadian Rockies and Glacier National Park. We were astounded by
the beauty of these alpine areas. About four years ago we returned to
Glacier only to see fewer surface areas and volumes of glaciers. We
both remarked about how the park had changed and how the pictorial
vistas had been diminished. Later I viewed a pictorial history of the
major glaciers in Glacier National Park and our observations where
confirmed. Some predict that in less than 30 years the glaciers will
cease to exist at this ``Crown of the Continent.'' If so, the crown
will have lost much of its luster.
My second example involves my 35 year span of time with Grand Teton
National Park. During the summers between 1974 and 1981, I worked on a
dude ranch in the middle of Jackson Hole. Four of those summers I
guided float trips on the Snake River which entailed conducting 3-4
trips a day, six days a week, through the heart of Jackson Hole. The
spectacular Grand Teton mountain range was the backdrop and focal point
of these trips. Although I did not conduct any scientific analysis of
snowpack and glacial volumes, I knew those mountains both from afar and
near. Over the course of the last 35 years, I have a spent a few days
most every summer visiting Grand Teton National Park. My most recent
trip there was in August of this year. Through the years, I noticed a
considerable decline in the glaciers that I had become familiar with
some 30-35 years ago. It is undeniable that Teton Glacier on the Grand
Teton and Falling Ice and Skillet Glaciers on Mt. Moran have retreated
in that relatively short time span. The grandeur of the Grand Teton
range has become somewhat diminished.
While Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, I observed
numerous glaciers that have retreated throughout Alaska whether they
were in the Brooks Range, the Chugach National Forest, or on the
Bristol Bay Peninsula. While serving in this position and based on my
discussions with resource professionals across the country, I
recognized that the successful management of our nation's natural
resources, for the use and enjoyment of current and future citizens,
would hinge on how state and federal natural resource managers adapt to
global climate change, change that may impact every biome and habitat
that we now recognize.
The projected impacts of climate change have been well identified.
Warmer and drier climates are expected to result in weather patterns
that produce: changes in the amounts and patterns of precipitation;
increased stream and river temperatures; frequency and intensity of
severe weather events; longer and more intense droughts; levels of
snowpack and the timing of their melt; more severe wildfires; expansion
of the range and distribution of insects, parasites, diseases and
invasive species; and changes in the timing of runoff and intensity of
flooding. All of these changes would have impacts on the timing and
process of plant and animal life cycles. Each of these factors alone
and in combination, will undoubtedly affect plant growth, structure,
and distribution. In turn, they may also directly impact a species'
ability to reproduce and survive.
Scientists expect stream temperatures to increase and flow patterns
to be dramatically altered. National Parks provide exceptional fishing
opportunities in the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains. Unfortunately
these streams may become uninhabitable for native trout which are
sought after by millions of anglers. Altered stream flow patterns due
to the timing and speed of snow pack melt will also threaten downstream
watersheds and water supplies for human populations. Elk populations
are expected to move to more northern or higher elevations in search of
more palatable forage, escape from insects, and cooler temperatures.
Overabundant elk populations like those in Rocky Mountain National Park
will stress their food supply and neighboring properties as they change
their distribution and migration patterns. Desert fishes and reptiles
may die out as ground water becomes depleted and water sources dry up.
Coastal parks will experience a rise in ocean levels, increased beach
erosion, and salt water intrusion into coastal marshes and water
supplies. Alaskan National Parks have already observed glacial retreat
and erosion of coastal lands. Melting of the permafrost across the
Alaskan tundra has resulted in impacts to Alaskan native villages,
release of previously stored carbon reserves, and changes in plant
habitat. As the term implies, global climate change will have far
reaching impacts on our environment and those who inhabit it.
Combine these climate changes impacts to our environment with those
caused directly by humans and the future looks even more challenging.
Increases in human population and our growing demand for energy,
development, transportation and natural resources will further strain
natural landscapes as they respond to climate change. These trends
threaten to unravel relatively delicate, natural landscapes in an
unprecedented manner. Although scientists report that climate cycles
have occurred over the 100,000 years or more of human habitation on
earth, during the last hundred or so years we have experienced a rapid
rate of global warming. This time period also coincides with the most
rapid increase in human population growth and industrial development
the world has ever experienced. For most of history, human culture has
evolved in concert with plant and animal species. The natural world we
observe today has responded to and evolved with environmental change
over thousands of generations. The rapid human growth and its impacts
which we have recently experienced had a dominant influence on the
environment in a period of about 100 years, not thousands of
generations. The current and future ecological disturbances associated
with climate change, habitat loss and fragmentation, energy and water
development, transportation, and invasive species present a near term,
natural selection process and evolutionary challenge which, arguably,
has never occurred in a 100 to 200 year time period.
How do we study and understand the ecological and cultural
ramifications of this change? The almost 84 million acres of National
Park Service (NPS) units, many in relatively large land masses, offer
venues to inventory ecological resources, monitor resource response to
climate change, detect that response, conduct research on intact and
disturbed ecosystems, and prescribe and conduct management adaptations
to climate change. NPS and its sister organizations' lands, the
National Wildlife Refuges and National Forests provide some of the best
laboratories to study ecological systems.
NPS units occur in every major biome on the continent. From the
Gates of the Arctic and Denali to the Florida Everglades, the Grand
Canyon to the Great Smoky Mountains, Rocky Mountain National Park to
the Caribbean coral reefs, and California's Death Valley to the
Tallgrass Prairie Preserve of Kansas; NPS units have preserved
ecosystems in relatively unimpaired states. The Greater Yellowstone
ecosystem, one of the largest, nearly intact ecosystem in the
contiguous United States, incorporates National Parks, Forests, and
Refuges but at the core is the NPS' first National Park, Yellowstone.
These examples or fragments of natural ecosystems should become
laboratories within which scientists can examine and document climate
change impacts. Mountainous park units would allow studies to measure
altitudinal distributions of plant and animal species that could shed
light on the response of organisms to increased temperatures. Consider
the fact that the Missouri, Colorado, Snake, and Columbia Rivers have
their origins in NPS units. Water quantity and quality monitoring in
the headwaters of some of the nation's most important rivers will
provide critical information for downstream communities and industries.
Forage production studies within NPS units would provide essential
information for forest and range managers who wish to learn how climate
change affects these ecosystems. Fish health studies on affected NPS
stream and river systems would provide valuable information for
fisheries biologists who rely on these stocks to supply and replenish
fish populations. Migration and movement corridors for dispersing
wildlife need to be studied and documented for the future. The studies
which would provide valuable answers for ecologists and fish and
wildlife managers are almost unlimited.
From the National Park management perspective, climate change
provides a daunting challenge. The organic act's purpose, which
established the NPS in 1916, was ``to conserve the scenery and the
natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide
for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' This
ambitious goal, although admirable in 1916, poses a conundrum for
current and future park managers. In the face of climate change that
threatens to change the entire natural landscape, how does one manage
for no change within portions of that natural landscape? Is the current
management philosophy and culture of the NPS equipped to reconcile its
congressionally mandated and static mission with the realities of
climate-induced change? How does the NPS work in collaboration with its
federal, state, and private partners and neighbors in achieving this
static mission, in light of their partners' dynamic future missions and
goals?
The Department of Interior (DOI), with Secretary Salazar's
leadership, has taken recent steps to address this management challenge
across all bureaus in the department. The September 2009 secretarial
order established a framework for agency collaboration and coordination
in response to climate change. Climate Change Response Centers and
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives have been created to better
coordinate data sharing and management within Interior bureaus and to
provide collaboration with DOI partners. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has published a draft Strategic Plan for Climate Change which
is currently open for public comment. This plan focuses on: adaptation,
mitigation, and engagement. I understand and applaud the fact that the
NPS is working on a similar document that will contain these common
elements.
I believe that NPS leaders, regional, managerial, and field staff
will face a cultural and organizational challenge as they confront the
response to climate change. It will be vital that the NPS organization
from top to bottom be coordinated as they plan and implement their
activities. The size and apparent autonomy of many of the NPS units
coupled with their close ties to local communities, could present
management challenges in carrying out a common, landscape-scale
strategic plan for climate change response. This strategic plan should
be flexible and adaptive to changing inputs and impacts. Planning
documents should incorporate uncertainty, adaptive management
processes, and plans for an array of potential scenarios that may face
the individual park unit depending on the form and manner that climate
change shapes their park. This dynamic approach may be uncomfortable
for an organization with a mandate and culture of maintaining the
status quo--``in such manner and by such means as will leave them
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.''
Given the predicted impacts of climate change on the nation's
landscapes, which include our National Parks, resource managers should
be focused on mitigation and adaptation to enhance the resilience and
recovery of these habitats. Response to environmental stressors such as
fire, drought, insects, and floods will challenge on the ground
management in ways never before experienced. I believe management plans
should focus on maintaining landscape character and return to natural
conditions rather than pre-determined, prescriptive management actions
to achieve singular goals. Management should focus on adapting
techniques and activities based on what has been learned about past
performance of those activities. This adaptive management approach
provides a dynamic process informed by success and failure, and
responsive to the uncertainties associated with climate change impacts.
Additional funding to assist in adaptation will be necessary to
maintain the reputation of National Parks as the nation's premier
examples of our nation's conservation treasures. Recent DOI budget
priorities, including funding for the Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives, will be helpful to federal agencies and their partners.
Additional funding to coordinate data collection, analysis, and
exchange between federal agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will be
necessary to provide finer-scaled, climate predictive models than those
currently available. Land management agencies will rely on these
experts to help define the range of ecological conditions to be
expected on individual management units.
Adaptation funding will be necessary to update, repair, and
maintain park infrastructure and visitor facilities. In addition,
adaptation funding will be required in our National Parks, National
Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, and state conservation lands to
monitor impacts, survey plant and animal species and their
distribution, conduct research on climate change effects, distribute
water, battle invasive species, repair water control structures,
restore and manage habitat, create and protect wetland habitat, and
manage current and new threatened and endangered species. Without
adequate adaptation funding, natural resource managers will not be able
to respond to the obscure and obvious changes occurring across the
landscapes for which they are responsible and held in trust for the
public.
Current funding for status quo management is inadequate to address
major maintenance and capital improvement projects. Federal agency
backlogs for these projects total hundreds of millions of dollars. It
would be a travesty to further exacerbate these financial problems by
ignoring climate change impacts and their expense on public lands.
Fortunately, current climate change legislation includes significant
financial investments in our nation's environmental treasures. National
conservation, protection, and preservation organizations strongly agree
that Congress must address our natural resources and the need for
adaptation funding in any climate legislation that passes Congress.
This adaptation funding would enhance federal agency activities to
prepare for and adapt to a changing climate. In addition, it would
provide significant funding to state fish and wildlife agencies to
address climate change impacts identified in Statewide Action Plans. A
comprehensive and coordinated federal, state, and private response to
climate change impacts is essential. Fish, wildlife, and their habitats
are not constrained by government, political, or organizational
boundaries. The National Park Service understands that this approach to
conservation is essential.
For more than one hundred years our nation has recognized the
special importance of our nation's natural resources. At the federal
level we have established National Parks, National Monuments, National
Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, and other protected public lands.
Numerous laws and regulations have been passed, federal and state
agencies have been created, and billions of dollars have been invested
in the management of these national treasures. The American public and
visitors from across the world have revealed in their awe inspiring
beauty, more than 275 million visitor-days annually in National Parks
alone. The nation has benefited from the ecological services, such as
clean water and air, which they provide. We have visited these national
treasures to enhance our quality of life and educate our children and
grandchildren about their natural wonders.
As we face climate change impacts over the coming decades, our
nation's citizens deserve our continued investment in a uniquely
American experiment in conservation, setting aside some of our most
spectacular lands for protection and public use. This experiment has
become so successful that it is the envy of the world. Our nation's
past political leaders have created a powerful conservation legacy for
all of us to use and enjoy. How we treat our National Parks and our
other public lands will speak volumes about our regard for their work,
the value we place on current and future generations, and our own
conservation legacy.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Dr. Williams.
Next, we will turn to the Honorable Iliff McMahan, Jr., who
is County Mayor from Newport, Tennessee. Mayor, welcome. I know
Senator Burr and I appreciate those elected officials who make
local government work, and we are really pleased you had an
opportunity to come up here and join us. We look forward to
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ILIFF MCMAHAN, JR., MAYOR, COCKE COUNTY, NEWPORT,
TN
Mr. McMahan. Chairman Udall and Senator Burr, thank you
very much for inviting me to testify on the current and
expected impacts of climate change on the National Park System.
As you said, I am Iliff McMahan, Jr., and since elected in
2002, I have served as the County Mayor of Cocke County,
Tennessee. Fourteen years ago, before becoming mayor, I served
as the first tourism director for Cocke County where we focused
on marketing our county has an ecotourism destination of
choice.
My appearance here today is to highlight the relationship
between our national parks and Cocke County and how rural
communities and economies are dependent upon the ecological
stability of national parks. National parks face many
challenges, but none as far-reaching as climate change. If not
addressed, climate change threatens the economic well-being of
Cocke County and similar national park gateway communities
around the Nation.
Cocke County is a rural community in east Tennessee with a
population of 35,000 citizens and contains a portion of two
units of the National Park System, a national forest, a State
forest, and three major watersheds. Approximately 35 percent of
the land in our county is publicly owned and produces very
little tax income.
However, we receive significant economic benefits from our
public lands by serving as the northern gateway to the Nation's
most visited national park, the Great Smoky Mountains. This
places upon us an awesome responsibility to work with our
partners to protect these very special places. Cocke County has
had to look beyond traditional economic development
opportunities and toward marketing our natural resources to
diversify our economy. This has helped to insulate our county
from the very worst impacts of the economic downturn.
In the Smokies, bad air quality, mercury pollution,
decreased visibility, acid deposition, and invasive species are
decimating our forests and our wildlife. But there is one issue
we are failing to address at this time: climate change and our
national parks. Congress needs to provide better policies and
more funding to address the climate change and all of the
challenges that face our national parks. Many tourists come to
the Smokies to fish our cool streams but just an increase of 2
degrees or an extended drought like we experienced in 2007-2008
could weaken native fish populations forever. This would be a
major loss to the regional biodiversity, and this would also be
a major loss to our local economies.
Cocke County depends upon our visitors to eat at our
restaurants, buy fuel and groceries in our stores, stay in our
lodging, and contribute to the tax base that keeps us
prosperous. In Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee alone fishing
created $2 billion in related expenditures in 2006.
Like many rural counties around the country, my county
depends upon the health and vitality of our State and Federal
lands for our continued and future prosperity. National park
lands where air and water and wildlife are protected means
tourists will continue to come to Cocke County to see, to hear,
and to experience our spectacular park lands. If these
resources are diminished by allowing climate change to continue
unaddressed, our county's existing and financial future health
will be impacted.
Now, I am no expert on climate policy, but what I do know
is that our parks are changing and we have a unique opportunity
now to protect these special places and at the same time boost
our local economies. As County Mayor, it is my responsibility
to work with you in partnership to make sure that we are
proactive park stewards. Fully funding a coordinated effort
between our partners to conduct scientific research, natural
resource adaptation, and management projects just makes good
business sense for the future of our national parks and for our
gateway communities.
Now, in conclusion, sir, I feel that every day is another
opportunity for Cocke County to strive to realize our full
potential as a viable and sustainable rural community. We value
our mountain traditions and our natural resources and we work
daily to showcase them to the world. Therefore, it is incumbent
upon us to work together in partnership to protect our valuable
national parks from our changing climate and assure that future
generations will be able to enjoy the Smokies as we do today.
I want to thank you for inviting me to testify, to share
our story, and to join this conversation on the future health
and well-being of our national parks. I want to say God bless
you in your efforts. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Burr. Appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McMahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Iliff McMahan, Jr., Mayor, Cocke County,
Newport, TN
Chairman Udall and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify on the current and expected impacts of climate
change on units of the National Park System. I am Iliff McMahan, Jr.
and since 2002 I have served as the County Mayor of Cocke County,
Tennessee. Before becoming mayor I served as the first Tourism Director
for Cocke County, as the first Tourism Director for the Morristown Area
Chamber of Commerce, later as General Manager of the Chamber, and as
Manager of Marketing and Public Relations for Newport, Tennessee
Utilities. In 2004, I was elected to a position on the national board
of directors for the County Executives of America representing rural
counties across the nation, and was appointed by Tennessee Governor
Phil Bredesen to a statewide position on the Tennessee Workforce
Development Board, an advisory council to the Governor. In addition, I
serve on the boards for several organizations: the East Tennessee
Development District, East Tennessee Human Resources Agency, currently
serve as Chairman for the East Tennessee Regional Agribusiness
Marketing Authority, a member of the National Parks Conservation
Association Southeast Regional Council, Smoky Mountains Workforce
Development Board, East TN Quality Growth Council, Great Smoky
Mountains Regional Greenways Council, and Boys & Girls Club of Newport/
Cocke County. My appearance here today, however is not on behalf of any
organization, but rather to highlight the interconnectedness between
the ecological stability of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and
Appalachian National Scenic Trail and the economy of Cocke County,
Tennessee. I would also like to highlight how across the United States
rural economies are dependent on the ecological stability of national
parks. National parks face many threats, but none as far-reaching as
climate change. If not addressed climate change threatens the economic
well-being of Cocke County and similar national park gateway
communities around the United States.
My testimony addresses the following topics: (1) the Cocke County
economy and our dependence on our national park units, (2) the
projected impact of climate change on the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and by
extension to our gateway community economy, (3) the need for a
coordinated local, state, and federal collaborative plan to address
climate change in national parks to protect both our natural and
cultural heritage and the economies of surrounding communities, and (4)
the opportunity for economic growth that setting aside funds for
scientific research and natural resource adaptation provides for
national park gateway communities.
the cocke county, tennessee economy and our national parks
Cocke County is a small rural county in East Tennessee with a
population of thirty-five thousand citizens and a land-base of four-
hundred and thirty-four square miles. Of the ninety-five counties in
Tennessee Cocke County is the only county which contains a portion of
two units of the National Park Service (The Appalachian National Scenic
Trail and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park), a national forest
(the Cherokee National Forest), and a state forest (Martha Sundquist
State Forest). We are also home to the Nolichucky, Upper French Broad,
and Pigeon River Watersheds; three of the largest watersheds in the
State of Tennessee. Approximately, thirty-five percent of the land in
our county is publicly owned and does not produce tax income. However,
in addition to payments in lieu of taxes, we receive significant
economic and community benefit from our public lands. In particular,
Cocke County serves as the northern gateway to our nation's most
visited national park, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Our
county's proximity to so many notable state and federal lands places
upon us an awesome responsibility to work with state and federal
government to protect these special places.
As a small rural county with a large percentage of lands in public
holding, Cocke County has had to look beyond traditional economic
development opportunities to our natural resources to diversify our
economy. Most relevant to today's hearing topic, since 1995 Cocke
County has seen a significant increase in the size and capacity of our
county's ecological-tourism based industry. Horseback riding, camping,
hiking, backpacking, whitewater rafting, hunting, fishing, and a myriad
of additional outdoor activities have increased and continue to grow in
Cocke County. Despite the national economic downturn of the past year
we have seen a significant increase in tax income from these and
associated activities. Our work to expand and grow Cocke County's
thriving eco-tourism industry has insulated our county from the worst
impacts of the economic downturn.
Around the United States between 1970 and 2003 rural counties like
Cocke County that neighbor national parks outperformed non-park rural
counties by forty-three percent in job growth, thirty-seven percent in
personal income growth, and an impressive eighty-six percent in
population growth. National parks generate four dollars in value for
every tax dollar invested, support over thirteen billion dollars in
private sector activity, and over four billion dollars in wages in
gateway communities like mine. Outdoor recreation nationally supports
nearly six and a half million jobs and creates eighty-eight billion
dollars in state and federal tax revenue nationally. My county depends
on the health and vitality of our State and Federal lands for our
continued and future prosperity. National park lands where air, water,
and wildlife are protected means tourists will continue to come to
Cocke County to see, hear, and hike in our spectacular park lands. If
these resources are diminished in favor of development or by allowing
climate change to continue unaddressed our county's existing and future
financial health could be impacted.
the impact of climate change on cocke county and our national park
units
This year Tennesseans and the nation celebrated the seventy-fifth
anniversary of the creation of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
and in 2016 we will all celebrate the centennial of the creation of the
national park service. There are many threats that face parks around
the country. In the Smokies and Cocke County bad air quality frequently
results in violations of the Environmental Protection Agency's air
quality standards in the summer months. Significant concentrations of
airborne mercury are deposited in the region, poisoning species from
native trout to the iconic black bear. Decreased visibility results
from haze pollution and degrades the scenic vistas that are an
important attraction for visitors. Acid deposition weakens fragile
ecosystems and poisons our streams. Invasive species are decimating
forest and the wildlife that depend on their health. The human
footprint around the Smokies, Cocke County included, is large and
increasingly threatening traditional wildlife corridors. These are all
long-standing issues I have in my time worked with county, state, and
national counterparts to address, but there is one issue we are failing
in the policy realm to address at this time: climate change in our
national parks. Congress needs to provide more funding and better
policies to address climate change and all of the issues that face our
national park units cumulatively rather than address one impact at a
time.
The Smokies provide an island of wilderness in one of the most
populated parts of the country. Temperatures in Appalachia have been on
the rise since the 1970's and already these changes have taken a toll.
Climate models have predicted increased drought, increased flooding,
and temperature increases in the southern Appalachian region. Iconic
species, such as the Frasier fir, already under pressure from air
pollution and invasive species, could disappear without proactive
effort on our part. Without a change of course conditions in the park
could become unsuitable for flora and fauna found nowhere else in the
world.
Many tourists come to the Smokies to fish our cool streams, but an
increase of just two degrees Celsius or an extended drought could alter
or weaken native fish populations forever. This would be a major loss
to regional bio-diversity, but this would also be a major loss to local
economies. Cocke County depends on fisherman to eat at our restaurants,
buy fuel and groceries in our stores, stay in our lodging, and to
contribute to the tax base that keeps Cocke County running. In
Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee alone fishing created two-billion
dollars in related expenditures in 2006. Counties like mine around the
United States have a lot to lose if we fail to address the most
significant impacts of climate change. A United States Travel
Association poll taken in 2009 showed that sixty-four percent of
travelers are concerned about climate change. Travelers are the bread
and butter of my gateway county economy, and if visitors are concerned,
leaders in every national park gateway community should be too.
the need for a collaborative adaptation plan
Every year over ten million visitors come to the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park, to hike the Appalachian National Scenic Trail,
and to visit our other state and federal lands. In fact, this year
despite the economic downturn the Great Smoky Mountains and other units
of the national park system have seen a five percent increase in
visitation. Global climate change threatens our unique resource. The
Great Smoky Mountains is the most diverse biosphere in the northern
hemisphere, and given our dependence on the park for our economic well-
being and our personal connection and history around this unique place,
it is our job to make sure that we protect and create the opportunity
for all our national parks to adapt to the most sever impacts of
climate change. We must work nationally to develop an effective
strategy to lower overall global concentrations of greenhouse gases to
protect our parks, but there is much to be done on the ground to deal
with the impacts that are at this point beyond our control.
Coordinating and planning to mitigate impacts to natural and cultural
resources as well as develop tools to adapt to the changing environment
will help to assure that the Smokies remain intact so future
generations of Cocke County residents and visitors will have an
opportunity to connect to our beautiful and unique parks.
It is widely accepted that our national parks can play an important
role in understanding climate change and responding to it. First, the
national parks provide a classroom for understanding and studying how
climate change is impacting our entire environment. Second, the
national parks offer a refuge for species that are--or might be--
displaced by a changing climate. Third, as part of the mix of state and
federal lands, the national parks will play an important role
sustaining ecosystems and ecological processes that see no park
boundary. The national parks, simply put, give us the ability to better
understand, mitigate, and adapt to a changing climate.
The natural resource adaptation provisions passed in the House of
Representatives, ``Clean Energy and American Security Act'' set up a
structure for resource adaptation that should be strongly considered by
members of the Senate. It is my understanding that the Kerry-Boxer,
``Clean Energy, Jobs, and American Power Act'' and a climate change
adaptation bill sponsored by Senator Jeff Bingaman also mirror the
language regarding the establishment of a coordinated local, state, and
federal effort to fund the required scientific research and on the
ground projects that need to happen to protect our national parks from
the worst impacts of climate change. I would like to applaud and thank
all of you for your efforts. However, I would also like to urge you to
consider fully funding these efforts to make sure that across the board
natural resource adaptation projects adequately protect the parks in
our backyard.
economic growth from natural resource adaptation
I'm no expert on climate policy, but what I do know is that our
parks are changing and we have a unique opportunity to protect these
special places and simultaneously boost local economies. In Cocke
County we are lucky in these tough economic times to have outstanding
pubic lands as a reliable source of economic prosperity. However, the
national park lands that sustain our strong eco-tourism based economic
growth prevent growth in traditional economic sectors such as
manufacturing. For all of the added benefits our park units provide to
our community we still have to deal with the challenge of being a rural
community working to grow sustainably. Fully funding natural resource
adaptation programs around national park units and other federal and
state lands will create much needed jobs around the United States and
Cocke County is no exception.
By safeguarding wildlife populations, rivers, forests, and deserts
in national parks around the United States a strong well-funded natural
resource adaptation program will protect national park units that
maintain seven-hundred and thirty billion dollars in economic activity
and sustain nearly six and a half million jobs nationwide. It will also
create new jobs in gateway communities around the country. A fully
funded program would create jobs around the United States for
scientists, engineers, construction crews, equipment operators,
firefighters, educators, students, youth workers, and the host of
support service providers in manufacturing and local business. The
important work that needs to be done to restore wetlands, forests, and
maintaining habitat for wildlife migration and corridors will create
opportunity around the country and hopefully at my home in Cocke
County. By protecting our natural resources in national parks and other
state and federal lands we can sustain a critical economic engine for
our communities that might otherwise sputter out in the face of growing
impacts from climate change.
It is my job as County Mayor, and my personal responsibility as a
member of a family that gave up our land for the creation of the Great
Smoky Mountains National Park, to work with you in partnership to make
sure that we are proactive park stewards. I am not an expert on climate
policy, but as the owner of a working cattle farm, it is clear to me
that if you do not maintain and manage your herd properly you are going
to have a heck of a time keeping the farm open and an even more
difficult time turning a profit. Like a working farm, we need to
maintain our national parks with progressive stewardship and adjust to
changes in the weather or else we might lose the farm. Fully funding a
coordinated effort between local, state, and federal agencies to
conduct the appropriate scientific research, natural resource
adaptation and management projects makes good business sense for the
future of our national parks.
Every day that I see the sun rise over Mount Cammerer in the
Smokies is another day to help Cocke County realize our full potential
as a viable and sustainable rural community. Cocke County is a
community where we value our mountain traditions and natural resources
and we work daily to showcase them to the world. Global climate change
is a major threat to our precious heritage, but through thoughtful,
progressive policy initiatives and a little American ingenuity we can
protect our valuable national park resources and assure that our future
generations will be able to enjoy the Smokies and hike the Appalachian
Trail as we can today.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Mayor.
We turn to Dr. Reed Noss. He is the Davis-Shine Professor
of Conservation Biology at the University of Central Florida in
Orlando, Florida. Doctor, welcome. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF REED F. NOSS, PH.D., DAVIS-SHINE PROFESSOR OF
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, ORLANDO,
FL
Mr. Noss. Thanks very much, and good afternoon, Senator
Udall, Senator Burr, and others present.
As Senator Udall mentioned, I am at the University of
Central Florida. I am also President of the Florida Institute
for Conservation Science, which is a nonprofit science think
tank, and an elected fellow with the American Association for
the Advancement of Science. Relevant to this hearing, I
recently served as Vice Chair of a Federal advisory committee
for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.
I want to get right to the heart of the major topic of
discussion here, which is the relationship between climate
change and the integrity of our national parks. There are two
basic points I want to make.
One is that climate change will not be good for national
parks. That is a no-brainer, but there is no getting around it.
There are going to be problems.
But the second point is also very important. There are
things we can do now, and hopefully proactively, to reduce the
impacts of climate change on national parks, and these things
fall into the category of adaptation, which Director Jarvis and
others have already referred to. They force us, as Director
Jarvis pointed out, to start thinking at a landscape level,
which will also help address a lot of other problems facing the
national parks.
So we might ask what kinds of parks are most at risk.
I do not want to spend much time on this. Those in the far
north, those in the continental interior are projected to
experience the greatest increases in temperature and associated
moisture stress. I believe the committee is well familiar with
that. Also, of course, the high elevation alpine zones in our
mountain parks, in the Rockies, the Cascades, the Sierra
Nevada, but also the Appalachians. These areas will be at risk
because, as temperature warms, vegetation moves up the slope.
Those at the top more or less get pinched right off the top of
the mountain.
Now, one bit of good news, I think, a ray of hope, is that
mountainous parks in some respects, especially for terrestrial
species may have more resilience to climate change than other
kinds of parks, and the reason is that except for these very
high elevation areas, at least here there is an elevational
gradient relatively intact along which species can move in
response to climate change. So, for example, by moving up slope
1,000 feet, you get to a climate that is about 3 degrees cooler
on average. You would have to go 100 miles northward to get to
that same temperature difference. So there is some advantage
there.
Also you have micro-climates such as north-facing slopes,
sheltered coves, areas around seeps and springs where species
can basically seek refuge during these periods of hotter
climate. These have probably been very important in the past.
In low-lying flat terrain, actually the options for
adaptation are much more limited, and it is becoming clear to
me that the national park units and other natural areas in low-
lying coastal areas may be at the greatest risk both for their
cultural and their biological resources, especially over the
next few decades and beyond. It is important to bear in mind
that in the eastern U.S. most of the acreage in the National
Park System is very low-lying coastal area. Look at Everglades
National Park and the contiguous Big Cypress National Preserve.
We have got 2.2 million acres there, more than 2.2 million
acres, which is larger than Yellowstone, much of it very low
elevation. Nine of the 10 national seashores are in the east,
also very low elevation and therefore subject to storm surge,
to general sea level rise, and other problems related to those
factors.
So what will happen to those low-lying areas? It differs
tremendously from area to area, and I think this is what
Senator Burr was getting at in his question earlier. We can
come back to that. But basically I included in the packet in my
written testimony a projection for Florida and the boundaries
of the national parks did not come out as well as I had hoped.
But you can see the projection. This is for 1-meter, 3-meter,
and 6-meter increments in sea level. Basically most of
Everglades National Park would be inundated with just a 1-meter
rise in sea level, and this is now considered a conservative
estimate of sea level rise by the year 2100. It could be
faster. It could be quicker. It is very improbable that it will
be slower or less.
So what do we do about this? The best we can do, I think,
is assist the movement of these coastal species and habitats
inland. Now, I cannot say, I cannot claim that I can tell you
how to do this. No scientist right now can tell you exactly how
to do this. We need more research. We need some experimentation
with various options which will include, I think, some
intensive engineering options.
Basically there are two major ways that we can deal with
it. One is to armor the shoreline with sea walls and levees and
other structures, bring in tons of sand to replenish beaches
that are eroding away. The second option is basically to
implement some form of managed retreat where we systematically
start to relocate human communities, some structures at least,
species and habitats, if we can figure out how, inland as sea
level rises.
Neither of these options are going to be cheap. They are
both going to be expensive. The first option, coastal armoring,
is at best a short-term fix, and it will very soon become
economically unsustainable except for some very special cases.
It will be probably an ecological disaster in some areas
because it will prevent species from moving inland. For our
coastal national parks, really the only option again is to
assist movement of species inland.
Along with this, I think, for the short term we should
protect as much coastal habitat as we can--and I am talking
really as a society here, not just the National Park Service--
look very carefully at development in flood-prone areas, for
example, in these low-lying coastal areas, and try to establish
broad movement corridors from the coastal national park units
inland to link up with other conservation areas that are on
higher ground.
I urge this committee to think hard about these issues and
initiate a process to determine precisely what needs to be done
to minimize the impacts of sea level rise and other climatic
phenomena on national parks and our natural heritage. I think
it is especially important right now that funding and direction
for adaptation to climate change, including sea level rise, be
included in any climate change legislation. I am very
encouraged to see movement in that direction.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before
this esteemed subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Noss follows:]
Prepared Statement of Reed F. Noss, Ph.D., Davis-Shine Professor of
Conservation Biology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL
I am Reed Noss, the Davis-Shine Professor of Conservation Biology
at the University of Central Florida and President of the Florida
Institute for Conservation Science. I have an M.S. degree in Ecology
from the University of Tennessee and a Ph.D. in Wildlife Ecology from
the University of Florida. I am the author of more than 260 scientific
and semi-technical articles and several books. I have served as Editor-
in-Chief of the journal Conservation Biology and as President of the
Society for Conservation Biology. I am an elected Fellow of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science. I was recently the
Vice-Chair of a Federal Advisory Committee for the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program. I am currently organizing a scientific workshop and
book on adaptation to sea-level rise in Florida. At many times in the
past I have served as an ad hoc advisor to the National Park Service
and other federal agencies.
Our national parks have long been valued as public playgrounds,
places for spiritual enrichment, and as bastions of democracy.
Especially over the last few decades, the national park system has also
been viewed as a reservoir of wildlife and biological diversity. We all
know that this value is sometimes compromised, both by over-development
and other problems within the parks and by things going on beyond park
boundaries.
The best known examples of problems originating outside park
boundaries, but affecting parks are clear-cutting, intensive
agriculture, road-building, energy development, and urbanization,
sometimes occurring right up to the boundaries of national parks. These
activities turn some parks into ecological islands surrounded by highly
altered land. Migrations of large mammals such as elk, bison, and
pronghorn antelope in and out of some western national parks have been
disrupted, to the extent that some populations face extinction.
Less visible but just as dangerous to the ecological integrity of
national parks are air and water pollution, acid precipitation, and
water withdrawals for agriculture and urban uses. Recently, undeniable
scientific evidence has become available showing that climate change
and attendant impacts such as sea-level rise may be the greatest
environmental threat our nation and the world have ever faced. National
parks are not exempt from this threat--in fact, due their locations
(very high elevations or very low coastal elevations) they are probably
more vulnerable than most other lands.
The two main things we know about climate change in relation to
national parks are that:
1) Climate change will not be good for national parks--but
2) There are things we can do proactively to reduce the
impacts of climate change on national parks--these things fall
into the category of ``adaptation.''
Adaptation to climate change is very urgent because we are already
seeing negative impacts of climate change on wildlife and ecosystems,
and those impacts will continue to worsen for at least decades and
probably centuries, even if we drastically reduce our combustion of
fossil fuels and other inputs of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
To reduce the impacts of climate change on national parks in a
cost-effective way, we need to prioritize, which requires asking
several key questions:
1) What kinds of species are at greatest risk from climate
change?
2) What national parks are most at risk from climate change,
in terms of losing species and ecosystem functions?
3) Conversely, what kinds of parks are likely to be most
resilient to climate change?
4) What kinds of actions should we take to minimize losses of
biological diversity and ecological integrity within national
parks?
All of these questions, but especially the last, require sound
scientific research to answer with confidence and in detail.
Nevertheless, we have sufficient knowledge now to make some
generalizations and head in the right direction.
First, what kinds of species are likely to be at greatest risk? We
can assume they will be:
Species with narrow geographic distributions (i.e.,
endemics), in which case loss of only a small area of habitat
could result in extinction.
Species closely associated with habitats likely to be
eliminated or greatly reduced by climate change. These include
arctic, alpine, low-lying coastal, and nearshore marine
habitats.
Species that are not very mobile and cannot disperse
quickly.
Species that show limited responsiveness to natural
selection (from low genetic diversity, long generation times,
etc.).
Species that are highly susceptible to emerging diseases and
invasive non-native predators and competitors.
What kinds of national parks are likely to experience intense
impacts from climate change? We can predict that these include parks in
the far north, for example Alaska, and in the continental interior,
because these are the regions expected to show the greatest increases
in temperature and associated water stress. Alpine areas within parks--
for example in the Rocky Mountains, Sierra Nevada, and Cascades--are
also at high risk. Alpine areas and their species stand to be pinched
right of the top of mountains as vegetation zones move upwards in
elevation with warming temperatures.
But are mountain parks more at risk generally? Probably not. There
are many reasons to suspect that parks with extensive elevation
gradients and high topographic diversity will be more resilient to
climate change than parks with limited topography. With adequate
elevation range available, a terrestrial species can migrate upslope
and reach a cooler climate with much less distance to travel than
moving northward. In general, an average temperature 3 F cooler can be
reached by moving upslope 1000 feet but would require moving northward
100 miles.
In mountainous parks, species can also seek cooler microclimates
such as sheltered coves, northfacing slopes, and areas around seeps and
springs. Indeed, these cooler microhabitats probably serve an important
role as refuges for species during times of hotter climate, from which
they can move out and repopulate the surrounding landscape as the
regional climate cools again.
Therefore, perhaps the most compelling recommendations that
scientists can make with respect to biological adaptation to climate
change are to:
Maintain intact, connected habitats along environmental
gradients, for example from the lowlands to the mountaintops.
Locate and protect local areas of cooler and wetter
microclimate.
Opportunities for adaptation are more restricted in flat terrain.
National parks and other natural areas in low-lying coastal regions are
the most vulnerable of all and will require the most immediate and
probably the most costly intervention in order to prevent widespread
losses of species. The culprit, of course, is sea-level rise.
Eminent geologists Orrin Pilkey and Rob Young recently wrote in
their book The Rising Sea (2009): ``Of all the ongoing and expected
changes from global warming. . .the increase in the volume of the
oceans and accompanying rise in the level of the sea will be the most
immediate, the most certain, the most widespread, and the most
economically visible in its effects.''
Most of the acreage of the national park system in the eastern
United States is coastal. Everglades National Park and the contiguous
Big Cypress National Preserve total more than 2.2 million acres,
slightly larger than Yellowstone National Park. The nearby Biscayne
National Park encompasses another 172,000 acres. All but one of our 10
national seashores are on the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts, and these
eastern national seashores total nearly 525,000 acres.
What will happen to these eastern national park units with rising
sea level? Projections for Florida, as an example, do not look good
(Fig. 1).* Most projections now show the sea rising at least 1 meter by
the year 2100--this is the level currently estimated by the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program. However, many recent projections are
higher (for example, the State of California is now assuming 1.4 meters
by 2100 in its planning) and some studies suggest that the rise to 1
meter or more above current levels could happen significantly sooner
than 2100, depending on what happens to the polar ice caps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Graphic has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faced with projections such as these, a natural response would be
despair. In Florida, we are currently in denial. I am not sure which is
worse. A more intelligent approach is to examine the options for
adaptation to the inevitable changes that will occur.
These options fall into two classes: (1) armor the shoreline with
seawalls, levees and other structures, and bring in large amounts of
new sand to build artificial beaches; or (2) managed retreat, where we
relocate people, valuable structures, species, and habitat further
inland, above the expected level of sea-level rise. Because many
structures can not be relocated economically, they will have to be
abandoned.
Pursuing either of these options will be difficult and expensive.
The first option--coastal armoring and building artificial beaches--
would be only a short-term fix, at best, and will soon prove
economically unsustainable. It would be a disaster ecologically as
well, by preventing the natural inland movement of habitats and
species, which has occurred during previous periods of sea-level rise
many times over the past millions of years.
For coastal national park units, assisting the movement of species
inland to colonize new habitats is the only strategy with any hope of
success. Yet we are still faced with many questions and much
uncertainty about answers. In the Everglades, for example, can we
really expect unique communities such as marl prairies (home of the
federally Endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow) to ``migrate'' inland?
We simply do not know.
What about our national seashores? Most of these national park
units are on barrier islands. Barrier islands naturally move around
over time with changes in sea levels and currents. But before long
there will be nowhere to move. The shorelines landward of the barrier
islands, like much of the islands themselves, are often heavily
developed.
All we can do in these cases is protect as much coastal habitat as
possible now and establish broad movement corridors from coastal parks
and other natural areas to inland conservation areas. We probably will
have to physically translocate some species to higher ground and take
others into captivity indefinitely. We may have to create new beaches,
well inland of their current location, to provide essential nesting and
feeding habitat for sea turtles, shorebirds, and many other creatures.
Sea-level rise and other challenges to national parks and our
natural heritage posed by climate change do not have to be a
catastrophe. As Orrin Pilkey and Rob Young put it, sea-level rise and
its associated impacts ``could all be seen as an opportunity for
society to redesign with nature, to anticipate the changes that will
occur in the future and to respond in such a fashion as to maintain a
coast that future generations will find both useful and enjoyable. It
provides a challenge to scientists, planners, environmentalists,
politicians, and other citizens alike to stretch the limits of their
imagination to respond with flexibility and with careful foresight to
development challenges that our society has not faced before.''
I urge this subcommittee to think hard about these questions and
initiate a process to determine precisely what needs to be done to
minimize the impacts of sea-level rise and other climatic phenomena on
national parks and America's natural heritage in general. The sooner we
take action, the more of our natural heritage can be preserved for
future generations. We still have a chance to make a difference.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee.
Senator Udall. Dr. Noss, thank you for that testimony.
Thank you to the panel. All three of you added value and some
important insights.
Mayor McMahan, if I could turn to you. I have to make note
that your enthusiasm is contagious. I am married to a North
Carolinian. Of course, I am sitting next to a North Carolinian.
I have to believe that your cousins in North Carolina match
your enthusiasm for the Great Smokies and for the resources----
Mr. McMahan. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Senator Udall [continuing]. That you are so fortunate to
have in your back yard.
I assume your Congressman is Congressman Wamp?
Mr. McMahan. No, sir. No. My Congressman is Congressman
Phil Roe.
Senator Udall. Yes, all right.
Mr. McMahan. A brand new Congressman, first term.
Senator Udall. So Congressman Wamp, as Senator Burr I know,
has great enthusiasm about all things Tennessean. Again, you
remind me of his passion for your wonderful State.
Mr. McMahan. Thank you.
Senator Udall. You made it very clear that the economic
downturn has had very little effect on your visitation numbers,
which is great news. I think it further points out that
national parks bring in significant dollars, and gateway
communities can thrive even in harsh economic times.
I am curious how you see the potential effects of climate
change, drought, worsening air quality, to name two, in your
region on visitation of the Smokies and other national parks,
if it were to continue to develop in the way we hope it does
not but looks like it may well.
Mr. McMahan. Yes, sir. Senator, it would be devastating. I
believe that if we continue to allow climate change to go
unaddressed, I feel that--we are blessed. We live in the most
diverse biosphere in the western hemisphere. I mean, there are
more plant and animal species in the lower Appalachians, the
Great Smoky Mountain National Park, than anywhere else. They
are the third oldest mountain range in the world. When you have
that kind of rich history sitting in your back yard where you
have got more visitors than the top three other parks combined
in visitation--we have about 10 million visitors a year to the
Great Smoky Mountain National Park--that is a blessing. You get
to share your precious natural resources and your cultural
heritage traditions to the entire world.
The down side of that is that the footprint is enormous,
and when you are talking about--I know out West and these
esteemed gentlemen up here have been out West a lot and been to
some of those parks. You have millions and millions of acres
and lots less visitation. But when you are talking 525,000
acres, just a half a million acres, and the footprint of 10
million visitors, it takes a toll, and on top of that with the
kind of climate change that we have been seeing, especially
with the drought a couple years ago--I have a working cattle
farm. I had to buy hay for 2 years at exorbitant prices from
surrounding States. It was devastating to the economy of the
local farmers.
Now, in saying that, I do not think we can afford not to
look at climate change because in the future, if we do not,
then what we have and what we know now and we have known for
the first 100 years, by 2016 at the centennial we are not going
to know where to go in the next 100 years. So I feel that if we
do fully fund research projects and adaptation projects, then I
feel truly what is going to happen is that we are going to get
in front--we are going to be proactive in getting in front of
this problem and see what we can do. There will be an influx of
capital investment, which in turn for us economically will turn
around and create jobs and, in turn, increase our tax base. If
we allow our parks to go unattended in this, then the
decimation will be just absolutely--it will be brutal and then
people will not come anymore.
The Great Smoky Mountains National Park just celebrated its
75th this year. My family comes from the park. We were kicked
out of the park. We were kicked out.
I know that Senator Burr probably has friends that have
family that were kicked out of the park on the North Carolina
side. When we left, we were not happy campers, truly. Literally
we were kicked out and the Federal Government has taken over.
We have gotten over it. We love what has happened with the
parks. We love what the Federal Government has done with it
now, but we also feel that it is incumbent upon the Federal
Government to work with us in partnership to create new
strategies, new policies to address what we have always wanted
to do, which is to keep our cultural heritage traditions and
our precious natural resources and that is all we are asking.
Senator Udall. Thank you for sharing that understanding and
your experiences with us. I marvel at your family's history.
Since I spent so much time encouraging you to talk about
the Great Smokies, I hope Senator Burr will get somebody else
on the panel to talk about Rocky Mountain National Park so I
can make myself whole with my constituents back in Colorado
because we are proud of our parks.
Dr. Williams, in the time I have got remaining--and I think
we may well do a second round--I wanted to follow up on your
statement about streams becoming uninhabitable for native trout
because the water temperatures are very important to trout
health. Are you of the mind that sportsmen and sportswomen are
aware of the impacts to trout streams in parks and how those
changes could affect recreational opportunities? How do you see
the Park Service engaging this constituency to help educate the
general public?
Mr. Williams. Thank you. The first part of your question--I
think the answer is there is a growing awareness from hunters
and anglers across this country. The Wildlife Management
Institute, in cooperation with about eight other major national
conservation organizations, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited,
that type, edited and produced a book called Seasons' End which
deals with the challenges of climate change. That was an
attempt to help inform and educate hunters and anglers across
this country who, I would say, about 4 or 5 years ago probably
really were not engaged in this issue. Not only that book, but
those major conservation organizations produce--almost all of
them produce monthly magazines and have covered this topic. So
that awareness is growing. I do not think there is any question
about it.
We have been involved in some polling of hunters and
anglers, national polls. It ranks up there as a concern. The
other concerns are the economy, energy, and so on that
supersede that. But I think those polls are very important. In
the most recent one we did, if I could characterize, one of the
responses was we know that climate change is an issue and we
think that steps should be taken now to address it rather than
wait because it will cost less to deal with it now than it will
if we wait 10-15 years. So hunters and anglers are aware and
that concern is growing.
The Park Service provides--again, as I guess two of the
panelists here talked about--tremendous fishing opportunities
across the country, in particular--well, I will talk about
Rocky Mountain National Park. There is tremendous fishing
there. It is a place that all us easterners dream about and
eventually hopefully get a chance to go fish some of those
wonderful areas.
But I have got to go back to the Great Smoky Mountains. In
Seasons' End, in that book, the chapter that dealt with cold
water fisheries, trout fisheries, the experts, the fisheries
biologists that work those areas and those Appalachian streams
have made some pretty dire predictions about what might happen
to the native trout species, particularly brook trout, in those
streams because of warming temperatures in streams and the
change in stream flow as a function of change in snowmelt and
snowpack.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Senator Burr.
Senator Burr. Dr. Williams, let me assure you the brook
trout are still alive and well. I caught one not long ago.
Mr. Williams. Very good.
Senator Burr. Just outside the borders of the Great
Smokies.
Mayor, let me welcome you.
Mr. McMahan. Thank you.
Senator Burr. I feel like I have a direct tie to you. If it
had not been for North Carolina giving Tennessee that land, you
would not have Tennessee.
Mr. McMahan. Yes, sir. I appreciate that direct tie.
Senator Burr. But we thank you for sharing the park with
us, and it is my hope you will not have to buy hay this year
based upon how much rain we have had.
Mr. McMahan. No, sir. I have had three cuttings already. I
think we are fine.
Senator Burr. A lot of things have changed.
Let me ask you.
Mr. McMahan. Yes, sir.
Senator Burr. If, for some reason in an attempt to try to
address human effects on climate, the Park Service came out
tomorrow and said we are banning automobiles from the Great
Smoky Mountains National Park, what would that do to the 10
million visitors we have?
Mr. McMahan. If they just out and banned it right now? It
would be decimating to visitation.
Senator Burr. There are some things that we might both look
at and say this could have a marginal impact on climate change,
but from a standpoint of what the parks are there for, this is
not the right direction for us to go. Do you agree?
Mr. McMahan. Absolutely. Yes, sir.
Senator Burr. Dr. Noss, I am going to give you an
opportunity to give me the words to sell coastal residents in
North Carolina who have lived when they saw most of the Outer
Banks covered in water, only to now be pretty heavily developed
in some areas and in other areas, a protected national park
with some controversy on usage right now. But how can you lead
me on how I convey to them that they are in jeopardy of those
at some point being under water, the result of climate change
versus their historical knowledge of cyclical changes?
Mr. Noss. I understand your question, and I would have a
hard time explaining to them too except for to just point to
the bigger picture. I think this is a classic example of the
limitations, not the wrongness but simply the limitations, of
taking a purely local view because if you take a little broader
view, these barrier islands move around. They come and go,
whereas some of yours have grown, there have been other barrier
islands that have disappeared completely or moved considerably
over the same span of time.
Senator Burr. Not the result of climate change.
Mr. Noss. Yes, as a result of sea level rise just recently.
I will point to increasing storm surge from hurricanes. I will
point you to a book from a couple folks in your----
Senator Burr. Are hurricanes the result of climate change?
Mr. Noss. Yes. The increasing sea surface temperature is
now accepted as the major factor for the increasing intensity
of hurricanes, which means storm surge.
Senator Burr. If progressively this gets worse every year,
progressively--I mean, this is not something that skips a year
or skips a decade as far as the impact of climate change.
Mr. Noss. Oh, no. It can skip years and decades.
Senator Burr. So this year's low experience of hurricanes
is a skip. It's an aberration in the trend?
Mr. Noss. We are in an El Nino year and during El Nino
years, the intensity and the frequency of Atlantic hurricanes
is reduced. Next time we get into a La Nina, which is the
opposite situation, we can expect that hurricanes will again
come back with force. A lot of the hurricanes in 2003-2004 were
both during relative La Nina periods. So that is a somewhat
cyclic situation. But the general trend is toward increasing--
--
Senator Burr. So let me see if I understand this. If we
knew we were in that cycle, why would the guy out in Colorado
and the national weather forecast not have said, you know, this
is going to be a year we are not going to have many hurricanes.
They actually projected this year we were going to have more
than we did last year.
Mr. Noss. Because very interestingly, the cycle is
changing. We are getting to shorter periods of time between El
Nino events, in particular, and increasing intensity----
Senator Burr. But, Dr. Noss, this is like me watching the
news last night, because I had an honor flight of 100 veterans
coming up today, and when I saw the forecast for today, I
called 10 people in my office and made sure they were going to
be at the World War II Memorial this morning with umbrellas
based upon what they forecast last night, only to get to the
World War II Memorial this morning and the sun was out.
So I guess my point is if we are relying on science to
drive this massive change in our policy at the parks and
potentially the public investment and we cannot, 6 months out,
look at say, well, you know, this is a La Nina year or--what
was the other one?
Mr. Noss. El Nino and La Nina.
Senator Burr. Whichever one produces less, why could we not
project that 6 months ago when the hurricane forecasters looked
at it and said, well, this is a La Nina year, so we are not
going to have many?
Mr. Noss. As counter-intuitive as it seems, long-term
trends in climate are actually more reliable and many times
easier to predict than weather day to day, and the same thing
with these El Nino and La Nina years. It was not predicted that
the cycle would shorten and the intensity of both the El Nino
and the La Nina would increase, but it is something that
happened. Some people had predicted that, but it was not
generally accepted until quite recently.
Senator Burr. I read your testimony and I was just struck
by one thing, if I could read it.
Mr. Noss. Sure.
Senator Burr. ``Most projections now show the sea rising by
at least 1 meter by the year 2100. This is the level currently
estimated by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. However,
many recent projections are higher. For example, the State of
California has now assumed 1.4 meters by 2100 in its planning,
and some studies suggest that a rise to 1 meter or more above
current levels could happen significantly sooner than 2100.''
Then you made the statement verbally: It is improbable it will
be slower or less.
So let me just ask you. Is there any scientific data that
suggests it is going to be slower or less?
Mr. Noss. There are certainly some scientists that claim
that, and we have had an odd situation globally over the last
10 years, what appears to be odd, in that climate has been
relatively stable in terms of temperature for the last 10
years. But if you look at the bigger picture, this is not
unexpected. You have climate, in terms of global temperature,
for example, going up, stabilizing for a while, going up again,
stabilizing for a while, and in the big scheme of things, it is
going to drop over thousands of years.
So the trend is definitely upwards, and there is a lag
time. The sea surface temperature and sea temperatures
generally have continued to increase markedly over this last 10
years even though air temperature has been stable. So last July
was the highest sea surface temperature average worldwide ever
recorded in the history of humans taking measurements of sea
surface temperature. We do know that there is a strong
connection now between the intensity of hurricanes and sea
surface temperature. It is still controversial whether we are
going to have more hurricanes as a result of this.
Senator Burr. How long have we kept data on sea
temperatures?
Mr. Noss. At least a couple centuries.
Senator Burr. Globally?
Mr. Noss. I would have to look and see exactly how many
points. We take measurements in many more points now, but there
have been people measuring ocean temperatures for a long time.
Senator Burr. You suggest that some of what we have been
through is cyclical. We are going to go through this and then
the temperature is going to come back down.
Mr. Noss. Over the big span of time, absolutely. We have
been through this before.
Senator Burr. It makes it even tougher for me then to
understand the connection to carbon and some of the things that
we are talking about doing if in fact this has happened before
and those items did not contribute to it.
Mr. Noss. They did. There were other factors that led to
fluctuations in carbon dioxide content on a global scale,
factors including volcanism, volcano activity, and lots of
other things. But I am talking about on the scale of tens of
thousands to millions of years. So, for example, the last time
we had significantly higher sea levels was during the last
interglacial period, a period between glaciers of the Ice Age,
which was around 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. There was a recent
study done. It showed that at that time, sea levels rose very
rapidly, maybe as rapid or more so than we are even seeing now.
Senator Burr. Was the United States geographically even in
the location that it is today then?
Mr. Noss. Yes, pretty much so actually. It is just that we
were----
Senator Burr. The tectonic plates had separated and we had
all the----
Mr. Noss. It has not changed much since then. It has not
changed much for the last few million years.
Now, the big difference between this episode of global
warming and climate change in general and those of the past is
that species could move in response to climate change in the
past because there were not all these barriers in the way.
There were not cities. There were not big agricultural fields.
There were not highways.
Senator Burr. I think Dr. Williams got into that very well,
that this is as much a challenge about the growth of
population.
Mr. Noss. Absolutely.
Senator Burr. Listen, I want to thank all of you. I hope
that the proposals that come out of the Park Service are
reasonable and rational and achievable and effective. I hope
if, in fact, we think that a policy like removal of automobiles
or a cap on the population is something that ought to be
policy, that we will sober up before we go out and publicly say
that. But I am confident that from a standpoint of our Park
Service, the investment in the policy, this is something we
have to do in collaboration with the American people and, yes,
with the mayors and the communities that surround those parks.
If it is not beneficial, if it is not there for the purpose
that we protected them--and that is for the public use--then I
am not sure that the American people will buy into what the
remediation might be.
I thank all three of you.
Senator Udall. Let me thank also, as we bring the hearing
to a conclusion, the three witnesses. Your testimony has been
enlightening and enjoyable.
I would add my thoughts, as we conclude, that I do believe
we cannot afford to not respond. As Dr. Williams suggested, if
we do not address it now, it will cost us a much greater price
later on.
The record will remain open for 2 weeks.
Again, thank you for your testimony here today.
The hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press:]
Questions for Jonathan B. Jarvis From Senator Murkowski
buffer zones/park service jurisdiction
Question 1. Recently, there have been a number of National Park
Service endorsed situations which sought to increase NPS land or had
the effect of creating buffer zones around existing National Park
Service Units.
It is important to note that the Park Service only manages land
within the boundaries of the National Park Units, and is not provided
with the jurisdiction to manage lands outside of those Units. What role
should the National Park Service play in creating and mandating policy
for lands surrounding National Park Units? If the Park Service plays a
role in overseeing surrounding lands or resources, the NPS would have
extremely far reaching jurisdiction, wouldn't you agree?
other land management agencies
Question 2. Each land management agency and bureau has their own
statutory mission statements and manages lands differently than the
National Park Service. All of these agencies' missions apply within the
borders of the land for which the difference agencies have
jurisdiction, but not outside of those borders.
Does the Park Service believe that its own Organic Act should allow
it to pursue efforts that may be in contrast to efforts of other land
management agencies?
Question 3. The Secretary of the Interior has begun a Climate
Change Initiative which, among other things established
``cooperatives'' through which ``Interior bureaus and agencies must
work together, and with other federal, state, tribal and local
governments, and private landowner partners, to develop landscape-level
strategies for understanding and responding to climate change
impacts.''
What is the Park Service's role in these cooperatives, and the
Climate Change Initiative in general? Are there, and will there
continue to be, differences between different land management agencies
on how Climate Change should be approached within their respective
jurisdictions? To what extent will the Park Service influence
activities outside of its jurisdiction?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
National Parks Conservation Association,
Clean Air & Climate Programs,
Washington, DC, October 28, 2009.
Hon. Mark Udall,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 304,
1st and C Streets, NE, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Udall,
Please accept the following testimony and attached reports on
behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) in
connection with the hearing by the Subcommittee on National Parks to
receive testimony on the current and expected impacts of climate change
on units of the National Park System.
Founded in 1919, NPCA works to protect, preserve, and enhance
America's National Park System for present and future generations.
Today, we have 24 regional and field offices across the country, from
southern Florida to Alaska, and more than 330,000 members, who care
deeply about the wildlife and ecosystems our parks preserve, and want
to see these unique American treasures passed on to our children and
grandchildren undiminished.
climate change will have serious long-term impacts on our national
parks
The effects of climate change have been visible for years in our
national parks. Glaciers are disappearing faster than scientists had
predicted even a few years ago. Native trees and animals are losing
ground because changing temperature and weather patterns are making the
availability of food, water, and shelter less certain. Fish and
wildlife are being driven from their national park homes by changes
that are unfolding faster than the animals' ability to adapt.
America's national parks are showing the signs of climate change.
From Yosemite's forests in California to the Gulf Stream waters of the
Florida coast, from the top of the Rocky Mountains to the shores of the
Chesapeake Bay, these lands and the incredible diversity of life they
support are all feeling the heat. Climate change is here and now,
affecting the coral reefs in Florida at Biscayne National Park,
lodgepole pines in Rocky Mountain National Park and animals that rely
on snow in Yellowstone National Park.
NPCA is submitting for the record our 2009 report, Climate Change &
National Park Wildlife: A Survival Guide for a Warming World, which
details the climate change impacts on wildlife in dozens of national
parks throughout the country. An electronic version is available at
www.npca.org/survivalguide. We are also submitting for the record our
2007 report, Unnatural Disaster: Global Warming and Our National Parks,
which details climate change impacts on national parks throughout the
country. An electronic version is available at www.npca.org/
globalwarming.
As detailed in NPCA's reports, national parks, including their
roads and buildings as well as their natural, historical, and cultural
resources, are highly vulnerable to climate change impacts already
unfolding across their landscapes. Following are some of the key
findings of our reports with regard to climate change impacts on the
national parks:
GLOBAL WARMING IMPACTS ON OUR NATIONAL PARKS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASKA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK Katmai Ocean warming may affect salmon
fisheries and scientists are
exploring possible links between
warmer river temperatures and
increased parasites in salmon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK Wrangell-St. Elias Thawing permafrost will damage
infrastructure and reduce the size
and location of ponds on which
waterfowl depend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PACIFIC COAST MOUNTAINS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA North Cascades Seventy to 90 percent of the snow
pack could disappear by the end of
this century, threatening winter
sports and water supplies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA Olympic Mount Rainier NP Warmer winters and more extreme
precipitation events could
increase winter flood risk; An
increase in stream water
temperature and shallower stream
will cause the decline of suitable
salmon habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR Lewis and Clark Earlier snowmelts and spring
flooding can decimate already-
stressed salmon populations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Yosemite National Park Sequoia The yellow-legged frog is
National Park Kings Canyon threatened by disappearing ponds
National Park caused by increased evaporation
and by the lack of water
replenishment from higher altitude
sources; Warming and drought have
made wildfire 3 season longer and
more damaging, and increased
insect damage; Warmer temperatures
will worsen ground-level ozone
problems; Increasing wildfires
will contribute more smoke and
airborne particulates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROCKY MOUNTAINS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MT Glacier The sculpted peaks, magical hanging
valleys, azure lakes are all here
because of the glaciers. By 2030,
the glaciers will be gone and they
will take a part of the Park with
them; Wolverines could decline as
snowfields they depend on for dens
disappear and carrion from winter-
killed animals becomes less
available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WY-MT-ID Yellowstone Recent warmer winters have led to
burgeoning Whitebark pine insect
infestations killing thousands of
trees and dramatically decreasing
the availability of the pine nut,
a critical fall food source for
grizzly bears.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO Rocky Mountain Rising temperatures and diminishing
snow pack are allowing trees to
take over high elevation alpine
tundra putting animal species that
have adapted to this ecosystem at
great risk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTHWEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT Canyonlands Arches Capitol Reef Bighorn sheep are threatened by an
increasing scarcity of its food
caused by changes in precipitation
patterns.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ Saguaro Higher temperatures are allowing
invasive grasses to displace
native plants, and these grasses
fuel wildfires, which used to be
rare in this ecosystem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX Big Bend The Rio Grande is forecasted to
narrow and dry up in places,
encouraging invasive plant growth
and affecting wildlife. CA JOSHUA
TREE More than 90% of Joshua trees
in the park could be wiped out
within a century.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GREAT LAKES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI Isle Royale Wolf and Moose populations are
declining at a rapid rate due to
unusually warm summers, directly
threatening their symbiotic
relationship.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI Apostle Islands With the water level in Lake
Superior decreasing, recreational
infrastructure must be redesigned
and replaced in order to maintain
the visitors' enjoyment of the
park and safety.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI Sleeping Bear Dunes Climate change will exacerbate
existing stresses on waterfowl,
shorebirds, and migratory birds,
such as water pollution and non-
native species.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN Indiana Dunes This park ranks third of all U.S.
national parks in plant diversity,
but the diversity of aquatic and
land-based flora will decline
significantly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORTHEAST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME MA NY Acadia Cape Cod Fire Island Climate change is diminishing the
availability of nesting habitats
for red knots and other shorebirds
that annually migrate along the
Atlantic Flyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME Acadia Rising seas may permanently
submerge the park's islands, while
warmer summers will result in
increased evapotranspiration
rates, which could destroy the
park's many wetland ecosystems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA Cape Cod Much of the Cape's rich mosaic of
marine, estuarine, fresh water,
and terrestrial ecosystems,
already damaged by rapid sea level
rise over the last decade, could
be completely lost to future
generations as submersion and
erosion claims ever more of this
low-lying park.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY Fire Island Sea-level rise will increase
shoreline erosion, saltwater
intrusion into groundwater
aquifers, and drown out endangered
native species, while increased
storms threaten historical and
cultural treasures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY Ellis Island Immigration records that connect
over 40 percent of Americans to
our collective past would have to
be removed from the park or risk
destruction from rising seas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME-GA Appalachian National Scenic Trail More floods can lead to higher
landslide risk, threatening
portions of the high elevation
trail, and communities that lie
below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MID-ATLANTIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD, VA Chesapeake Bay Warmer water is likely to increase
outbreaks of two dangerous oyster
diseases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA Historic Jamestown Jamestown celebrated its 400th
anniversary in 2007, but much of
the park could be under water
before its 500th anniversary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA Shenandoah More droughts, floods, and warmer
streams can diminish native trout
populations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA, NC Blue Ridge Parkway Warmer summers can produce more
ozone 5 NC pollution and more
``code red'' air quality days,
increasing health risks for
visitors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTHEAST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TN, NC Great Smoky Mountains Rare and ancient forests may be
threatened by increasing ground-
level ozone and insect pests
unleashed by warming; the park is
expected to lose most of its
populations of red squirrel,
northern flying squirrel, and
southern red-back vole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC, SC, GA, FL, MS Wright Brothers National Monument Sea level rise, increasing storm
Fort Sumter Fort Pulaski Gulf strength, and flooding threaten
Islands National Seashore low-lying historic areas and
historical structures that tell
the story of our nation from its
earliest days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL Everglades More powerful hurricanes combined
with sea level rise could destroy
park buildings and roads,
increasingly cutting-off visitor
access.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI Virgin Islands NP Warming ocean temperatures and
disease may be the primary
contributing factors to the
decline of coral reef habitats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL Biscayne Bay Dry Tortugas Rising, warming and acidifying seas
threaten coral reefs and sport
fishing. Toxic or unusual algal
blooms may threaten wildlife and
tourism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These impacts degrade not only the parks and their wildlife, but
also are beginning to have a significant impact on the National Park
Service's budget. Just one result of climate change--increased seasonal
flooding in the pacific west--underscores the seriousness of the
challenge.
Because winter temperatures in coastal Pacific mountains hover
close to freezing, the few degrees rise predicted for this region will
cause more and more precipitation to fall as rain rather than snow.
Predicted increases in extreme winter precipitation with expected
shifts toward rain rather than snow could greatly increase the
likelihood of flooding. In North Cascades National Park, the three
worst floods in park history have occurred in the fall when rain fell
on snow that already had accumulated in the mountains. In November
2006, Mount Rainier National Park suffered the most damaging flood in
its 108-year history when nearly 18 inches of rain fell in just 36
hours. The flooding broke the main utility lines, destroyed large
sections of roads, trails, and campgrounds, and filled reservoirs with
mud and debris. The major year-round road through the park was closed
for six months, and a major north-south road was closed for over a
year. Rebuilding cost to date has exceeded $40 million.
The National Park Service desperately needs a plan to protect
America's assets from climate change. Equally importantly, NPS needs
the resources commensurate with the enormity of the challenge.
national parks can be part of the solution to climate change
What's happening in the parks is symptomatic of changes unfolding
across the larger landscapes to which they are inseparably connected,
the same landscapes that contain our communities. Changes that harm
wildlife--depriving them of food, water, or shelter--will ultimately
harm us. Given the iconic importance of parks, and that they protect
core ecoregions of this country, working to safeguard parks and their
wildlife from climate change should be a central strategy in
safeguarding our nation from climate change.
Solutions are neither simple nor quick and easy. It will take
decisive action on the part of our federal government and all of us to
meet the challenge and keep our faith with future generations. To avoid
the potentially catastrophic loss of animal and plant life, it is
imperative that we wean ourselves from energy sources like coal and oil
that are accelerating rising temperatures and causing unnatural climate
change. It is equally imperative that we pursue new strategies to
preserve functioning ecosystems and the full diversity of life they
support.
National parks can play an important role in these strategies,
preserving healthy ecosystems and their wildlife, in part by helping
them to adapt to new climatic conditions. But some challenges must be
addressed before the parks can fully step into this role. Right now, no
national plan exists to manage wildlife throughout their habitat, which
often is a patchwork of lands managed by multiple federal agencies,
states, tribes, municipalities, and private landholders. Wildlife need
corridors that enable them to migrate between protected lands as
climate change renders their current homes inhospitable. We also need
to work harder to reduce air and water pollution that compound climate
change stresses on wildlife. All of these elements must be put in place
as soon as possible to safeguard all living communities.
We must act now to secure America's natural legacy before it is
lost to our children and grandchildren. The National Park System can
play a central role in restoring and preserving the healthy ecosystems
necessary for wildlife--and indeed ourselves--to thrive.
five key actions are needed to safeguard national parks from climate
change
The choice is now ours to either chronicle the decline of our
national parks or take actions to make our national parks part of the
climate change solution. If we fail to act, many species of fish and
wildlife could disappear from the parks--or even become extinct.
That we must reduce global warming pollution to protect our natural
world and human communities is now understood by many. But that is not
all we must do. Unnatural climate change is already underway and will
continue for decades even if we put a stop to all global warming
pollution today.
Additional steps must be taken now to safeguard wildlife. We must
protect the places that will help wildlife survive as the climate
changes, manage wildlife anticipating the changes ahead, and improve
the ecological health of the national parks and their surrounding
landscapes to give fish and wildlife a fighting chance to survive
unnatural climate change.
NPCA advocates five steps that, taken together, will help safeguard
fish and wildlife, their homes, and our communities, from climate
change. Here's what needs to be done:
1. Stop contributing to climate change.--Many wildlife
species are struggling to cope with climate changes already
underway. Some will not be able to endure much more change, and
could disappear from national parks and even go extinct if
climate change is unchecked. We must limit its effects by
rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions and switching to
less-polluting sources of energy.
2. Reduce and eliminate existing harms that make wildlife
more vulnerable to climate change.--The damaging effects of
climate change are compounded by existing stresses on wildlife.
Air and water pollution, development of adjacent wild lands,
and other forces are harming national park wildlife now, and
adding climate change to the mix could be disastrous. By
reducing and eliminating these environmental harms we can
significantly decrease the vulnerability of plants, fish, and
wildlife to climate change as well as produce rapid and
tangible benefits--such as clean air and water--that both
people and wildlife need to thrive.
3. Give wildlife freedom to roam.--Climate change will cause
some wildlife to move outside the parks' protected boundaries,
while other species may move in. Because national parks, like
all protected areas, are interconnected with surrounding
landscapes, cooperation and coordination among all land
owners--public and private--is essential to preserve
functioning ecosystems and the wildlife they support. National
parks can play a key role in conserving wildlife across the
landscape. In some cases they provide natural corridors; in
other cases new corridors will be needed to connect parks and
other protected lands so that wildlife can move in response to
climate change.
4. Adopt ``climate smart'' management practices.--As one of
the nation's premiere land managing agencies the National Park
Service needs working models and sufficient resources to
preserve biological diversity and ecosystem functions
threatened by climate change. Familiar and emerging concepts
like habitat restoration, connective corridors, facilitated
migration, elimination of compounding stressors, scenario
modeling, mobile conservation areas, and genetic diversity,
must be woven together into a coherent, workable, and
replicable model. America's national parks are poised to assist
in developing that model, but they currently lack sufficient
funding and management capacity needed to formulate, implement,
and market an ecosystem-wide ``climate smart'' adaptation
model.
Climate-smart management includes four key elements:
(1) Training national park managers to build climate
change into their work,
(2) Establishing guidance and policies that enable
park staff to work closely and equally with other
federal, state, local and private landowners,
(3) Providing sufficient funding and staffing for the
challenge at hand, and
(4) Creating a political and organizational setting
that facilitates appropriate, timely, and collaborative
action.
While research and monitoring should be a part of any
park's approach to climate-smart management, real focus needs
to be placed on implementing management changes now based on
what we already know.
National Parks are the ideal laboratories to develop and
deploy new conservation strategies for combating the effects of
climate change. They are the symbols of America, beloved by
millions of our own citizens, and admired as a model throughout
the world. They are home to some of the best science and
innovative thinking on climate change and ecosystem management.
And they enjoy strong support across the political spectrum, a
dynamic that has helped parks achieve the highest level of
ecosystem protection among public lands.
With its strong political support and scientific
information, the National Park System can be empowered to lead
the way in preserving the maximum degree of biological
diversity and ecosystem function in the coming changing
climates.
5. National parks lead by example.--With more than 270
million annual visitors, a core education mission, and a
tradition of scientific leadership, national parks have an
unparalleled ability to engage Americans in the fight against
climate change. National parks can help visitors understand
climate change is already occurring, the vulnerabilities of
tomorrow, and how we can all reduce our contribution to global
warming.
National parks can also serve as natural laboratories for
testing innovative ways to safeguard wildlife from the effects
of climate change, and to reduce greenhouse gases that are
causing climate change.
climate legislation currently before congress can help safeguard the
national parks
As the Subcommittee on National Parks continues to examine polices
to safeguard national parks from climate change, there is an immediate
opportunity to secure critical protections for parks and all natural
resources through climate change legislation now under consideration in
both the Environment and Public Works and Energy and Natural Resources
Committees. NPCA supports the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act,
co-sponsored by Senators Boxer and Kerry, as well as legislation
recently introduced by Senators Bingaman, Baucus, Whitehouse, and T.
Udall, the Natural Resources Climate Adaptation Act, which establishes
a comprehensive system for safeguarding America's vital natural
resources from climate change.
by safeguarding national parks we help secure our own future
National parks are America's national treasures. It is a uniquely
American idea that each of us owns our national parks. They have been
entrusted to us, and it is our responsibility to make sure that climate
change does not rob the parks of their incredibly rich array of plants,
fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.
Wildlife is threatened now as perhaps never before. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that up to a quarter of
assessed species could face extinction due to global warming by the end
of this century. It's difficult to imagine that the changes leading to
mass wildlife extinctions would not also profoundly threaten human
life.
Decisive action now can help bring about a more hopeful future for
wildlife and for ourselves. Taking the five steps recommended here will
help safeguard national park wildlife by preserving and strengthening
the ecosystems that support all wildlife. In turn our communities,
which have always relied on healthy natural resources, will be better
equipped to cope with the changes ahead.
Thank you for considering NPCA's views on the important issue of
safeguarding our national parks from climate change impacts.
Sincerely,
Mark Wenzler,
Director.