national parks in peril in the usa-the threats of climate disruption-2009

ROCKYMOUNTAIN

CLIMATEOrganization

the

NATIONAL PARKS IN PERILTHE THREATS OF CLIMATE DISRUPTION

At stake are the resources and valuesthat make our national parks the special

places that Americans love.

Principal AuthorsStephen Saunders

Tom EasleySuzanne Farver

The Rocky Mountain Climate Organization

Contributing AuthorsJesse A. Logan

Theo SpencerNatural Resources Defense Council

October 2009

ROCKYMOUNTAIN

CLIMATEOrganization

the

NATIONAL PARKS IN PERILTHE THREATS OF CLIMATE DISRUPTION

A Report by

The Rocky Mountain Climate Organizationand

Natural Resources Defense Council

■

October 2009

Principal Authors

Stephen SaundersTom Easley

Suzanne FarverThe Rocky Mountain Climate Organization

Contributing Authors

Jesse A. Logan

Theo SpencerNatural Resources Defense Council

i

ROCKYMOUNTAIN

CLIMATEOrganization

the

The Rocky Mountain Climate OrganizationP.O. Box 270444, Louisville, CO 80027

1633 Fillmore St., Suite 412, Denver, CO 80206303-861-6481

www.rockymountainclimate.org

About RMCOThe Rocky Mountain Climate Organization works tokeep the interior American West special by reducingclimate change and its impacts in the region. We dothis in part by spreading the word about what a dis-rupted climate can do to us and what we can do aboutit. Learn more at www.rockymountainclimate.org.

About NRDCNRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) is a na-tional nonprofit organization with more than 1.2 millionmembers and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers,scientists, and other environmental specialists haveworked to protect the world’s natural resources, publichealth, and the environment. NRDC has offices in NewYork City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Fran-cisco, Chicago and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org.

About the authorsStephen Saunders is president of the Rocky Moun-tain Climate Organization and former Deputy Assis-tant Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interiorover the National Park Service. Tom Easley is directorof programs at RMCO and a former statewideprograms manager at the Colorado State Parksagency. Suzanne Farver is director of outreach atRMCO. Jesse A. Logan is an entomologist, nowretired from the U.S. Forest Service. Theo Spencer isa senior advocate in NRDC’s Climate Center.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank the following for theirassistance: from the National Park Service, DanaBacker, Perry Grissom, and Meg Weesner, SaguaroNational Park; Mike Bilecki, Fire Island National Sea-shore; Mike Britten, Rocky Mountain Inventory andMonitoring Network; Gregg Bruff, Pictured Rocks Na-tional Lakeshore; Sonya Capek, Pacific West Region;Shawn Carter, Inventory & Monitoring Program; ChasCartwright and Paul Ollig, Glacier National Park; SteveChaney, Redwood national and state parks; RoryGauthier, Bandelier National Monument; BobKrumenaker, Apostle Islands National Seashore; MarkLewis, Biscayne National Park; David Manski, AcadiaNational Park; Joy Marburger, Great Lakes Researchand Education Center; Julie Thomas McNamee, JohnRay, and Chris Shaver, Air Resources Division; GeorgeSan Miguel, Mesa Verde National Park; Duncan Mor-row, Office of the Director; Don Neubacher, Point ReyesNational Seashore; Kathryn Parker, Grand CanyonNational Park; Kyle Patterson and Judy Visty, RockyMountain National Park; Jon Riedel, North CascadesNational Park; Charisse Sydoriak, Sequoia/Kings Can-yon national parks; Leigh Welling, Natural Resourceand Science Program; and Jock Whitworth, Zion Na-tional Park. From the U.S. Geological Survey, CraigAllen, Jemez Mountain Field Station; Jill Baron, FortCollins Science Center; Erik Beever, Alaska ScienceCenter; Julio Betancourt, National Research Program;and Daniel Fagre, Northern Rocky Mountain ScienceCenter. From the U.S. Forest Service, Barbara Bentzand Linda Joyce, Rocky Mountain Research Station;and Kathy O’Halloran, Olympic National Forest. Also,Jeffrey Hicke, University of Idaho; David Inouye, Uni-versity of Maryland; Melinda Kassen, Colorado TroutUnlimited; Jeremy Littell, University of Washington;Abraham Miller-Rushing, U. S. National PhenologyNetwork; James Patton, University of California, Ber-keley; Chris Ray, University of Colorado; MoniqueRocca, Colorado State University; Dave Watts; MarkWenzler, National Parks Conservation Association;Chris Bui and Joshua German, Rocky Mountain Cli-mate Organization legal interns; and an anonymouseditor.

Copyright © 2009 by the Rocky Mountain ClimateOrganization and Natural Resources Defense Council

Natural Resources Defense Council40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011

212-727-2700 / Fax 212-727-1773Washington / Los Angeles / San Francisco

www.nrdc.org

ii

T

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary .......................................................................... i

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

Chapter 1 Parks Most at Risk ........................................................3

Chapter 2 Loss of Ice and Snow ...................................................7

Chapter 3 Loss of Water ............................................................ 11

Chapter 4 Higher Seas and More Extreme Weather ................. 15

Chapter 5 Loss of Plant Communities........................................ 19

Chapter 6 Loss of Wildlife ........................................................... 25

Chapter 7 Loss of Historical and Cultural Resources ............... 33

Chapter 8 Less Visitor Enjoyment .............................................. 35

Chapter 9 Recommendations ..................................................... 39

Notes.............................................................................................. 48

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATIONSVE SUMMARY

RO

CK

Y M

OU

NTA

IN N

ATIO

NA

L PA

RK

PH

OTO

: JO

HN

FIE

LDE

R

THE GREATEST THREAT TONATIONAL PARKSHuman disruption of the climate is the greatestthreat ever to our national parks.

This report focuses primarily on 25 nationalparks that we identify as having the greatestvulnerabilities to human-caused climate change.They face 11 different types of risks.

A loss of ice and snow is one of the mostobvious impacts of a changing climate. Glaciersare melting in our national parks, a handful of

which contain the vast majority of the nation’sglaciers. In many national parks, snow-coveredmountains contribute to some of the most spectacu-lar scenery in the nation. But higher temperatures,less snowfall, and earlier snowmelt are alreadyleading to declines in mountain snowpack across theWest. With less snow, fewer visitors will be able tosee snow-capped mountains in parks. Opportunitiesfor cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and otherwinter activities in parks also will be reduced. (Seepages 7-10.)

For a summary of how losses of ice and snow,and other impacts, are already underway in nationalparks, see the next page.

Parks in the West and along the Great Lakes facea loss of water. In the West, a changed climate willreduce water availability, especially in the summer.The Colorado Plateau, home to our largest concen-tration of national parks, is expected to get particu-larly hotter and drier. In Zion National Park, reduc-tions in river flows could change how the Virgin Riveris continuing to shape Zion Canyon. Water levels ofthe Great Lakes are likely to fall, affecting ecosys-tems and recreation in Great Lakes parks. (Seepages 11-14.)

The 74 national parks on our coasts face higherseas and stronger coastal storms. Depending onfuture emissions of heat-trapping gases, seas areexpected to rise from about 2.3 feet to 3 or 4 feet bycentury’s end. Nearly all of Everglades, Biscayne,and Dry Tortugas national parks and Ellis IslandNational Monument are less than that above thecurrent sea level. All four parks could be lost to risingseas, representing the first-ever losses of entirenational parks. (See pages 15-18.)

National Parks Most At Peril

• Acadia National Park

• Assateague Island National Seashore

• Bandelier National Monument

• Biscayne National Park

• Cape Hatteras National Seashore

• Colonial National Historical Park

• Denali National Park and Preserve

• Dry Tortugas National Park

• Ellis Island National Monument

• Everglades National Park

• Glacier National Park

• Great Smoky Mountains National Park

• Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore

• Joshua Tree National Park

• Lake Mead National Recreation Area

• Mesa Verde National Park

• Mount Rainier National Park

• Padre Island National Seashore

• Rocky Mountain National Park

• Saguaro National Park

• Theodore Roosevelt National Park

• Virgin Islands National Park/Virgin IslandsCoral Reef National Monument

• Yellowstone National Park

• Yosemite National Park

• Zion National Park

v

In Yosemite, winters have already warmed up somuch that the lower-elevation edges of coniferforests are dying out and being replaced by oak andchaparral. (See pages 21-22.)

In Saguaro National Park, hotter temperaturesalready are promoting the spread of buffelgrass, aninvasive species that brings wildfire into the desertecosystem for the first time, threatening saguarosand other native desert species. (See page 22.)

In Yellowstone National Park, mountain pinebeetles already are infesting higher elevations andbefore and threatening to wipe out whitebark pines, amountaintop species. Their nuts are such an impor-tant pre-hibernation food for the region’s grizzlybears that reduced whitebark pine nuts lower grizzlybirth rates. (See page 28.)

Pikas, mountaintop mammals especially sensitiveto warm temperatures, already have been eliminatedin several of the lower-elevation mountains they usedto inhabit. (See page 26.)

In Yosemite National Park, mammals already arechanging where they live by moving to higherelevations. (See page 26.)

In Rocky Mountain National Park, mountaintoptundra areas already are warming up earlier in thespring, which is linked to a 50 percent decline inwhite-tailed ptarmigan, which live on the tundra yeararound. (See page 27.)

In Yosemite and Sequoia/Kings Canyon nationalparks, conditions already are hotter and drier,apparently driving a 10 percent per year decline inmountain yellow-legged frogs. (See page 29.)

In Yellowstone National Park’s Firehole River in2007, temperatures already were hot enough forseveral days to kill as many as a thousand trout inthe largest documented fish kill in the park’s 135-year history. (See page 30.)

In Virgin Islands National Park, 50 percent of thecorals in the park’s coral reefs have died since 2006from causes related to excessive water tempera-tures. (See page 31.)

In Yellowstone National Park, summer heat hasalready become excessive enough to stress trout,which are coldwater fish, prompting the NationalPark Service to close 232 miles of rivers to fishing.(See page 37.)

How National Parks Are Already Changing

GGlaciers are already melting in all national parks thathave them, including Denali, Mount Rainier, andYosemite national parks. All glaciers in GlacierNational Park could be gone in 12 or 13 years. (Seepages 7-9.)

Mountain parks are already losing late-summerstreamflows as smaller glaciers produce lessmeltwater. In one glacier-fed watershed in NorthCascades National Park, summer flows already aredown 31 percent. (See page 9.)

In the West, more winter precipitation is alreadyfalling as rain rather than snow, and snow is meltingearlier. Western parks already have less mountaintopsnow in spring and summer. (See pages 9-10.)

In Yellowstone National Park, the winter season forsnowcoaches and snowmobiles already is starting inDecember or even January rather than November.(See page 10.)

The Colorado Plateau already has both drierconditions and the greatest temperature increase inthe 48 contiguous states. In Bandelier NationalMonument and Mesa Verde National Park, as manyas 90 percent of piñon pines have died. (See page12.)

The coastal barrier island of Assateague IslandNational Seashore, already hammered by rising sealevel and coastal storms, is not far from being brokenapart by the sea. (See page 16.)

The National Park Service has already had tomove Cape Hatteras Lighthouse inland to keep itabove the rising sea. (See page 34.)

Across the country, more heavy storms alreadyare producing bigger downpours. A heavy downpourin 2006 flooded Mount Rainier National Park so muchthat it was closed for six months. (See page 18.)

Western mountains already are hot enough thattree-killing bark beetles are spreading to higherelevations than before and reproducing faster, insome places with two generations a year instead ofjust one. In Rocky Mountain National Park, nearly allmature lodgepole pine trees are being killed bybeetles. (See pages 19-21.)

In Yosemite and Sequoia/Kings Canyon nationalparks and other spots across the West, trees of alltypes and ages are dying at faster rates than before.(See page 21.)

vi

More downpours and flooding are occurringeverywhere, as a changing climate already is leadingto more precipitation coming in heavy storms. Theforecast is for the heaviest precipitation events tocontinue getting stronger, causing erosion andflooding that threatens resources in virtually all parks.(See page 18.)

An altered climate is leading to a loss of plantcommunities of parks, including a disruption ofmountain forests, tundra, meadows, and wildflowers;of desert ecosystems; and of coastal plant communi-ties. In Saguaro National Park, saguaros could beeliminated, and in Joshua Tree National Park, Joshuatrees could be eliminated. (See pages 19-24.)

A loss of wildlife in parks is projected to resultfrom a changed climate, as some species may gocompletely extinct and some local wildlife popula-tions in particular parks may be eliminated or declinesharply. Among the populations that are vulnerableare grizzly bears in Yellowstone and Grand Tetonnational parks, lynx, Florida panthers, pikas, moun-tain and desert bighorn sheep, white-tailed ptarmi-gan, sooty terns, sea turtles, amphibians, trout,salmon, corals, and butterflies. (See pages 25-32.)

Higher seas, stronger coastal storms, andincreased downpours and flooding threaten a lossof historical and cultural resources in nationalparks. At particular risk are Ellis IslandNational Monument in Upper New York Bay,less than three feet above the current hightide level, through which passed the arrivingancestors of 40 percent of all living Ameri-cans; the Statue of Liberty National Monu-ment, also in Upper New York Bay; and theJamestown National Historic Site, part ofColonial National Historical Park in Virginia,where the first European ancestors oftoday’s Americans arrived in 1607. (Seepages 33-34.)

National parks in the hottest parts of thecountry could suffer intolerable heat, simplybecoming too hot for long stretches of the

year for many people. Under a higher-emissionsfuture, Big Bend, Death Valley, Joshua Tree, andSaguaro national parks, Mojave NationalPreserve,and Lake Mead National Recreation Areaare projected to average more than 100 days a yearover 100°F. Those parks, Biscayne and Evergladesnational parks, and Big Cypress National Preserveare projected to average 90°F or hotter for half ormore of the entire year. (See page 35-36.)

As temperatures soar with a changed climate,cooler northern and mountain parks and nationalseashores could experience overcrowding as peopleflock to them to escape oppressive heat. (See pages36-37.)

Hotter temperatures could sharply reducepopulations of trout and salmon, which are coldwaterfish species, and lead to a llllloss of fishing in nationalparks. Damage to coral reefs and other marineresources also could reduce sportfishing in coastalparks. (See pages 37-38.)

A hotter climate is also projected to lead to moreair pollution in parks by worsening concentrationsof ground-level ozone, the key component of smog.Many national parks already violate the health-basedair quality standard for ozone, and that air pollutionproblem could get worse with a changed climate.(See page 38.)

PH

OTO

: JO

HN

FIE

LDE

R

vii

RECOMMENDATIONSAs the risks of a changed climate dwarf all previousthreats to our national parks, new actions to facethese new risks must also be on an unprecedentedscale. Needed are both actions specific to parks topreserve their resources and actions to curtailemissions of climate-changing pollutants enough toreduce the impacts in parks and elsewhere.

This report recommends 32 actions specific tonational parks, including:

• The Congress, the Administration, and the NPSshould set aside new national parks and expandexisting parks as necessary to preserve for futuregenerations representative and sufficient ex-amples of America’s best natural and culturalresources.

• The NPS should promote, assist, and cooperatein preservation efforts beyond park boundaries topreserve large enough ecosystems, crucialhabitat, and migration corridors so that plants andanimals have opportunities to move and continueto survive in transformed landscapes.

• Congress, the Executive Branch, and the NPSshould consider the combined effects of climatechange and of other stresses on park resourcesand values, and work to reduce all the stressesthat pose critical risks to parks.

• The NPS should develop park-specific andresource-specific plans to protect the particularresources most at risk in individual parks.

• The NPS should use all its authorities to protectparks from a changing climate, including its“affirmative responsibility” under the Clean Air Actto protect the air-quality related values of nationalparks.

• The NPS should adopt a nationwide goal ofbecoming climate-neutral in its own operations

about what is being done in parks to addressclimate change and its impacts. The NPS shouldrequire concessionaires to do so, too.

• The Congress and the Administration shouldadequately fund NPS actions to address achanging climate, through the energy and climatelegislation now in Congress, through new NPSauthority to use entrance fees to reduce emis-sions of heat-trapping gases and addressimpacts in parks, and through funding of the Landand Water Conservation Fund.

• The Congress and the Administration shouldreestablish within the NPS the scientific andresearch capacity it had prior to 1993, by return-ing to NPS the programs and staff transferred thatyear to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Ultimately, to protect our national parks for theenjoyment of this and future generations, federalaction to reduce heat-trapping gases is needed sothat a changed climate and its impacts do notoverwhelm the parks. The federal government musttake three essential steps:

• Enact comprehensive mandatory limits on globalwarming pollution to reduce emissions by at least20 percent below current levels by 2020 and 80percent by 2050. This will deliver the reductionsthat scientists currently believe are the minimumnecessary, and provide businesses the economiccertainty needed to make multi-million and multi-billion dollar capital investments.

• Overcome barriers to investment in energyefficiency to lower emission reduction costs,starting now.

• Accelerate the development and deployment ofemerging clean energy technologies to lowerlong-term emission reduction costs.

within parks, as has been done in its PacificWest Region. The Service should give an evengreater priority to reducing the greater levels ofemissions coming from visitor activities.

• NPS officials should speak out publicly abouthow climate change and its impacts threatennational parks and the broader ecosystems onwhich they depend.

• The NPS should use its environmental educa-tion programs to inform park visitors about achanged climate and its impacts in parks and

PH

OTO

: JO

HN

FIE

LDE

R

viii

INTRODUCTION

RECOMMENDATIONS

THE GREATEST THREAT TONATIONAL PARKSHuman disruption of the climate is the greatest threatever to our national parks.

This is not just a concern for the future. Thenational parks that we Americans so cherish arealready being harmed by a changing climate. InYosemite National Park, trees of all types and agesare dying more often, and both forests and mammalsare moving upslope to stay ahead of higher tempera-tures. Yellowstone National Park is losing its white-bark pines and their nuts, so important as a food forgrizzly bears that fewer whitebark nuts before hiber-nation mean lower grizzly birth rates the followingyear. Summers in Yellowstone now are sometimes hotenough to kill trout, which are cold-water fish thatcannot tolerate hot waters. Rocky Mountain NationalPark is losing its mature lodgepole pines. BandelierNational Monument and Mesa Verde National Parkhave lost most of their piñon pines. Mount RainierNational Park was recently shut down for six fullmonths because of extreme flooding, an example ofthe extreme weather now occurring more often.

If we continue heedlessly adding heat-trappingpollution to the atmosphere, we could lose wholenational parks for the first time. Nearly all of Ever-glades, Biscayne, and Dry Tortugas national parks,as well as Ellis Island National Monument, are barelyabove the current sea level, lower than the projectedrise in the sea. All four parks could be lost to risingseas. Glacier National Park could lose all its glaciers.Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument couldlose all its coral reefs. Joshua Tree National Parkcould lose all its Joshua trees. Saguaro National Parkcould lose all its saguaros.

Of course, climate change is a global phenom-enon, with global causes and effects. Why focus on

national parks? Because the parks have been setaside to preserve, unimpaired, the very best of ournatural and cultural heritages, and to provide for theircontinued enjoyment by future generations. To ignorethe enormous threats a changed climate poses tonational parks because other places are alsothreatened would be to give up on our parks.Instead, we can identify and address the threats toparks, through actions both to reduce the effects ofclimate change in parks and to reduce the causes ofclimate change. And in dealing with human-causedclimate change in the national parks, we can learnand demonstrate how to deal with it elsewhere. Thatis in the best traditions and interests of the nationalparks and of America.

What Happens Is Up to UsThe climate is already changing. The world’s scien-tists, through the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC), have declared that it is “unequivo-cal” that the climate is now hotter than it used to be,with more than a 90 percent likelihood that most ofthe temperature increase over the past 50 years is aresult of human emissions of heat-trapping pollution,mostly from the burning of fossil fuels.2 The planet asa whole so far this century averages about 1°F hotterthan during the 20th century, with particularly sharpincreases in the most recent years.3 Without theeffects of human activities, global temperatures likelywould have cooled since 1950.4

How much more the climate changes will bedetermined by how much more heat-trappingpollution we produce. A recent, comprehensiveclimate-change report from the U.S. government’sGlobal Change Research Program estimated that,compared to the 1960s and 1970s, our nation is

“National parks that have special places in theAmerican psyche will remain parks, but their

look and feel may change dramatically.”U.S. Climate Change Science Program (2008)1

EV

ER

GLA

DE

S N

ATIO

NA

L P

AR

K

1

projected to get 7 to 11°F hotter by the end of thecentury under a higher-emissions scenario and byapproximately 4 to 6.5°F under a lower-emissionsscenario.5 These two scenarios differ because ofdifferent assumptions about future populations,technologies, economic activity, and the like. Neitherscenario assumes new policies to reduce emissions,and so it is certainly possible to bring down both theprojected emissions and changes in the climate. Butthe same government report also points out that avariety of studies suggests that even 2°F of addi-tional warming “would lead to severe, widespread,and irreversible impacts.”6 To have a good chance—but still no guarantee—of no more warming than 2°Fover the long term, the report says that atmosphericlevels of heat-trapping gases would have to bestabilized at about today’s level, with no more newemissions than can be removed from the atmosphereby natural processes.7

Which future we choose will determine what ournational parks, along with the rest of the planet, willbe like. Many of the threats to our national parksdescribed in this report are from scientific projectionsfor a high-emissions future and can be reduced witha lower-emissions future and reduced even furtherwith a stable-climate future. Sadly, though, even themost unsettling projections of a higher-emissionsfuture could turn out to be understatements if we donot change our current ways. In recent years,worldwide emissions of heat-trapping pollutants havegone up faster than the scientists’ high-emissionsscenarios.8

Time is running short, but it is still possible tobring down emissions sharply enough to ward off theworse possible effects of climate disruption. The lastchapter of this report contains recommendations onhow we can begin doing that, while also strengthen-ing our economy.

2

Mid-Century (2040-2059 average) End-of-Century (2080-2099 average)

Higher Emissions Scenario Projected Temperature ChangeDegrees °F Comparedto 1961-1979Baseline

Mid-Century (2040-2059 average) End-of-Century (2080-2099 average)

Lower Emissions Scenario Projected Temperature ChangeDegrees °F Comparedto 1961-1979Baseline

Average results from16 climate models.Graphics source: U.S. GlobalChange Research Program.9

H

the country and which is expected to continuegetting hotter than elsewhere. But how parks inAlaska will be affected is not yet well documented.For now, Denali National Park and Preserve, the oneAlaskan park on our list, should be considered asbroadly representative of the threats to all parks inAlaska.

The 25 national parks in greatest peril are identi-fied in the chart on the following pages, which alsoindicates the particular risks faced by each park.There are 11 categories of such risks: a loss of iceand snow, addressed in chapter 2; a loss of water, inchapter 3; higher seas and stronger coastal storms,in chapter 4; more downpours and flooding, also inchapter 4; a loss of plant communities, in chapter 5;a loss of wildlife, in chapter 6; a loss of historical andcultural resources, in chapter 7; and intolerable heat,overcrowding, a loss of fishing, and more air pollu-tion, all in chapter 8.

Human-caused climate change puts at risk nearlyevery resource and value that makes our nationalparks so special. The scenery of parks is beingaffected as glaciers melt, mountains lose snow-covered peaks, and forests die back. Wildlife isbeing affected by climate-driven changes in habitatand disruptions of food sources. Cultural resourcesare being affected as rising seas, stronger storms,and bigger floods erode historic and prehistoricstructures and wash away artifacts. Visitor enjoymentis being affected as fishing is prohibited, boating iscurtailed, and opportunities for cross-country skiingdiminish.

These impacts are imperiling most, if not all, ofthe 391 parks* in the national park system. Thisreport focuses primarily on 25 national parks that weidentify as having the greatest vulnerabilities tohuman-caused climate change. They were chosen,first, based on how much an altered climate mayaffect the overall integrity of a particular park’sresources and values. Parks at risk of being entirelysubmerged by a rising sea obviously are in greateroverall peril than most parks. Second, the parks onthe list reflect both the diversity of the national parksystem and the variety of threats an altered climateposes to parks. Third, the list was necessarilyinfluenced by the information available about theparticular risks individual parks face.

Unfortunately, there usually is very little informa-tion about how a disrupted climate may affect anindividual park. As the National Park Service (orNPS) and others further assess the impacts ofclimate change on parks, it may become clear thatsome parks not on the list actually have greatervulnerabilities than ones on it. This could especiallybe true for the 17 national parks in Alaska, which sofar has gotten hotter at twice the rate of the rest of

NATIONAL PARKSMOST AT RISK

1

* This report refers to all units of the national park system asnational parks or parks, even if they are designated as nationalmonuments, national seashores, or something else. All aremanaged under the same general laws and policies.

DE

NA

LI N

ATIO

NA

L P

AR

K

“We identified the lack of any climaticdata within Glacier Bay as a significantgap in knowledge about a very importantand basic driver of the physical andbiological systems within the Park, asentiment echoed by many Park staffand researchers alike. Although specificfunding for climate monitoring could notbe secured, it was an obvious data gapthat we have tried to fill by establishingthe current network of climate sites.”— Daniel E. Lawson and David C. Finnegan,

Dartmouth College (2008) 1

3

25 National Parks Most at Peril from

Acadia NP, ME

Assateague Island NS, MD/VA

Bandelier NM, NM

Biscayne NP, FL

Cape Hatteras NS, NC

Colonial NHP, VA

Denali NP&P, AK

Dry Tortugas NP, FL

Ellis Island NM, NY/NJ

Everglades NP, FL

Glacier NP, MT

Great Smoky Mts NP, TN/NC

Indiana Dunes NL, IN

Joshua Tree NP, CA

Lake Mead NRA, NV/AZ

Mesa Verde NP, CO

Mount Rainier NP, WA

Padre Island NS, TX

Rocky Mountain NP, CO

Saguaro NP, AZ

Theodore Roosevelt NP, ND

Virgin Islands NP/VirginIslands Coral Reef NM, VI

Yellowstone NP, WY/MT/ID

Yosemite NP, CA

Zion NP, UT

More Downpours& Floods

Loss of Ice & Snow of Water

Higher Seas &Stronger Storms

Loss of PlantCommunities

Legend:NPNM

NS National SeashoreNHP =

NP&P = National Park and PreserveNL

= National Park =National Historical Park = National Lakeshore = National Monument

Loss

4

Climate Disruption and the Risks They Face

NRA = National Recreation Area

Loss of CulturalResources

Intolerable Heat

More Overcrowding

Loss of Wildlife

Loss ofFishing

More AirPollution

5

Locations of Parks Most at Peril

Denali NP&P

Dry Tortugas NP

Biscayne NPEverglades NP

Saguaro NP

Padre Island NS

Lake Mead NRA

Joshua Tree NP

Zion NP

Mesa Verde NPYosemite NP

Rocky Mountain NP

Yellowstone NP

Mount Rainier NP

Bandelier NM

Glacier NP

Legend:NPNMNS NHPNP&P NL NRA

Acadia NP

Colonial NHP

Cape Hatteras NS

Assateague Island NS

Great Smoky Mountains NP

Ellis Island NM

Indiana Dunes NL

Virgin Islands NP/Virgin Islands Coral Reef NM

Theodore Roosevelt NP

National Seashore

====

===

National ParkNational Monument

National Historical Park National Park and PreserveNational LakeshoreNational Recreation Area

6

A

LOSS OF ICE ANDSNOW

2

As the climate gets hotter, national parks in the Northand in mountain ranges are losing snow and ice—oneof the most obvious effects of a changed climate onour national parks.

LOSS OF GLACIERSThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changereported in 2007 that glaciers are melting worldwideand expressed “confidence that the glacier wastagein the late 20th century is essentially a response topost-1970 global warming.”1 In the United States,glacial melting is concentrated in our national parks,a handful of which contain the vast majority of thenation’s glaciers.

Glacier National Park in Montana was designateda national park in large part to preserve the glaciersafter which it was named. Scientists have docu-mented rapid melting of the park’s glaciers andlinked the melting to higher temperatures. Theacreage of Grinnell Glacier, for example, shrank by aquarter between 1993 and 2004.2 Observing thiskind of melting, researchers in 2003 projected thatby 2030 all glaciers in the park would be gone ifcurrent emission trends continue.3 But since then theglaciers actually have melted much faster than

expected. Between 2005 and 2007, for example,Grinnell Glacier lost an additional nine percent of itsacreage. In October 2007, the U.S. GeologicalSurvey’s Dan Fagre said, “[W]e’re about eight and ahalf years ahead of schedule… Our initial projectionhas proved too conservative. They’re going fasterthan we thought.”4

Glaciers are also disappearing elsewhere aroundthe West.

North Cascades National Park in Washington has312 glaciers, about half of all glaciers in the contigu-ous United States. All of the park’s glaciers are inretreat.5 Forty-seven glaciers monitored since 1984have lost an average of 20 to 40 percent of theirmass, with five having melted entirely away.6 Be-cause of the extra summer melting resulting fromtoday’s hotter climate, a National Park Servicescientist estimates that a winter’s snowfall now has tobe about 25 percent above average to keep thepark’s glaciers from having a net loss of ice thatyear.7 At the same time, winter snowfalls in the regionare already in decline, and are projected to declinemuch more; see below.

In Mount Rainier National Park in Washington, 25major glaciers comprise the largest collection ofpermanent ice on a single U.S. peak south of Alaska.Those glaciers lost 21 percent of their area between1913 and 1994.8 The NPS began in 2003 trackingtwo glaciers’ estimated total mass of ice, a moreprecise measurement of a glacier than its surfacearea; both glaciers have lost mass every year sincethe monitoring began. The net loss of water fromthese two glaciers in only six years is estimated at 18billion gallons, or enough water to cover about55,000 acres to a depth of one foot.9

DE

NA

LI N

ATIO

NA

L P

AR

K

Of the 25 national parks most in peril,these face loss of ice and snow:













7

Glacial Melting in Glacier National Park

Photographs of Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park taken from the same point overseven decades demonstrate the retreat of the glacier.

T. J

. HIL

EM

AN

, GLA

CIE

R N

ATIO

NA

L P

AR

K A

RC

HIV

ES

DA

N F

AG

RE

, US

GE

OLO

GIC

AL

SU

RV

EY

CA

RL

KE

Y, U

S G

EO

LOG

ICA

L S

UR

VE

YB

LAS

E R

EA

RD

ON

, US

GE

OLO

GIC

AL

SU

RV

EY

1938 1981

1998 2005

8

In Yosemite and Sequoia/KingsCanyon national parks in California,six glaciers (along with a seventh justoutside Yosemite) lost an average of55 percent of their area since 1900.

Glacier’s native bull trout, a threatened species,which spawn in the fall and need strong late-seasonstream flows to get to their spawning grounds.14

In Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska, meltingglaciers have geologic effects. There, the rapid lossof glacial ice mass has eased an enormous weighton the underlying land, leading it to rise dramatically.The changes are so profound that they actuallycould set off earthquakes because the Earth’stectonic plates are more prone to shift without theextreme weight of the ice holding them in place.15

Other parks that could experience a loss ofglaciers include Gates of the Arctic (in Alaska) andGrand Teton (in Wyoming) national parks and LakeClark National Park and Preserve in Alaska.

LOSS OF SNOW-COVEREDMOUNTAINSGlaciers are in relatively few national parks, butsnow-covered mountains are in many—especially inthe West, where they contribute to some of the mostspectacular scenery in the nation. But higher tem-peratures, less snowfall, and earlier snowmelt arealready leading to less snow coverage of westernmountains. An analysis by University of Washingtonresearchers of 824 government snowpack measure-ment sites across the West showed that snowpacklevels declined at most of those sites between 1950and 1997. The greatest decreases occurred wherewinters are mild and warming of a few degrees moreoften pushes temperatures above freezing. Afterconsidering possible contributing factors, theresearchers concluded that the pattern of thedeclines points to the warming already underway inthe West as the cause.16 A more recent study hasspecifically attributed about half of the observedreduction in snowpack to the effects of humanemissions of heat-trapping gases.17 The reduction insnowpack has been cited by the IPCC as one ofseven indicators that climate change is underway inNorth America.18

“Glaciers are excellent barometers of climate change, becausethey respond directly to trends in temperature, precipitation, andcloud cover (which mediates solar radiation).These same climaticfactors also drive ecosystem change. Unlike plants and animals,however, glaciers do not adapt behaviorally or physiologically

in ways that mitigate the impacts of climatic change.”Myrna H. P. Hall, State University of New York, andDaniel B. Fagre, U.S. Geological Survey (2003)13in a period of retreat, which accelerated after the

turn of the century. The glaciers’ retreat appears tobe driven by higher spring and summer tempera-tures, much more than by reductions in snowfalllevels.10

Not surprisingly, glaciers are also melting inAlaska, which has heated up more than any otherstate. Alaska’s glaciers are melting so rapidly thatthey are responsible for about half of the worldwideloss of ice from glaciers, and are responsible for theworld’s largest documented glacial contribution tosea-level rise. Most of the state’s glaciers are innational parks. Wrangell-St. Elias National Park andPreserve, our largest national park, by itself has 60percent of all glaciers in Alaska. The park’s glaciershave not yet been well studied, but the scantyevidence that exists verifies their decline. In DenaliNational Park and Preserve, where glaciers coverone-sixth of the park, twice-yearly measurements fora decade have documented the shrinkage ofKahiltna Glacier, one of the park’s great glaciers,which begins on Mount McKinley and flows for 36miles.11 In Kenai Fjords National Park, the HardingIcefield crowns the park and is the source of 38glaciers that have sculpted the park’s landscape.University of Alaska Fairbanks’s researchers havedocumented that nearly all the park’s glaciers arethinning and in retreat.

As glaciers in national parks melt, scenery isaffected, and so is visitor enjoyment; eventually,tourism could be, too. The ecosystem effects can besignificant, as well. When glaciers disappear andproduce no more meltwater, rivers and streams losereliable late-season flows that are not dependent onthe vagaries of the previous winter’s snowpack orthat summer’s rainfall. The National Park Serviceestimates that as much as 50 percent of late-summer natural stream flows in North CascadesNational Park come from glacial meltwater. In onewatershed, shrinking glaciers have already reducedsummer flows by 31 percent.12 In Glacier NationalPark, a reduction in glacial runoff has dried upstreams and scenic waterfalls and jeopardized thepark’s aquatic and riparian life. At particular risk are

After about a quarter century of relativestability, since 1985 the glaciers have been

9

The trend is expected to accelerate sharply.Scientific forecasts for future springtime peak snow-pack levels across the West are shocking, withprojected declines of 29 to 89 percent in California,nearly 50 percent in the Columbia River basin, and30 percent in the higher and colder mountains of the

Colorado River basin.19

These projectionstypically are for snow-packs as of April 1,around the time of peaksnow levels. In someparks, such as ZionNational Park in Utah,snow does not lingerthat long, but with lesssnow in winter fewervisitors would get to seethe parks at their scenicbest. In other parks,snow cover typically haslasted into the summer,when most people go tonational parks. In the

future, sadly, visitors to Glacier, Grand Teton, GreatSmoky Mountains (in Tennessee and North Carolina),Mesa Verde (in Colorado), Mount Rainier, RockyMountain (in Colorado), and Yellowstone (in Wyo-ming, Montana, and Idaho) national parks will beless likely to see snowcapped mountains.

LOSS OF WINTER RECREATIONGlobal warming very likely will decrease opportuni-ties for snow-dependent outdoor winter recreation innational parks.

Yellowstone National Park is the most popularnational park for snow-dependentrecreation. It is the only park in thelower 48 states whose interior roadsare mostly closed in winter to con-ventional motor vehicles and insteadgroomed for travel by over-snowvehicles—snowcoaches and snow-mobiles. There has been pitch-edcontroversy for more than a decadeover whether and to what extentsnow-mobiles should be allowed inthe park, or whether motorizedaccess to the park’s interior should

be only by snowcoach. Continued, extensive publicaccess to the park in winter can be provided throughan expanded fleet of cleaner, quieter, and modernsnowcoaches, which disturb wildlife less and soafford visitors more opportunities for viewing wildlife.The park also is open, and will remain so, to cross-country skiers, many of whom ski into the park’sinterior from the end of plowed roads, with othersentering on snowcoaches before beginning to ski.What is not controversial, in any event, is thatYellowstone in winter is a special wonderland thatoffers unique enjoyment to all park visitors. Thatspecial experience, however, depends on thepresence of adequate snow. Already, the NationalPark Service has sometimes had to delay theopening of the winter over-snow season, traditionallyin mid-November, until the middle of December oreven January. In the Yellowstone area so far, asacross North America, winter temperatures havegone up more than in other seasons and the largestincreases in winter have been in nighttime lowtemperatures, which are important for building andmaintaining snow cover.21

Opportunities for cross-country skiing,snowshoeing, and other winter activities are alsolikely to be reduced in other parks, including Acadia(in Maine), Crater Lake (Oregon), Glacier, GrandTeton, Mount Rainier, North Cascades, Olympic (inWashington), Rocky Mountain, Sequoia/KingsCanyon, Voyaguers (in Minnesota), and Yosemitenational parks; Bandelier National Monument (in NewMexico); and Apostle Islands (in Wisconsin), IndianaDunes (in Indiana), Pictured Rocks (in Michigan),and Sleeping Bear Dunes (in Michigan) nationallakeshores.

YE

LLO

WS

TON

E N

ATIO

NA

L P

AR

K

“ Over the last 50 years,there have been wide-spread temperaturerelated reductions insnowpack in the West,with the largest reduc-tions occurring inlower elevation moun-tains in the Northwestand California wheresnowfall occurs attemperatures close tothe freezing point.”— U.S. Global Change

Research Program(2009)20

10

I

LOSS OF WATER

3

peak spring flows from snowmelt coming as much asthree weeks earlier. As summers continue gettinglonger and hotter, evaporation from soils and bodiesof water likely will increase. The U.S. Global ChangeResearch program reports that many of thesechanges are already underway, caused by humanemissions of heat-trapping gases.1

In the West, a changed climate will reduce wateravailability, especially in the summer, when it is mostneeded by wildlife, plants, and entire ecosystems. Inthe upper Midwest, the water level of the GreatLakes is likely to fall. In both regions, the loss ofwater will substantially affect national parks.

A DRIER WESTHuman-caused climate change has already altered,and will continue to alter, natural water cycles. Formuch of the world, hotter temperatures have in-creased the water-holding capacity of the atmo-sphere, and precipitation has increased. The in-creases, though, have been concentrated in heavierstorms, mostly in coastal and other already-wetareas. In the interior American West and other dryinland regions of the world, the opposite is happen-ing and they are getting drier. Droughts, a naturaloccurrence in these regions, are likely to becomemore frequent, longer-lasting, and, especially whencoupled with hotter temperatures, more destructive.Winters in western mountains are no longer as coldas before, and so now winter precipitation is fallingmore often as rain instead of snow. Mountain snow-packs are not as large and are melting earlier, with

The Colorado Plateau: A Special Region,Particular VulnerabilityA changed climate is expected to make the Colo-rado Plateau especially hotter and drier. This regionof uplifted land, named after the Colorado River thatcuts through it, spans much of Utah, Colorado, NewMexico, and Arizona, and is home to many of thecountry’s greatest natural and cultural wonders. Italso contains our greatest concentration of nationalparks—about two dozen, with the exact numberdepending on the particular boundary used for theColorado Plateau. For the millions of people whotravel to the region each year to visit Arizona’s GrandCanyon National Park, Utah’s Arches, Capitol Reef,Canyonlands, and Zion national parks, Colorado’sMesa Verde National Park, and New Mexico’s Chaco

“ Climate models consistently project that theEast will experience increased runoff, while therewill be substantial declines in the interior West,especially the Southwest. Projections for runoffin California and other parts of the West alsoshow reductions, although less than in theinterior West. In short, wet areas are projectedto get wetter and dry areas drier.”— U.S. Global Change Research Program (2009)2

ZIO

N N

ATIO

NA

L P

AR

K

11

Of the 25 national parks most in peril,these face loss of water:




• Indiana Dunes National Seashore









Culture National Historical Park, this is a special,even magical, place.

But dramatic changes are underway in these andother treasured places on the plateau as tempera-tures rise and water supplies shrink. The ColoradoRiver basin, which includes the Colorado Plateau,has experienced more warming since the 1970s thanany other part of the United States outside ofAlaska.3 According to an analysis done by the RockyMountain Climate Organization and published in ajoint report with Natural Resources Defense Council,the average temperature in 2003-2007 across theColorado basin was 2.2°F hotter than the basin’s20th-century average. In comparison, the entire 11-state American West averaged 1.7°F hotter, and theplanet as whole 1°F hotter.4 The Colorado River, themajor water source of not just this region but also theentire Southwest, is in its most severe drought inmore than a century of record-keeping—consistentwith scientific projections that human-caused climatechange will dry out this region more than any other inthe country. As atmospheric circulation patternschange and storm tracks move northward, naturallylow precipitation levels in the arid Southwest maydrop by 40 percent or more under a high-emissionsfuture. Scientists have estimated that flows in the

Colorado River could be diminished by 4 percent to18 percent by 2050—enough, in this arid, fast-growing region, to have enormous consequences onnational parks, ecosystems, and people.5

Zion National Park illustrates the vulnerability ofthe Colorado Plateau parks to a loss of water. Spec-tacular Zion Canyon in the heart of the park wasformed through the erosive power of a rapidlyflowing North Fork of the Virgin River, which is stillcutting into rock layers and continuing to shape thecanyon. At the upper end of the canyon, in theNarrows of the Virgin River, the river cuts through ahigh layer of firm sandstone, where it has created themost accessible large slot canyon in the nationalpark system. Below the Narrows, the river is erodinga softer, lower formation, undermining the overlayingsandstone and causing it to collapse, widening themain body of the canyon. Unlike most western rivers,in the West, including those flowing through mostnational parks, the North Fork of the Virgin River isundammed, so its flows are not determined byreservoir releases. If the river’s natural flows arediminished, they will no longer continue shaping thecanyon’s geology as they have.

Other parks on the Colorado Plateau that couldbe affected by water losses are Canyonlands, Capitol

Percentage change inMarch-April-Mayprecipitation for 2080-2099 compared to 1961-1979 for a lower emis-sions scenario (left) anda higher emissionsscenario (right). Confi-dence in the projectedchanges is highest in thehatched areas.—Source of graphic: U.S.Global Change ResearchProgram.6

Projected Change in Spring Precipitation, 2080-2099

12

Reef, Grand Canyon, and Mesa Verde national parks.South of the Colorado Plateau but probably similarlyvulnerable is Saguaro National Park in Arizona.

The hotter and drier conditions of the ColoradoPlateau are already having dramatic effects on thepiñon-juniper forests that are the region’s dominantwooded ecosystem. Sustained heat and drought inthe early years of this century weakened piñon pinesso much that an infestation by a piñon bark beetlehas caused widespread regional forest die-back. In2002 and 2003 alone, heat, drought, and beetlescombined to kill 90 percent of the piñon pines instudied portions of Bandelier National Monument andMesa Verde National Park. This region has knowndrought before and trees have died before, but moretrees died in the recent drought than during an evendrier period in the 1950s. The difference, researcherssay, is that this century’s higher temperaturesincreased the forest die-off. “This recent droughtepisode in southwestern North America,” they write,“may be a harbinger of future global-change typedrought throughout much of North America andelsewhere, in which increased temperature inconcert with multidecadenal drought patterns... candrive extensive and rapid changes in vegetation.”7

Other parks on the Colorado Plateau that haveexperienced or are at risk of losing piñon forestsinclude Lake Mead National Recreation Area inNevada and Arizona and Zion National Park.

Other Western ParksRocky Mountain National Park is not on the ColoradoPlateau, but the portion of the park on the westernside of the Continental Divide contains the highestheadwaters of the main stem of the Colorado River.Consistent with general scientific projections for theinterior West, the park’s staff and other expertsexpect that an altered climate there will meanreduced snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and greaterdryness, with consequences for all park ecosys-tems.8 The western side of the park, for example, isnaturally much wetter than the eastern side, as theprevailing western winds wring water out of air as it isforced up and over the Divide and gets too high tocontinue holding all its moisture. The resulting lushforests and meadows on the park’s west side supportthe park’s largest populations of moose, pinemartens, and other animals, as well as different plantspecies. Reductions in the amount of water andchanges in the timing of streamflows could make this

side of the park much drier, significantly changing itsecological character. Other interior western parksthat could be similarly vulnerable include DinosaurNational Monument in Colorado and Utah and GrandTeton, Great Basin (in Nevada), and Yellowstonenational parks.

Loss of Glacial WaterNational parks losing glaciers will also lose meltwaterfrom the glaciers, which normally is a reliable sourceof water in late summer and often is important toecosystems. (See page 9). Among parks suffering aloss of water as glaciers shrink could be Gates of theArctic, Glacier, Glacier Bay, Grand Teton, KenaiFjords, Mount Rainier, North Cascades, RockyMountain, Sequoia/Kings Canyon, Yosemite,Yellowstone, and Wrangell-St. Elias national parksand Denali and Lake Clark national parks andpreserves.

LOSS OF BOATING AND RAFTINGWith less water in western rivers, there will be feweropportunities for boating, rafting, and kayaking.Nearly 300,000 visitors each year go whitewaterrafting and kayaking through some of the West’smost dramatic landscapes in Black Canyon of theGunnison (in Colorado), Canyonlands, GrandCanyon, and Grand Teton national parks and Dino-saur National Monument. Almost 10 million visitors ayear go to Lake Mead and Glen Canyon (in Arizonaand Utah) national recreation areas, most to enjoyboating on the reservoirs.

In 2005, after five straight years of severe droughtin the Colorado River basin, Lake Powell had fallen toits lowest level of storage since 1969 (when it wasstill being filled for the first time) and Lake Mead had

“Warmer temperatures will subject park watersupplies to less reliable late summer streamflow.Not only will snow melt earlier, but glacialmeltwater will soon disappear in many westernnational parks. Historically, glaciers have pro-vided a buffer against low flows in dry, warmsummers, and their absence could result inperennial rivers becoming ephemeral streams.Streams that are already ephemeral, such asYosemite Falls, will likely become drier onaverage earlier in summer.”— J. Lundquist, University of Washington, and

J. Roche, Yosemite National Park (2009)9

13

fallen to its lowest level since 1967. The number ofpeople visiting Lake Mead National Recreation Areafell by 1.2 million, or 13 percent. The National ParkService spent $20 million to extend boat ramps to thenew, lower edge of the reservoir; a concessionairespent $2 million to move a marina 12 miles; and atBoulder Beach people had to walk a half mile toreach restrooms left behind by the receding water-line.

LOWER WATER LEVELS INGREAT LAKESWhile water levels are rising in the world’s oceans,the opposite is happening in the Great Lakes. Withhigher temperatures, lake levels have dropped andare expected to drop farther, because of less winterice and more summer evaporation. In 2007, visitorsto Apostle Islands National Lakeshore (in Wisconsin),

Indiana Dunes, Pictured Rocks (in Michigan), andSleeping Bear Dunes national lakeshores and IsleRoyale National Park (in Michigan) got a glimpse ofthis future. That year, high temperatures and below-average precipitation dropped Lake Superior 21inches below its 1918-2006 average (a record low)and Lake Michigan 23 inches below its average.11

Scientists project that Great Lake levels could fall byas much as several feet by 2090.12 In the GreatLakes parks, fixed docks and boat ramps could betoo high, deeper-draft boats could lose access todocks and anchorages, and drying wetlands on lakeedges could affect habitat and food for fish andbirds. The lakes also are projected to be ice-free formore of the year. At the rate it currently has beenlosing ice, Lake Superior could be ice-free all winterin another 30 years.12

Photographs taken 18 monthsapart—on June 22, 2002, on top andDecember 23, 2003, on the bottom—show the effects on the water level ofLake Powell, in Glen Canyon NationalRecreation Area, of the recentdrought.

U.S

. GLO

BA

L C

HA

NG

E R

ES

EA

RC

H P

RO

GR

AM

14

TThe National Park System includes 74 coastalnational parks, national seashores, and other unitsalong more than 7,000 miles of coastline, virtually allof which are vulnerable to the related risks of risingsea levels and stronger coastal storms. The casual-ties could include the first losses of entire nationalparks, as some could be submerged by rising seas.For both coastal and inland parks, more extremeweather—a corollary of a changed climate—alsocreates new risks to park resources from more down-pours and flooding.

HIGHER SEAS AND STRONGERCOASTAL STORMS

the end of the century. Under a lower-emissionsfuture, seas could rise about 2.3 feet—still enough toeliminate most of the nation’s remaining coastalwetlands, affect coral reefs and other ecosystems,fragment barrier islands, and inundate parts of majorcities such as New York City.1 A separate U.S. gov-ernment report also says that “thoughtful precaution”suggests that we should plan for a three-foot rise.2

Dry Tortugas National Park is in danger of beingour first national park to be completely lost. Our mostremote national park, 70 miles west of Key West andreachable only by boat or seaplane, it is made up ofseven islands—all of which are mostly less than threefeet above the current sea level, and so at risk ofbeing submerged in this century. Every terrestrialpark resource is vulnerable to being lost—from FortJefferson (see page 34), boat anchorages, and abeach with easy access to a spectacular coral reef,to importantnestinggrounds forendangeredsea turtlesand for sea-birds thatbreed no-where elsein the UnitedStates (seepages 27, 29).

Of the 25 national parks most in peril,these face higher seas and strongercoastal storms:










A hotter climate raises sea levels in two ways. First,melting ice from land-based glaciers and ice sheetsadds more water to the oceans. Second, waterincreases in volume when it is warmer, so thermalexpansion also pushes sea levels higher. Sea levelsalready have risen along most of the coast of the

“Sea-level rise and the likely increase in hurricaneintensity and associated storm surge will be among the

most serious consequences of climate change.”U.S. Global Change Research Program (2009)3

United States over the past 50 years, and scientistssay the increases will be greater in the future.According to a recent U.S. government report,current estimates are that with a high-emissionsfuture sea level will rise three to four more feet by

Debris from Hurricane Katrina in Fort Mass-achusetts, Gulf Islands National Seashore.

HIGHER SEAS & MOREEXTREME WEATHER

4

15

Everglades National Park has the largest expanseof land vulnerable to sea-level rise in the nationalpark system. The highest spot in the park is only 11feet above mean sea level.4 Most of the park wouldbe inundated by a rise of only 23 inches in sea level.5

Virtually all of it would be submerged if the sea wereto rise six feet.6 What is at stake is a unique resourceof great national and international significance. It isthe first national park to be established as a biologicmarvel, not a scenic showplace, with the largestfreshwater sawgrass prairie in North America, thelargest protected mangrove ecosystem in theWestern Hemisphere, the most significant breedingand feeding grounds for tropical wading birds in thecountry, and habitat for a wide variety of endangeredspecies. Its worldwide value has been recognizedwith designations as a World Heritage Site, anInternational Biosphere Reserve, and a Wetland ofInternational Importance.

“Sea level rise would likely push salt waterinto the Everglades and threaten the viabilityof South Florida’s drinking water supply.”

Dan Kimball, Superintendent, EvergladesNational Park (2007)7

In a recent report, the U.S. governmentsays that a substantial portion ofAssateague Island National Seashore,having been breached and segmented byrecent sea-level rise and storms, mayalready be at a threshold of permanentgeological change. Much of Cape HatterasNational Seashore may also be at a similarthreshold. For both seashores, with anyincrease in the current rate of sea-levelrise, it is “virtually certain” that they willexperience large changes and degrada-tion. With even a modest increase of anadditional inch of sea-level rise everydozen years, it is “very likely”—at least atwo-thirds chance—that the seashores will

be broken into separate segments.8

Assateague Island National Seashore is in thearea experiencing the fastest rate of sea-level risealong the Atlantic coast, and one of the fastest in thenation. At Ocean City, Maryland, just across a narrowinlet from the northern end of the seashore, the sea-level rise has been the second fastest measured sofar along theAtlantic, at a rateof 1.80 feet percentury. The onlyspot with a fastermeasured rate(1.98 feet percentury) is thenext station tothe south, at theChesapeake BayBridge-Tunnel,about 60 milessouth of theseashore’ssouthern end.9

Padre IslandNational Seashore has the world’s longest stretch ofundeveloped barrier island, much of it less thanthree feet above current sea level.10 The park is aGlobally Important Bird Area because of its role inmigration and the most important U.S. nesting site forthe world’s most endangered sea turtle, the Kemp’sridley. (See page 20.)

Another park also at risk of being submerged inthis century is Ellis Island National Monument in NewYork and New Jersey. (See page 33. For more

AS

SAT

EA

GU

E IS

LAN

D N

ATIO

NA

L S

EA

SH

OR

E

DR

Y T

OR

TUG

AS

NAT

ION

AL

PA

RK

Neighboring Biscayne National Park is similarly atrisk of being submerged. The average elevation of itsland is about two feet above the sea, and 90 percentof the park’s land is less than five feet high.

Well before portions of Everglades, Biscayne, andnearby Big Cypress National Preserve, also inFlorida, might be inundated by the sea, their fresh-water ecosystems could be irrevocably changed byrecurring intrusions of salt water. (See page 23.)

16

information on sea-level rise at Cape HatterasNational Seashore and Colonial Historical NationalPark, see pages 33 and 34.)

A second major risk to coasts and coastal parkscomes from stronger coastal storms, includinghurricanes. Where hurricanes develop in the NorthAtlantic, sea surface temperatures have increasedabout 2°F in the last 30 years, corresponding with anincrease in the intensity of hurricanes, especially themost powerful ones, those rated as Category 4 and5. According to a recent U.S. government report,climate models project that further warming of oceanwaters will lead to stronger tropical storms.11 Thecombination of higher seas and stronger storms alsowould produce storm surges of water pushed fartherinland than now, increasing flooding and erosion.12

Stronger coastal storms also put these parks atrisk. In Everglades, back-to-back hurricanes Wilmaand Katrina in 2005 damaged or destroyed thestructures in the one developed area inside the park,the Flamingo area, including the only lodging insidethe park. Not surprisingly, the number of visitors tothe park has since declined; in the three full yearssince Wilma and Katrina, visitation has averaged 23percent below the 2005 level. The NPS has approveda long-term vision for an environmentally sensitiveredevelopment of the area, including new lodging,but it could cost $50 million, and it is not clear how it

will be funded.An even more powerful example of how hurri-

canes can affect national parks is what happenedwhen Biscayne National Park took a direct hit in 1992from Hurricane Andrew, when it became only thethird Category 5 (most powerful) storm to makelandfall in the United States since the beginning ofthe 20th century. The park was essentially put out ofbusiness for two years. The number of visitors to thepark, averaging over half a million a year beforeAndrew, plummeted to about 20,000 the year afterthe storm and about 25,000 the next year.

Padre Island National Seashore is also vulnerablenot just to coastal storms hitting it directly but also toothers in the Gulf of Mexico, because prevailingcurrents bring debris ashore from storms elsewhere.Following Hurricane Ike in 2008, the NPS had toremove 580 tons of trash washed up on parkbeaches by the hurricane.

Gulf Islands National Seashore in Florida andMississippi was hit hard in a little more than a year byfour hurricanes and two other tropical storms. In2004, Hurricane Ivan caused $30 million in damageto the Florida units. Several miles of roads werewashed out; the road to the Fort Pickens unit, nearPensacola, was not reopened until May 2009. Thefollowing year, Katrina produced a storm surge 35feet high over the Mississippi units, slicing one

Recent Changes in Sea Level

Observed changes in sealevel from 1958 to 2008along the coasts of theUnited States. AssateagueIsland, Cape Hatteras, andPadre Island nationalseashores and Ellis IslandNational Monument are inareas experiencing greaterthan average increases.— Source: U.S. Global Change

Research Program.13

17

barrier island in half and eroding others. A lighthousewas destroyed, and a visitor center still has notreopened.

Similar risks are faced by many other coastalparks, including Canaveral National Seashore inFlorida, Cape Lookout National Seashore in NorthCarolina, Cumberland Island National Seashore inGeorgia, Virgin Islands National Park/Virgin IslandsCoral Reef National Monument in the U.S. VirginIslands, and Wright Brothers National Memorial inNorth Carolina.

MORE DOWNPOURS ANDFLOODING

Of the 25 national parks most in peril, allface more downpours and flooding.

With a changed climate, more precipitation nowcomes in downpours. The amount of rain falling inheavy storms increased by 20 percent over the pastcentury, while there has been little change in theamount from light and moderate storms. Thechanges are evident across the country, with thegreatest increase in downpours in the Northeast and

the Midwest. In its recent report, the U.S. GlobalChange Research Program says there is at least a 90percent likelihood that heavy downpours will becomeeven more frequent and intense.14 With an increasein downpours, flooding also is likely to increase.15

Virtually all national parks are at risk, as theforecast is for more downpours everywhere. A recentdownpour and flooding at Mount Rainier NationalPark illustrates the kinds of risks that it and otherparks now face. In November 2006, 18 inches of rainfell in the park in 36 hours, washing out roads,destroying trails, severing power, telephone andsewer systems, damaging campgrounds, and, in thePark Service’s words, “changing the landscape ofthe park forever.”16 The entire park was closed for sixmonths, a period of time when about 170,000 peoplenormally would have visited it.

North Cascades National Park was affected bythis same storm. Similar “pineapple express” stormscaused floods that closed Yosemite Valley inYosemite National Park in January 1997 and May2005.17

(For information on the effects of more downpoursand flooding on historical and cultural resources, seepages 33-34.)

Projected changes inprecipitation from lightstorms (on the left) toheavy (on the right),presented for each fivepercent of storms basedon the precipitation fromthem. Projectionsrepresent percentagechanges in precipitationbetween levels in the1990s and the 2090s.Light storms are pro-jected to produce lessprecipitation and heavystorms more, with greaterchanges in a higher-emissions future.—Source: U.S. GlobalChange Research Program18

Projected Changes in Light, Moderate, and Heavy PrecipitationProjected Levels in 2090s Compared to Actual Levels in 1990s

18

A

LOSS OF PLANTCOMMUNITIES

5

DISRUPTED MOUNTAINECOSYSTEMS

Mountain Pine Beetles and ChangedMountain ForestsThere is growing evidence that a changed climate isdisrupting forests. For example, both a recent U.S.government report and the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change point out that rising temperaturesincrease outbreaks of insects in forests.1 One suchlarge outbreak, by mountain pine beetles, is killingmost large lodgepole pines in Rocky MountainNational Park, as it is across Colorado.

Mountain pine beetles are unusual parasites inthat they kill their hosts—in this outbreak, primarilymature lodgepole pines. When conditions are right,large outbreaks can occur, killing most large trees ina forest. Much of today’s western lodgepole is vul-nerable to such outbreaks, in part because wide-spread fires and logging in the 19th century andhuman fire suppression since then have increasedthe proportion of mature trees that beetles favor. Thechanging climate is also making it possible for barkbeetles to spread faster and higher. Hotter and drier

conditions have stressedtrees, making them morevulnerable to beetle attacks.Longer, hotter summers haveextended reproductive andgrowth periods, while fewercold snaps and higher wintertemperatures have permittedincreased bark beetle survivalin winter, spring, and fall, andinfestation of higher eleva-

An altered climate can lead to fundamental changesin the natural plant communities of parks, including adisruption of mountain forests, tundra, meadows,and wildflowers; a disrup-tion of desert ecosystems,including the possible elim-ination of saguaros fromSaguaro National Park andJoshua trees from JoshuaTree National Park; anda loss of coastal plantcommunities.

RO

CK

Y M

OU

NTA

IN N

ATIO

NA

L P

AR

KP

HO

TO: J

OH

N F

IELD

ER

U.S

. GLO

BA

L C

HA

NG

E R

ES

EA

RC

H P

RO

GR

AM

Mountain pine beetle

19

Of the 25 national parks most in peril,these face loss of plant communities:























tions.3 As the report from a recent scientific sympo-sium put it, “Mature forests are the loaded gun forsevere bark beetle infestations, and weather is thetrigger.”4

One key way in which the current bark-beetleepidemic in Rocky Mountain National Park andelsewhere differs from previous ones is that thebeetles now are able to proliferate in high-elevationforests that used to be too cold to sustain epidemic-level populations.5 In national forests nearYellowstone National Park in the 1970s, most barkbeetles at 8,000 to 9,000 feet in elevation apparentlytook three years to complete a generation. Withwarmer temperatures, though, by 2006, mostapparently were doing so in a single year.6

The resulting mountain pine beetle epidemic isespecially widespread in Colorado. In 2008, officialsof the U.S. Forest Service and the Colorado StateForest Service declared, “At current rates of spreadand intensification of tree mortality, the MPB [moun-tain pine beetle] will likely kill the majority ofColorado’s large diameter lodgepole pine forestswithin the next 3 to 5 years.”7 A more accuratestatement would be that the majority of large lodge-pole pine trees will be killed; the forests are beingchanged, but not eliminated. (See below.) Aerialsurveys later in 2008 showed thatareas infested since 1996 hadreached 1.9 million acres—an areahalf again as large as Delaware—with 400,000 acres newly infestedthat year.8

The infestation has spreadacross Rocky Mountain NationalPark. . . . . The NPS is now sprayingthousands of trees a year with aninsecticide in high-value areas suchas around visitor centers. A camp-ground was closed for over a yearto let the NPS remove standing

dead trees that could have fallen on campers.Visitors are shocked by the expanses of dead anddying trees. And the park is on its way to losing mostof its large lodgepole pines, substantially changingthe park’s current mixed-conifer forest ecosystem.

Ultimately, though, the forests themselves are notbeing lost. Post-outbreak forests will recover muchas Yellowstone National Park’s forests are recoveringafter large fires in 1988. In Rocky Mountain NationalPark, researchers from Colorado State Universityhave confirmed that even in areas of heavy beetleinfestation, all lodgepole pines under four inches indiameter and some mature ones have survived. Thesmaller, younger trees now are likely to grow morerapidly without competition from mature trees.9 Othertree species may move into what have been nearlysingle-species forests, creating different types ofmixed forests. Still, to the extent that this bark-beetleepidemic has spread higher, and perhaps faster andwider than previous outbreaks, it illustrates howecosystems can be changed, on a landscape-widescale, when one natural force (the beetle) is nolonger held in natural check by another (coldweather).

The current mountain pine beetle outbreak is notconfined to Colorado, although that is where it is

“Mountain pine beetles in Colorado have crossed an elevational thresholdthat has not been seen before. Until the recent warmer weather, mountain pine beetles

have not been able to withstand the cold temperatures above 9,500 feet.”Colorado State Forest Service (2008)2

PH

OTO

: NP

S

20

The pine trees with red needlesin Rocky Mountain NationalPark have been killed bymountain pine beetles.

most widespread in the United States. Across theWest, it has grown to affect nearly 6.5 million acres in2008, an increase in just one year of about 50 per-cent.10 In the Yellowstone region, the unprecedentedspread of mountain pine beetles to high elevations isdisrupting the ecosystem in a unique way—ultimatelythreatening the park’s grizzly bears. (See page 28.)Other bark beetles are affecting piñon pines inColorado Plateau parks. (See page 12.)

Sudden Aspen DeclineAnother development in western forests recentlylinked to a changed climate is a rapid dieback ofaspen trees that scientists have labeled “suddenaspen decline,” which could put at risk the scenicaspen groves of Rocky Mountain, Grand Teton,Yellowstone, and Glacier national parks. Beginning in2004, people noticed that aspen trees in Coloradowere dying in large numbers and that the dead treeswere not regenerating as usual through new treesgrowing from the roots of the old. This aspen diebackhas increased rapidly, with the affected acreage inColorado having increased four-fold between 2006and 2008. Aspen die-off has also been observed innorthern Arizona, southern Utah, and Montana.11

Research by the U.S. Forest Service has identifiedthe hotter and drier conditions that represent analtered climate in the interior West as likely causes ofthe sudden aspen decline in Colorado.12

Increased Tree DeathA particularly ominous finding is from a team ofscientists who recently found in undisturbed westernforests that trees of all types and ages are dyingfaster than they used to. The increase in “back-ground” tree mortality—not caused by fires, insects,wind, or any other obvious agent of forest change—was documented through examinations of censusrecords of all individual trees in 76 undisturbed foreststands with counts of all living trees as far back as1955. The studied forests were in Yosemite andSequoia/Kings Canyon national parks; in forests likethose of Rocky Mountain, Glacier, Yellowstone, andGrand Teton national parks in the interior West; andin the Northwest, including near Olympic (in Wash-ington), Mount Rainier, and North Cascades nationalparks. Eighty-seven percent of the plots had experi-enced an increase in the rate of tree deaths, with thegreatest change in the Northwest (where the averagemortality rate had doubled in 17 years) and thelowest in the interior West (with doubling in 29 years.)

The researchers suggested that higher temperaturesand drier conditions—manifestations of a changedclimate—may be the reasons for the accelerated treedeaths.13

Loss of Alpine TundraAlpine tundra—a mountain ecosystem that is treelessbecause conditions are too harsh for tree growth—may be especially vulnerable to a warming climate.Temperature increases have been greater atopmountains than at lower elevations.14 As mountaintoptemperatures warm, plants adapted for survival theremay not be able to tolerate the changed conditionsand may have no nearby higher, cooler environmentsin which to disperse. At the same time, forests maymove upslope and overtake the tundra as mountain-top conditions become less harsh and trees have achance to survive there.

In Rocky Mountain National Park, millions ofAmericans have driven up Trail Ridge Road, thehighest paved through road in the United States, toexperience the largest easily accessible expanse ofalpine tundra in the United States outside of Alaska.Scientists have projected that a temperature in-crease of 5.6°F (consistent with a lower-emissionsfuture by the end of the century) could cut the park’sarea of tundra in half. They also projected that atemperature increase of 9 to 11°F (possible with ahigher-emissions future) could virtually eliminate it.15

Observations in Glacier National Park havedetected what could be the first signs of changingplant communities above and at mountain treelines.In one study, scientists recorded 31 percent to 65percent declines in abundance of seven tundraplants from 1989 through 2002.16 In a second, repeatphotography has documented that trees just belowtimberline have begun to grow more upright andhave filled in gaps in forest edges at timberline.17

Forests Moving UpslopeIn California, scientists have documented that thelower edge of the mixed conifer forests in the SierraNevada has moved upslope in the last 60 years, withponderosa pines—the dominant lower-elevation treeof the forests—giving way to oak and chaparral. Thechange in forest types has coincided with a changein temperature; areas that formerly but no longer

“The upslope retreat of conifers is a clearbiological signal that conditions are changing.”

California Environmental Protection Agency (2009)18

21

have sub-freezing temperatures are where theconifers have given way to other plants. Thesechanges have already reached the lowest elevationsof Yosemite National Park.19

Loss of Mountain MeadowsMountain meadows exist where the combination ofheavy snow cover in the winter and a short growingseason in the summer makes it impossible for treeseedlings to survive. Global warming is likely toreduce snow cover and extend the growing season,shrinking alpine meadows. Scientists have alreadydetected that a loss of mountain meadows is under-way in Glacier, Olympic, Sequoia/Kings Canyon, andYosemite national parks.20

Loss of WildflowersIn work that suggests what could happen in nationalparks in mountains across the West, researchers atthe Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory nearCrested Butte, Colorado—the official wildflowercapital of the state—have documented how highertemperatures suppress the growth of mountainwildflowers. Using electric heaters to raise summertemperatures of test plots by 4ºF for more than adecade, they have observed a reduction in wildflow-ers and their replacement by sagebrush, normallyfound in lower-elevation, dryer areas.21 Another studyshows that, paradoxically, earlier snowmelt—a resultof warmer winters—actually leads to more wildflow-ers being lost to frost. With earlier snowmelt, thegrowing season starts earlier and flower buds opensooner, leaving them exposed to mid-spring frosts.

From 1999 through 2006, the percentage of wild-flower buds lost to frost doubled, compared to theprevious seven years.22

DISRUPTION OF DESERTECOSYSTEMS

Loss of SaguarosAnother type of threat comes from invasive plants,which may adapt to changed conditions better thannative species, reproduce quickly, and crowd outnative plants. In Saguaro National Park, buffelgrass,an introduced African species, is the invader, andthe native saguaros could be the victim. Buffelgrassthrives in heat, is spreading prolifically and crowdingout native plants, and has created conditions ripe forwildfire in an ecosystem that naturally is fire-free.When ignited, buffelgrass burns at very high tem-peratures and promotes rapidly spreading fires; italso re-grows quickly after fires. The hotter and drierconditions of a changed climate also may contributeto the likelihood of wildfires in the desert. (See page12 for projections of extreme precipitation decline insouthern Arizona.) Saguaros, like some otherspecies native to the Upper Sonoran Desert, havenot evolved with fire and are particularly vulnerableto it.23 Other native species, including desert tor-toises, are also at risk from the disruption of theecosystem.24 In Saguaro National Park, despiteaggressive attempts by the NPS and volunteers tocontrol buffelgrass, infested areas are doubling insize every two years. If this were to continue, most ofthe park would be infested within a decade.25 The

result could be the transformation ofthe park’s desert ecosystem intosavannas of grass and mesquite—and the elimination from the park ofthe saguaros for which it is named.26

As a U.S. Geological Survey scientist

SA

GU

AR

O N

ATIO

NA

L P

AR

K

“ Deserts and drylandsare likely to become hotterand drier, feeding a self-reinforcing cycle of invasiveplants, fire, and erosion.”— U.S. Global Change Research

Program (2009)27

22

says, “Buffelgrass is the worst environmental prob-lem we face in the Sonoran Desert. We’re gettingready to see the unhinging of a unique Americanecosystem.”28

Loss of Joshua TreesJoshua trees need winter freezes to flower and set

seeds. In a hotterfuture, they maynot be able tosurvive in much oftheir currentrange, includingall or major partsof Joshua TreeNational Park inCalifornia.29

(For informationon a widespreadloss of piñon pineson the ColoradoPlateau, see page12.)

“ At the fastest estimates of sea-level rise, predictions point to cata-strophic inundation of South Florida and loss of freshwater resources.”

South Florida Natural Resources Center, National Park Service (2009)34

LOSS OF COASTAL PLANTCOMMUNITIESIn coastal parks, the plant communities of wetlands,intertidal areas, and near-shore ecosystems could belost to the effects of sea-level rise, stronger coastalstorms, storm surges, and saltwater intrusion, all ofwhich are projected to result from a human-changedclimate.

South Florida ParksThe current plant communities of Biscayne, DryTortugas, and Everglades national parks are particu-larly threatened. (See page 16.) In Biscayne andEverglades, coastal mangrove forests protect inlandareas from storm surges and flooding, and preventsaltwater incursion into the freshwater marshesbehind them. If the sea level were to rise veryslowly—perhaps no more than one additional foot inthis century—the mangroves may be able to main-tain themselves by regenerating farther inland. But ifthe sea level rises even at the rate predicted for alow-emissions future, scientists warn that the man-groves may not be able to disperse inland rapidlyenough to stay ahead of the rising sea. Then theywould no longer serve as a dam holding out salt

water, and the freshwaterresources behind them wouldbe quickly lost. The currentecosystem and 27 rare plantspecies could disappear.32 InEverglades, if the sea level wereto rise even as little as two feet,the park’s pinelands, one of therarest ecosystems in SouthFlorida, would be submerged,and half of the park’s signaturefreshwater marsh would betransformed by salt waterpushed landward.33

JOS

HU

A T

RE

E N

ATIO

NA

L P

AR

K

EV

ER

GLA

DE

S N

ATIO

NA

L P

AR

K

“It has been estimated that 3 feet of sea-levelrise (within the range of projections for this

century) would inundate about 65 percent ofthe coastal marshlands and swamps in the

contiguous United States.”U.S. Global Change Research Program (2009)31

“ One day we may not only face a GlacierNational Park without glaciers, but also aJoshua Tree National Park without Joshuatrees and a Saguaro National Parkwithout its iconic saguaro.”— Thomas Swetnam, University of Arizona (2009)30

23

OTHER PLANT-COMMUNITYVULNERABILITIESThe particular local vulnerabilities of other parks areoften not yet documented in detail, but generalinformation about the impacts of a disrupted climateon plant communities suggests that many otherparks are vulnerable. Great Smoky MountainsNational Park in Tennessee and North Carolina has agreater diversity of native plants than any othernational park, including more than 1,660 kinds offlowering plants. “Vegetation is to Great SmokyMountains National Park what granite domes andwaterfalls are to Yosemite and geysers are toYellowstone,” says the National Park Service.35

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, too, has anastonishing diversity of plants, with more than1,100 flowering plants. TheodoreRoosevelt National Park in North Dakotapreserves one of the few expanses of

prairie in the national park system. All three parks arealready struggling with invasive plant species thatthreaten the local ecosystems, a problem whichcould be worsened by an altered climate.

The coastal dune ecosystems and marshes ofAssateague Island (in Maryland and Virginia), CapeHatteras (in North Carolina), and Padre Island (inTexas) national seashores could be overtaken byrising seas. (See page 16.) So could biologically richintertidal zones in Acadia, Olympic, and Glacier Baynational parks. Also in Acadia, as across the North-east, there could be large changes in the distribu-tions and numbers of tree species.36

(For an illustration of how changes in plant coverin Denali National Park and Preserve could affectcaribou see page 27.)

GR

EAT

SM

OK

Y M

OU

NTA

INS

NAT

ION

AL

PA

RK

THE

OD

OR

E R

OO

SE

VE

LT N

ATIO

NA

L P

AR

K

24

F

LOSS OF WILDLIFE

6

For many Americans, the highlight of a trip to anational park is the wildlife they see. But a changedclimate could mean less of the wildlife species nowin the parks. Some species may go completelyextinct. The Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange warns that just 4° to 5°F of higher tempera-tures would leave 20 to 30 percent of plant andanimal species that have been studied in

come atop others such as habitat loss.2 Even ifspecies do not become extinct, local populations inparticular parks may be eliminated.

Very few studies so far have focused on the vul-nerability of wildlife in particular national parks. Aswith other impacts of a changed climate, though, theavailable evidence suggest the impacts could bemajor.

LOSS OF MAMMALS

Grizzly BearsIn the Yellowstone ecosystem, including Yellowstoneand Grand Teton national parks, the fate of grizzlybear populations could depend on that of a muchsmaller creature—mountain pine beetles—which areinfesting and threatening to eliminate high-altitudewhitebark pines and their nuts, the most importantfood source for grizzly bears in this region. (Forbackground on the mountain pine beetles, seepages 19-21; for the effects on grizzly bears, seepage 28.)

LynxGlacier National Park and several parks in Alaska arehome to the Canada lynx, a threatened species inthe contiguous United States under the EndangeredSpecies Act. One team of researchers has docu-mented that most areas where lynx now occur have

“Boreal forest, snow, and snowshoe hare–the primary foodsource for the lynx–may not shift synchronously. So climate changecould produce habitat fragmentation and, at the least, disruption

of the conditions that the Canada Lynx require for survival.”Patrick Gonzalez, University of California, Berkeley3

climatic conditions far outside those oftheir current ranges, making them“likely to be at increasingly highrisk of extinction.”1 One reason thispercentage is so high is that stressesresulting from climate change would

Of the 25 national parks most in peril,these face loss of wildlife:






















25

four months of snow cover and average Januarytemperatures under 17°F. Just a 4° to 7°F increase inaverage annual temperatures could reduce the over-lap of those two climatic conditions and the types offorests where the cats live to eliminate about half ofthe suitable habitat in the contiguous United States.Across all of North America, about 10 percent of lynxhabitat could be eliminated.4

Florida PanthersThe Florida panther, found in Everglades NationalPark and Big Cypress National Preserve, is one of

the most criticallyendangered mammalsin the world, with onlyabout 100 individuals.Like other southFlorida species, itcould be affectedbecause of the likelydisruption of theregion’s ecosystems.(See page 28.) Aneven larger risk for theFlorida panther couldbe its lack of a keyadvantage for anyspecies—enough

genetic variation in its population to give someindividual animals different traits that would helpthem survive in profoundly different conditions. Witha tiny population and ahistory of inbreeding, theFlorida panther could fallshort.5

PikasPikas, which look like ham-sters but are more closelyrelated to rabbits, aremountaintop residents un-usually sensitive to hightemperatures, making themcandidates as “earlysentinels” to a changed climate.6 Researchersrecently surveying 25 sites in the Great Basin(between the Rocky Mountains and the SierraNevada) known to have previously had pika popula-tions failed to find any pikas in nine sites—primarilythose at lower, hotter elevations.7 This raises con-cerns for the future of the species as the climate

continues getting hotter. The risks to pikas could begreater in the lower-elevation areas where theyoccur, such as Bandelier and Lava Beds (in Califor-nia) national monuments, Craters of the MoonNational Monument and Preserve (in Idaho), andZion National Park. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceis considering whether pikas should be protectedunder the Endangered Species Act because of thethreats of climate change.

Mountain SheepAt Rocky Mountain National Park, the National ParkService has expressed concern that the park’sbighorn sheep population could decline over timedue to loss of open alpine habitat as forests moveupslope.8 Other parks where forests could encroachon bighorn sheep habitat include Yellowstone, GrandTeton, Glacier, Yosemite, and Sequoia/Kings Canyonnational parks.

Desert Bighorn SheepOf 80 separate populations of desert bighorn sheepin California about 65 years ago, 30 no longer exist.Scientists have determined that the local extinctionsoccurred most often in the hottest, driest areas.9

Other research in Canyonlands National Park and anational wildlife refuge in New Mexico shows thatbirth and survival rates of desert bighorn lambs goup in wet years and down in dry years.10 Withprojections that a changed climate will make theinterior West even dryer, this raises concerns about

the desert bighorn’s future across itsrange, including in Joshua Tree and Zionnational parks.

Range Shifts in YosemiteIn Yosemite National Park, a pioneeringbiologist’s inventory of mammals early inthe 20th century established a rarebaseline for assessing changes in whichspecies live where in the park. A recentresurvey shows that about half of themammal species are now at differentelevations. Most have moved to higher

elevations—on average, about 500 yards higher—aswould be expected in response to the park gettinghotter.11 The Yosemite movements are consistent withchanges in wildlife ranges around the world; ananalysis of 143 separate studies shows that manyspecies are changing where they live, and more than80 percent of those changes are consistent with

26

habitat changes could affect park mammals. InDenali National Park and Preserve and Wrangell-St.Elias National Park, frequent winter thaws could leadto ice-crusted snow that is harder for foragingcaribou to penetrate to get sufficient food in winter.The caribou also could suffer from changes in parkplant communities that diminish their food sources.16

Moose populations have declined significantly in IsleRoyale National Park since the 1980s, and theeffects of higher temperatures could be to blame.17

In Theodore Roosevelt National Park, bison andother native prairie animals may lose habitat andfood sources because of invasive plant species thatthrive in a hotter climate. (See page 24.)

LOSS OF BIRDSTo American bird-watchers, one of the most acces-sible andfamous popula-tion of white-tailed ptarmiganis on the tundraof RockyMountainNational Parkalong Trail RidgeRoad. Between1975 and 1999,though, theirnumbers havebeen cut in halfin response to increases in April and May tempera-tures and corresponding earlier hatching of ptarmi-

gan chicks. If the same relationship betweenptarmigan numbers and increasing tempera-tures persists, researchers have suggested thatthe birds could become locally extinct in thepark in another 10 to 20 years as temperaturescontinue rising—although the researchers didnot identify a particular temperature-relatedcause for the birds’ decline.18

Sea-level rise could pose problems for somebird populations. With a three-foot sea-levelrise, Dry Tortugas National Park could becompletely submerged (see page 15), eliminat-ing a key mid-Gulf resting stop for migratingbirds and the only significant breeding colony inthe United States of sooty terns. With the samesea-level rise, much of Padre Island NationalSeashore and an adjacent estuary would beinundated, eliminating habitat for migrating and

adaptation to a changed climate, such as movingnorth or up in elevation to stay ahead of highertemperatures.12

Projected Habitat Losses andSpecies ChangesResearchers from Yale University studied the pos-sible effects of climate change on mammals in eightnational parks. They projected that the doubled

“ In Alaska, vegetationchanges are alreadyunderway due towarming. Tree lineis shifting north-ward into tundra,encroaching on thehabitat for manymigratory birds andland animals such ascaribou that dependon the open tundralandscape.”— U.S. Global Change

Research Program(2009)13

atmospheric levels ofheat-trapping gasescould change habitat inthe parks enough toeliminate some species.The greatest losses wereprojected for the south-ernmost parks in theirstudy, Big Bend and GreatSmoky Mountains nationalparks. They also pro-jected that many newspecies might move intoparks as habitats change.A major caveat, though, isthat the researchers didnot consider whetherthere would be geo-

graphic or other barriers to species moving intoparks. Should as many new species move into parksas the researchers projected, there would besubstantial new competition for habitat and food,creating another stress on the native local wildlife.14

There is some evidence in particular parks of how

Projected Changes in MammalsCurrent

Number ofSpecies

ProjectedSpecies

Lost

ProjectedSpeciesGained

NationalPark

Acadia 43 3 8

Big Bend 48 10 22

Glacier 52 2 45

Great Smoky 48 8 29Mountains

Shenandoah 33 3 11

Yellowstone 53 0 19

Yosemite 64 6 25

Zion 53 1 41

Data source: Burns, Johnson, and Schmitz (2003)15

27

I— Contributed by Dr. Jesse A. Logan

of their adaptations being their large, highly nutritiousseeds). Whitebark pines do not depend on cata-strophic forest disturbances to survive; instead, theyare threatened by them. One hypothesized reasonfor the restriction of whitebark pines to high eleva-tions is that they are poorly defended against theinsect pests and pathogens of lower elevations.Mountain pine beetles have not before been a majorthreat to white-bark pine survival; their defense hasbeen the high-elevation climate, historically too coldfor long-term survival of large beetle populations.

Unfortunately, things have dramatically changedin response to climate warming since the mid 1970s.Computer simulations had predicted mountain pinebeetle outbreaks into high-elevation systems, buteven the modelers were surprised by how quicklyand how far beetles have now spread into whitebarkpines. Significant mortality is occurring across theentire American distribution of whitebark pine, withno sign of it diminishing. When added to anotherstress—from a pathogen, white pine blister rust—thespread of bark beetles into higher elevations puts inquestion the continued existence of these ecosys-tems and of Yellowstone’s grizzly bears.

Given the likelihood of continued warming, what,if anything can be done to protect whitebark pinesand the grizzlies that depend on them? First, weneed to better understand mountain pine beetleinfestations of whitebark pine, which differ from thehost/insect interactions of other pine species.Understanding the unique aspects of mountain pinebeetle in whitebark pines may let us tip the scale tofavor the host. Second, we need better tools toevaluate the extent of mortality. Whitebark pinehabitats are in the most remote and wild places(often designated wilderness areas) in the RockyMountains, where mortality goes almost undetected.

Advanced technology, such as satellite imag-ery combined with traditional aerial photogra-phy and ground surveying, is needed. Third,management tools (e.g., pheromone strate-gies) need to be fine-tuned for high-elevationenvironments. All of these approaches need tobe integrated across large, remote, andinhospitable landscapes.

— Dr. Logan, an entomologist, retired in 2006from the U.S. Forest Service.

I consider the large-scale bark beetle mortalityoccurring in lodgepole pine forests across the West(see pages 19-21) interesting and unusual— but Ihave no doubt that lodgepole forests will remain onthe landscape for generations. The current mortalityin whitebark pines, though, breaks my heart. We arewitnessing the catastrophic collapse of high moun-tain ecosystems as a result of human-caused climatechange, and grizzly bears could pay the price.

The grizzly bear is the most emblematic symbol ofAmerica’s remaining wildlands. Unfortunately, in oneof its last strongholds, the Greater YellowstoneEcosystem, its very existence is in peril. The mostchallenging of its many threats there is a loss ofcritical food resources. Most important in the grizzlydiet are the large and nutrient-rich seeds ofwhitebark pine, as the bears depend on them in thefall to prepare for hibernation. Nutritionally stressedbears in years with poor whitebark nut supplies havea lowered over-winter survival rate, and, moreimportantly, lower cub birth rates as embryos will bereabsorbed if pregnant females lack sufficient fatentering hibernation. Without enough whitebark pinenuts, grizzly bears are also more likely to get intohuman conflicts as they search for other foods.

In recent years, a new threat has erupted to thiscritical element in the grizzly diet: the expansion intohigh-elevation forests of a small, native bark beetle inresponse to a warming climate.

The mountain pine beetle is a native insect thathas co-evolved with some pine forests. Trees killedby the beetles (and fire) open up the forests to newgrowth; otherwise, some types of trees, especiallylodgepole pine, would be replaced by shade-tolerantspruce and fir. But whitebark pines are different fromlodgepoles. Whitebarks live for centuries, not de-cades, and are restricted to high elevations (with one

Yellowstone Case Study of Wildlife EffectsGlobal Warming, Bark Beetles, Whitebark Pine, and Grizzly Bears in Yellowstone

28

overwintering shorebirds and waterfowl.19 In Ever-glades National Park, rising seas and strongercoastal storms could destroy habitat for the endan-gered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, roseate spoon-bills, wood storks, snail kites, and other species notfound in many other places in the country.20

In Mesa Verde National Park, Mexican spottedowls apparently no longer can be found in the park,which the park staff attributes to the drier conditionsand altered habitat that represent a changed climatein this region.21

Reductions in the number of saguaros in SaguaroNational Park—let alone their possible elimination(see page 22)—would remove nesting sites for elfowls and gilded flickers and food sources for white-winged doves—all species found in this country onlyin the extreme Southwest.

LOSS OF REPTILESIn Dry Tortugas National Park, a study of nestingendangered loggerhead and green sea turtles from1995 through 2006 showed that in years of strongcoastal storms the hatching success of both speciesdeclines, as high, storm driven waves flood or ex-pose turtle nests in beaches. These turtle species

the projected increase in coastal storm strength.22

Other parks are at similar risk of losing sea turtles.The beaches of Padre Island National Seashoreprovide key nesting habitat for the Kemp’s ridley seaturtle, the most endangered of all sea turtles in theGulf of Mexico. After successful reintroduction ofKemp’s ridley turtles from Mexico to Padre Island, theseashore now hosts most Texas nests of theseturtles. But the seashore is vulnerable to sea-levelrise and stronger storms (see page 16), and as aresult so are the sea turtles. Also at risk areAssateague Island and Cape Hatteras nationalseashores, where sea turtles occasionally nest.

In Everglades National Park, alligators, croco-diles, sea turtles, and mangrove terrapins have anunusual vulnerability to hotter temperatures: Thegender of offspring is determined by temperaturesduring embryo incubation, so unnaturally hightemperatures could disrupt the gender balance ofnew generations.23

LOSS OF AMPHIBIANSWorldwide, amphibians appear to be the first large-scale wildlife victims of a hotter climate, in partbecause higher temperatures promote the spread of

“The potential prospects of earlier, more numerous, andmore powerful storms pose an additional and significant

threat to loggerhead and green sea turtles nesting in southwestFlorida, and perhaps beyond. This may be especially true for

turtle rookeries like those at Dry Tortugas National Parkwhere nesting beaches are exposed to high surf and

storm surges that accompany strong storms.”K. S. Van Houtan and O. L. Bass25

a fungus that kills amphibians.24 In Yosemite andSequoia/Kings Canyon national parks, researchershave discovered a recent 10 percent decline peryear in the population of mountain yellow-leggedfrogs in park lakes and streams. Most remainingfrogs are infected with the same fungal diseasebecoming more widespread elsewhere. Researchersalso link the decline to shrinking snowpacks that dryup ponds and make the frogs more vulnerable to thetrout that prey on them.26 The vulnerability of thesefrogs to hotter, drier conditions illustrates how achanged climate is causing amphibian declines inways other than promoting the spread of the same

doubtless have always lost nests tocoastal storms. Previously, though, largerpopulations and more widely spreadnesting areas helped sustain the species.Now, nesting sites have been lost tohuman developments and populationlevels have dropped to 10 percent or lessof those before European settlement. As a

result, they now have little remaining margin ofsafety in the face of any further stresses, such as

A ranger at Padre Island National Seashore showsoff a hatchling Kemp’s ridley sea turtle.

29

fungus.27 As anotherexample, at BandelierNational Monument adecline in Jemez Moun-tains salamanders isthought to be the result ofhotter, drier conditions.28

LOSS OF FISHAn altered climate is likelyto reduce inland popula-tions of coldwater fishspecies, including troutand salmon. For trout in the interior West, a hotterclimate is the single greatest threat to their survival;when water temperatures reach the mid-70°s, troutcan die.

In Yellowstone National Park’s Firehole River in2007, temperatures topped 80°F for several daysand as many as a thousand trout died in the largestdocumented fish kill in the park’s 135-year history.29

Under a high-emissions future, Rocky Mountainstreams could warm up enough to reduce trouthabitat by 50 percent or more by the end of thecentury.30 Affected parks could include Glacier,Grand Teton, Mount Rainier, North Cascades, RockyMountain, Yellowstone, and Yosemite national parks.About 90 percent of bull trout, which live in westernrivers in some of the country’s wildest places, areprojected to be lost due to warming. In the southernAppalachian Mountains, which includes Great

Smoky Mountains NationalPark, over half of wild troutpopulations could dis-appear because of hotterstreams.31 Trout popula-tions in Acadia andShenandoah (in Virginia)national parks also couldbe affected.

Salmon, too, arevulnerable to higher watertemperatures, as well as tochanges in streamflows

and heat-driven increases in diseases and parasites.Studies suggest that perhaps 40 percent of North-west salmon populations could be lost by 2050.33 By2040 in Olympic National Park, water in streams withChinook and coho salmon could reach about 68°F insummer, high enough to be stressful for fish. On theSkagit River, which flows through North CascadesNational Park, by 2080 temperatures could reach72°F.34

Marine fish populations may also suffer from analtered climate, in part because of the destructiveimpacts on coral reefs, as explained below.

(For the effects of these losses on fishing ininland, coastal, and marine parks, see pages 37-38.)

LOSS OF CORAL REEFSCorals, which are marine animals, and the astonish-ingly rich ecosystems of the reefs they build are

“ Intensities and frequencies ofbleaching events, clearly drivenby warming in surface water,have increased substantially overthe past 30 years, leading to thedeath or severe damage of aboutone third of the world’s corals...[T]he corals that form the reefsin the Florida Keys, Puerto Rico,Hawaii, and the Pacific Islandsare projected to be lost if carbondioxide concentrations continueto rise at their current rate.”— U.S. Global Change Research

Program (2009)32

30

represented in our national parks more than manypeople realize. Parks containing coral reefs areAmerican Samoa, Biscayne, Dry Tortugas, Haleakala(in Hawaii), and Hawaii Volcanoes national parks;Buck Island Reef National Monument; Kalaupapa (inHawaii), Kaloko-Honokohau (in Hawaii), Pu’uhonua oHonaunau (in Hawaii), Salt River Bay (in the U.S.Virgin Islands), and War in the Pacific (in Guam)national historical parks; and Virgin Islands NationalPark/Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument.

Coral reefs are among the ecosystems mostaffected by human emissions of heat-trapping gases.The primary reef building corals in Atlantic waters,elkhorn and staghorn corals, have already declinedby more than 97 percent since the 1970s along theFlorida Keys, in Dry Tortugas National Park, and inthe U.S. Virgin Islands; disease, heat-driven bleach-ing, and damage from hurricanes are the principalculprits.36 As a result, they were given federal pro-tection under the Endangered Species Act in 2006.

Coral bleaching is a particular threat clearlylinked to hotter temperatures. The often brilliantcolors of corals actually come from algae that the

“In 2005, the Caribbean basin saw unprecedented water temperatures andsome dramatic bleaching, followed by coral disease and mortality. The most dramatic

monitored bleaching took place in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where National Parkmonitoring showed that at some sites 90 percent of the coral bleached...

To date there is an estimated 50 percent combined mortality from bleachingand disease in the Virgin Island National Park surveys. As of yet, there are no

reports of recovery as amounts of mortality continue to increase.”U.S. Climate Change Science Program (2008)35

example was in the waters of Virgin Islands NationalPark in 2005, where researchers documented theloss of half of the park’s corals from high watertemperatures.38 Other parks have experiencedlosses of coral reefs, too; during the late 1990’s,Biscayne National Park, like much of the FloridaKeys, lost approximately 40 percent of its corals.39

When corals die, not just the coral reef ecosystembut also the larger marine environment is affected.As one example, reefs are important feedinggrounds for wide-ranging marine fish species. In theCaribbean, the loss of coral reefs has been associ-ated with an overall decline in fish populations sincethe mid-1990s.40

LOSS OF BUTTERFLIESButterflies are particularly sensitive to temperatureand so are vulnerable to a changed climate. Mon-arch butterflies illustrate the risks. They make one ofthe most amazing migrations of all wildlife, takingseveral generations to complete a round trip thou-sands of miles long to return to particular winteringgrounds. Scientists do not even know how the great-great-great grandchildren find the winter roostingcorals host; when stressed enough, though,

corals eject the algae and lose their color.Since the 1980s, this coral bleaching hasgrealy increased. On a small scale, bleach-ing can be caused by a variety of factors,but large-scale, mass bleaching has beenconclusively linked to a single cause—unusually high water temperatures. Themost extensive episodes of coral bleachinghave been in 1998-99 and 2005, the world’shottest years on record.37 A well-studied

31

sites. But scientists project that an altered climate willmake the wintering grounds wetter, causing prob-lems for the monarchs, which cannot survive thearea’s occasional freezing temperatures if they arewet.41

Monarchs migrate through and to all 48 contigu-ous states. If their populations drop, though, thatwould be felt particularly at Assateague IslandNational Seashore. Many monarchs migrate alongthe coast in the fall; Assateague Island is adjacent toa national wildlife refuge where a monitoring projecthas recorded as many as 243 monarchs per hour ina peak migration year.

For other butterflies, climate change is alreadytolling. Local populations of the Edith’s checkerspotbutterfly, which inhabits Yosemite and Sequoia/KingsCanyon national parks and other locations in Califor-nia, have gone extinct in certain areas during ex-treme drought and low-snowpack years.42 At IndianaDunes National Lakeshore, numbers of Karner blue

butterflies, an endangered species, have declined inyears of low snow cover, thought to be from a loss ofthe protection that snow provides for over-winteringeggs.43 Research at North Cascades National Parkindicates that much of the habitat of Anicia checker-spot butterflies in the park could be lost if snowmeltoccurs earlier and soils dry out faster, as climatescientists project.44

DISRUPTION OF TIMINGSAnother type of risk facing nearly all kinds of wildlifeis a disruption of their ecosystems from changedtiming of seasons. In the United States, spring nowarrives ten days to two weeks earlier than twodecades ago, along the lines of what is also happen-ing around the world. About 60 percent of all speciesworldwide appear to already be responding bychanging where they live or the timing of their lifecycles, for example by ending hibernation, migrat-ing, or breeding earlier. A risk is that one species

may change in one way and other specieson which they depend may respond indifferent ways and with different timing,disrupting habitats, food supplies, or otherneeds of the first species.45

“Large-scale shifts have occurredin the ranges of species and thetiming of the seasons and animalmigration, and are very likelyto continue.”— U.S. Global Change Research

Program (2009)46

32

B

LOSS OF HISTORICAL &CULTURAL RESOURCES

7

By preserving some of the best of our historical and

cultural resources—buildings, landscapes, archaeo-logical sites, and artifacts—America’s national parks

provide information about the past and provide

important links to the present. Many of these re-sources are at risk from a changing climate.

CULTURAL RESOURCES LOST TOSEAS AND STORMSRising seas and stronger coastal storms (see pages15-18) threaten cultural resources in coastal parks.

The entirety of Ellis Island National Monument inUpper New York Bay is less than three feet above thecurrent high tide level.1 The whole national monu-ment, through which passed the arriving ancestors of40 percent of all living Americans, is insubstantial danger of being completelylost to higher seas. Even before beingpermanently inundated, the historicimmigration center could be damaged ordestroyed by storm surges. One analysisbased just on projected local changes insea levels (without considering an

increase in storm severity) suggests that a 100-yearcoastal flood in the New York City metropolitanarea—the highest coastal flooding now expected tooccur once every 100 years—could happen bycentury’s end every 11 years in a higher emissionsfuture or every 22 years in a lower emissions future.2

Another study says what currently is a 100-yearcoastal flood in the metro area could occur every 15to 35 years in the future.3

Similarly at risk is the Statue of Liberty NationalMonument, on Liberty Island, like Ellis Island inUpper New York Bay.

Also vulnerable is where the first Europeanancestors of today’s Americans arrived in 1607— theJamestown National Historic Site, part of ColonialNational Historical Park in Virginia. The originalJamestown fort was thought for over two centuries tohave been lost to erosion of the James River’s bank.The buried fort, however, was recently rediscoveredand is being excavated—except for one part nowdefinitely known to have been washed away. In thistidal stretch of the James River, the remainder of thefirst settlers’ fort is at risk to rising seas (which in theChesapeake Bay area are rising at twice the globalaverage rate), storms, and storm surges.4 Already, in

Ellis Island National Monument inUpper New York Bay is less than threefeet above the current high tide level.

ME

SA

VE

RD

E N

ATIO

NA

L P

AR

K

33

Of the 25 national parks most in peril,these face a loss of historical andcultural resources:











2003, Hurricane Isabel flooded 90 percent of thepark’s one million artifacts, forcing the NPS torelocate the entire collection to another facility forrestoration.

As explained on page 15, Dry Tortugas NationalPark also could be entirely lost to higher seas. Theparks’ major cultural resource—Fort Jefferson, theWestern Hemisphere’s largest brick fort—is at risk.

Cape Hatteras National Seashore’s barrier islandserode under natural conditions from tides, currentsand waves. With an altered climate, the U.S. GlobalChange Research Program reports that it is virtuallycertain that barrier islands in the mid-Atlantic region,including those at Cape Hatteras, will erode morequickly.5 Already, the seashore’s Cape HatterasLighthouse, the tallest brick lighthouse in the UnitedStates, has been moved once because of sea-levelrise. When built in 1870 it was 1,500 feet from theshoreline; by 1998, only 120 feet separated it fromthe Atlantic Ocean. After the National Academy ofSciences confirmed that the lighthouse was indanger of being lost to the continued rise of theAtlantic, the lighthouse was moved 2,900 feet inland.That took two years and cost taxpayers $4.6 million.Knowing that this relocation may prove inadequate inthe face of rising seas and stronger storms, theNational Park Service left steel beams under thelighthouse to make the next move easier.

Other coastal parks and their cultural resourcesat risk from higher seas and strongerstorms include:

• Acadia National Park—historicstructures and cultural landscapesalong the shoreline;

• Biscayne National Park—a light-house and other historic structureson Boca Chita Key;

• Channel Islands National Park inCalifornia—archaeological treasuresdating back 11,000 years;

• Olympic National Park—petroglyphscarved into shoreline rocks;

• Point Reyes National Seashore inCalifornia—sites of Coast MiwokIndian settlements going back 5,000years;

• Golden Gate National RecreationArea in California—historic FortMason and portions of the grounds

of the Presidio of San Francisco, the oldestcontinuously used military post in the nation;

• Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park inHawaii—outstanding examples of native Hawaiianculture, including religious sites, currently pro-tected by a seawall that will be inadequate if thesea level rises even 1½ feet.6

CULTURAL RESOURCES LOST TOFLOODING AND EROSIONIncreased downpours, flooding, and erosion (seepage 18) likely will increase damage to ancientstructures and cause a loss of artifacts. This isparticularly true in arid areas, where the land is dryand hard enough that downpours are not absorbedinto the soil but instead produce floods and erosion.The results can include a loss of historic and prehis-toric structures and, particularly, undiscoveredartifacts. In Bandelier National Monument, forexample, 80 percent of the park’s archeological siteshave been affected by erosion. The National ParkService identified in a “Vanishing Treasures” programirreplaceable pueblos, cliff dwellings, churches, andforts that are “rapidly disappearing from the aridWest,” often because they are “in immediate,imminent danger from natural erosive factors.” Parkscontaining the vanishing treasures include BandelierNational Monument and Joshua Tree, Mesa Verde,and Zion national parks.7 Not all sites that could be

affected are evenknown to the Service;in Big Bend NationalPark, for example, theNPS has estimatedthat there could be26,000 archaeologi-cal sites, of whichonly three percenthave even beenidentified.

The Cape Hatteraslighthouse beingprepared to be movedto keep it above therising sea.

34

LESS VISITORENJOYMENT

8

In addition to impacts already described in thisreport, there are four other particular ways in which achanged climate could diminish the enjoyment thatpeople get from visiting national parks. First, someparks may become so hot that they will be intolerablefor long stretches of time. Second, enough peoplemay be drawn to relatively cooler parks to escapethe increased heat of the summertime to make thoseparks overcrowded. Third, fishing may be reduced insome parks. Finally, a hotter climate may lead toincreased air pollution in some parks—affecting notonly the enjoyment of visitors but also their health.

INTOLERABLE HEAT

• Lake Mead National Recreation Area, whichaverages 98°F in June, 105°F in July, 103°F inAugust, and 97°F in September.

• Arches and Zion national parks, both with anaverage high temperature of 100°F for July. InArches, the average high is 97°F in August. InZion temperatures average over 90°F in June,August, and September.

• Saguaro National Park, where the average highsin both June and July are 98°F and are over 90°Fin August and September.

• Grand Canyon National Park, where summertemperatures at Phantom Ranch—the mostpopular hiking destination at the bottom of thecanyon—typically exceed 100°F.

These parks already are too hot for many peopleduring the summer, when the number of peoplevisiting the parks declines while it is going up in mostparks. If these hot parks get even hotter because ofhuman-caused changes to the climate, they wouldbe intolerably hot for many people for longerstretches.

Some other parks, while not quite as hot as thoseabove, are still hot enough that it would not takemuch more heat to make them intolerably hot forsignificant stretches. Examples are:

• The desert floors of Big Bend National Parkaverage over 90°F for highs in June, July andAugust.

• In Biscayne and Everglades national parks, hightemperatures average nearly 90°F from Junethrough September.

As the world continues to heat up, heat itself willbecome a real problem in areas that are already hotto begin with and then get much hotter. Peoplevisiting national parks in these areas will particularlyfeel the heat, since they typically are outdoors, not inair-conditioned buildings. These parks may simplybecome intolerably hot for long stretches of the yearfor many people. These parks include:

• Death Valley National Park, the hottest place inNorth America. Average high temperaturesalready are 99°F in May, 109°F in June, 115°F inJuly, 113°F in August, and 106°F in September.The park’s record high temperature is 134°F.

• Nearby Joshua Tree National Park, nearly as hot,with average high temperatures of 100°F or morein June, July and August.

I

Of the 25 national parks most in peril,these face intolerable heat:







GR

AN

D C

AN

YO

N N

ATIO

NA

L P

AR

K

35

Number of Days a Year Over 100°F

Climate models project that the parks namedabove are likely to get substantially hotter, especiallyin a higher-emissions future. Stretches of the countrythat include Big Bend, Death Valley, Joshua Tree, andSaguaro national parks, Mojave National Preserve inCalifornia and Lake Mead National Recreation Areaare projected to average more than 100 days a yearover 100°F.1 Those parks, Biscayne and Evergladesnational parks, and Big Cypress National Preserveare projected to average 90°F or hotter for half ormore of the entire year.2

Figure source: U.S. Global Change Research Program.3

As temperatures soar with a changed climate, toescape oppressive heat enough people may flock tocooler northern and mountain parks and to nationalseashores to overcrowd them. In Rocky MountainNational Park, a survey of park visitors suggests thatunder the climate conditions projected by as soon as2020 enough people could come more often andstay longer to increase the number of visitor days bymore than one million a year—nearly a one-thirdincrease.4 Researchers in a comprehensive study ofCanadian national parks found similar results there,and noted:

The implications for tourism and park managementare substantive. Revenues for Parks Canada couldincrease substantially and communities with park-based tourism economies could benefit exten-sively if the opportunities to increase visitation canbe accomplished in a sustainable manner. Con-versely, parks that already report visitor-relatedecological stress would require more intensive visi-tor management, perhaps including strategiessuch as de-marketing, visitor quotas, and variablepricing for peak periods.5

So far, there has been surprisingly little researchdone, by the National Park Service or others, on howhigher temperatures may increase visitation to coolerparks, national seashores, and national lakeshores—or on how that increased visitation can be accommo-dated. Based on the two studies cited above,though, overcrowding could be a significant problemparticularly for those parks that offer a break from

OVERCROWDING IN COOLERPARKS

Of the 25 national parks most in peril,these face overcrowding:


••••• Assateague Island National Seashore


• Cape Hatteras National Park




• Padre Island National Seashores




36

heat and are close to major population centers,including:

• Golden Gate National Recreation Area, withseveral beaches in the San Francisco Bay areaand 14.5 million visitor-days of use in 2008;

• Gateway National Recreation Area in New Yorkand New Jersey, with beaches in the New YorkCity metropolitan area and 9.4 million visitors in2008;

• Cape Code National Seashore in Massachusetts,with beaches near Boston and other New En-gland cities and 4.6 million visitors;

• Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, with beachesjust a few miles from Gary and about 2 millionvisits;

• Great Smoky Mountains National Park, with thehighest mountains in the Southeast and more than9 million visits; and

• Yosemite National Park, the most visited mountainpark in the West, with 3.4 million visits.

Other parks that could be vulnerable to over-crowding as people escape heat include Acadia,Biscayne, Mount Rainier, and Yellowstone nationalparks; Assateague Island, Cape Hatteras, Fire Island(in New York), and Padre Island national seashores;and Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.

LOSS OF FISHING

Anglers have long enjoyed fishing amid the naturalsettings of our national parks. But now a changedclimate threatens to reduce fish populations (seepage 29-30) and recreational fishing opportunities in

the parks.Populations of trout, a cold-water fish, are

threatened with widespread declines be-cause of hotter water temperatures. Already,bull trout fishing is banned in Glacier andOlympic national parks and restricted inNorth Cascades National Park. At YellowstoneNational Park, the extreme heat of July 2007led the National Park Service to close 232miles of rivers to mid-day fishing.6 In thefuture, if populations of other trout speciesdecline as precipitously as scientists project,anglers might face more restrictions on troutfishing in these parks and others in the West,including Black Canyon of the Gunnison (inColorado), Glacier, Crater Lake, Grand Teton,

Mount Rainier, North Cascades, Olympic, RockyMountain, Sequoia/Kings Canyon, Yosemite, and Zionnational parks and Bighorn Canyon National Recre-ation Area in Montana and Wyoming. In the East,trout fishing could be affected in Acadia, GreatSmoky Mountains, and Shenandoah national parks.

YE

LLO

WS

TON

E N

ATIO

NA

L P

AR

K

Of the 25 national parks most in peril,these face loss of fishing:













• Virgin Islands National Park/VirginIslands Coral Reef National Monument




37

Salmon, another type of cold-water fish, arethreatened by a hotter climate, too, which couldaffect fishing for salmon in parks including NorthCascades and Olympic national parks.

In Great Lakes parks—Isle Royale National Parkand Apostle Islands, Indiana Dunes, Pictured Rocks,and Sleeping Bear Dunes national lakeshores—fishing for Chinook and coho salmon and trout couldbe affected if, as projected, warmer temperatureslead to the creation of deep, oxygen-depleted layersof water in the lakes, reducing salmon and troutpopulations.7

In the nation’s coastal parks, fishing for marinespecies could be affected, too. In the bays ofEverglades and Biscayne national parks, sea-levelrise could disrupt or eliminate most of the tidal flats,saltmarshes, and estuarine beaches that supportlocal fisheries.8 Climate change impacts on coralreefs and other marine ecosystems (see page 31)could affect fishing in Biscayne and Dry Tortugasnational parks and Virgin Islands National Park/VirginIslands Coral Reef National Monument. In Assa-teague Island, Cape Hatteras, and Padre Islandnational seashores, surf fishing is popular, but thebeaches where people fish—or access to them—could be lost if those islands are fragmented orinundated by sea-level rise. (See page 16.)

MORE AIR POLLUTION

filters the sun’s ultraviolet rays, is a different thing.)Ground-level ozone has been firmly established toharm people’s health, and the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency has set air quality standards atthe levels necessary to prevent adverse healtheffects.

Many people think of ozone as a big-city airpollution issue, but it is a problem in many nationalparks, affecting both the enjoyment and the health ofvisitors. In 2005-2007, 11 national parks with perma-nent air-quality monitoring stations, including Acadia,Great Smoky Mountains, Joshua Tree, Saguaro,Yosemite, and Zion national parks, had levels ofozone violating the national health-based air qualitystandards for ozone, as recently strengthened byEPA.10 In addition, Rocky Mountain National Park hadozone levels right at (but not violating) the newstandard. Most parks, however, do not have fixedmonitors for ozone and other air pollutants, and sotheir exact status is not known. Based on monitoringwith portable equipment, monitoring sites near parks,and other methods, the NPS thinks that many moreparks in 2005-2007 violated the ozone standard. Ofthe 25 parks listed in this report as having thegreatest overall vulnerability to a changed climate,five others may be in violation: Assateague IslandNational Seashore, Ellis Island National Monument,Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Lake MeadNational Recreation Area, and Padre Island NationalSeashore.11 Because future climate-change drivenincreases in ozone levels are expected to be great-est where ozone levels already are high, all of theseparks are at risk of continued, perhaps worsened,levels of unhealthful air.12

In particular, Great Smoky Mountains NationalPark could have a worse ozone problem.13 The parkexceeded an older, less stringent health-basedstandard for ozone more than 300 times since1990.14 Ozone levels there are chronically so highthat they affect visitors and plants in the park.15

Ozone-caused damage to vegetation has also beendocumented in other national parks, includingSequoia/Kings Canyon and Shenandoah nationalparks.16

A hotter climate is projected to worsen concentra-tions of ground-level ozone, a component of smogcreated when pollutants mix in sunlight.9 (Naturallyoccurring ozone higher in the atmosphere, which

Of the 25 national parks most in peril,these face more air pollution:


• Assateague National Seashore











38

RECOMMENDATIONS

9

A

RECOMMENDATIONS

As the risks of a changed climate dwarf all previousthreats to our national parks, new actions to facethese new risks must also be on an unprecedentedscale.

To protect our parks for the enjoyment of this andfuture generations, we need to act now to reduceemissions of climate-changing pollutants, whichcome mostly from the burning of fossil fuels like coaland gasoline. If we continue with a business-as-usual approach into a higher-emission future, ourcountry could heat up another 7° to 11°F, whichwould have extraordinarily severe effects on nationalparks. The most important step we can take toprotect parks is to reduce those impacts by begin-ning to cut heat-trapping emissions to a level thatwould stabilize further warming at about an addi-tional 2°F. That would minimize impacts on nationalparks, other ecosystems, and other resources. (Seepages 1-2.)

But even an additional 2°F of warming wouldincrease the harm that is already being done toparks by the climate changes that are alreadyunderway. So we also need bold, visionary actions toprotect our national parks in the face of whateverclimate changes we end up causing.

Both these types of actions—cutting emissionsand ensuring our parks are prepared for the impactsof a changing climate—need to be driven by thefederal government, primarily the Congress and theNational Park Service.

ACTIONS SPECIFIC TONATIONAL PARKSThe mission of the National Park Service, defined bythe 1916 Organic Act for the NPS, is “to conserve thescenery and the natural and historic objects and thewild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment ofthe same in such manner and by such means as willleave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of futuregenerations.” This strong mandate of preservation,sustainability, and non-degradation is embodied in

the NPS’s policies and its long, proud tradition ofenvironmental stewardship. “The Service will use allavailable authorities to protect park resources andvalues from potentially harmful activities,” the NPSManagement Policies boldly declares. Sadly, theNPS has not yet followed its creed and exercised itsauthorities to address human disruption of theclimate and its effects. The U.S. Government Ac-countability Office concluded in 2007 that the ParkService and other federal natural resource manage-ment agencies:

have not made climate change a priority, and theagencies’ strategic plans do not specifically ad-dress climate change. Resource managers fo-cus first on near-term, required activities, leavingless time for addressing longer-term issues suchas climate change. In addition, resource manag-ers have limited guidance about whether or howto address climate change and, therefore, are un-certain about what actions, if any, they shouldtake. In general, resource managers lack spe-cific guidance for incorporating climate changeinto their management actions and planning ef-forts. Without such guidance, their ability to ad-dress climate change and effectively manageresources is constrained.1

Too often, the NPS has so far just looked the otherway when it comes to climate-change impacts.Typical is this statement from the latest managementplan (in 2000) for Dry Tortugas National Park, at riskof being totally submerged by rising seas, aboutharm to its resources from climate changes: “Theseexternal forces are beyond the scope of this plan.”2

Fortunately, change is underway at the ParkService. President Obama’s choice as NPS Director,Jon Jarvis, built the strongest record of leadership on

YO

SE

MIT

E N

ATIO

NA

L P

AR

K

39

climate change of any top NPS manager when heserved as regional director of the Service’s PacificWest Region. In particular, he established a vision forNPS operations in all parks in that region to becomecarbon-neutral—to avoid any net emissions of heat-trapping gases from the service’s own operations.We hope and expect that as NPS Director, Jarvis willdemonstrate similar leadership on a national,service-wide scale. We also are confident that if hedoes, he will be met by enthusiastic support fromother NPS managers and employees—many,perhaps most, of whom have long been frustrated bythe service’s inaction on this front. A fully mobilizedNPS, however, still will need strong support andadditional resources, from elsewhere in the ExecutiveBranch, from Congress, and from the Americanpeople.

Addressing a changing climate and its effects onnational parks will require a full suite of actions by theNational Park Service and others.

New and Expanded ParksFor several reasons, the current boundaries of manynational parks are not adequate to allow for thepreservation of the resources and values that are thepurposes of the parks. One key reason is that mostpark boundaries were established in the 19th and20th century, long before any consideration wasgiven to how human-caused climate change couldaffect park resources and values. Also, the 391 parksnow in the national park system do not adequatelyinclude a fully representative sample of America’sbest natural and cultural resources. This is, again,especially so in the face of the myriad threats that achanging climate poses to existing parks and theirresources and values. Accordingly:

1. The Congress, the Administration, and theNational Park Service should comprehensivelyassess the need for new national parks, and desig-nate new parks as necessary to ensure the preserva-tion for future generations of representative andsufficient examples of America’s best natural andcultural resources.

2. Similar assessments should be undertaken ofthe adequacy of existing park boundaries to deter-mine where a changed climate may so alter localconditions and ecosystems that current park bound-aries will no longer be adequate to ensure thepreservation of park resources. Parks should beexpanded as necessary to ensure the preservation

of the resources and values whose preservation wasthe purpose of the parks’ designations or whosepreservation is provided for in the management ofthe parks.

3. In these assessments and designations, priorityattention should be given to the impacts and chal-lenges of human-caused climate change. The newand expanded parks should include enough ex-amples of America’s most important natural andcultural resources to ensure the preservation of anadequate representation of those resources. Thenew and expanded parks should be of sufficient sizeto allow for the preservation of the integrity of thepark’s resources and values over time, as ecosys-tems and species are affected by and respond to achanging climate. In particular, the new and ex-panded parks should be of sufficient size to allow foradaptation and migration by species and theircontinued survival. The new and expanded parksalso should sufficiently include and represent thoseresources and values that are not now appropriatelyrepresented in the national park system, such asprairies and marine resources.

Ecosystem Protection and MigrationCorridorsAreas within park borders often will not be sufficientto provide the room and flexibility for wildlife andplants to adapt to changes in park ecosystems andhabitat caused by a disrupted climate. Actions on abroad geographic scale will be needed to providethat room and flexibility.

4. Where new, expanded, or existing parks will notbe adequate to ensure the preservation of parkresources, the NPS should promote, assist, andcooperate in bringing about preservation efforts thatreach beyond current boundaries. These effortsshould include cooperative management with otherland management agencies and landowners topreserve large enough ecosystems, crucial habitat,and migration corridors among them so that plantsand animals have opportunities to move and con-tinue to survive in transformed landscapes.

5. The Congress and Administration should givethe NPS the resources and tools to enable it toprovide assistance to other landowners so they cancontribute to the preservation of ecosystems of thescale necessary to preserve park resources andvalues. Examples of that assistance could bepayments for the costs of actions by other landown-

40

ers that benefit park resources, sharing of informa-tion, or the provision of technical assistance; all suchassistance should be fully consistent with the rightsof other landowners.

Non-Climate ThreatsOften, park resources and values face compoundthreats, from both an altered climate and othersources. Removing or reducing the other threatsoften can ease the overall risks to park resourcesand values while the effects of a changing climateare also being addressed.

6. Congress, the Executive Branch, and the NPSshould consider the combined effects of climatechange and of other stresses on park resources andvalues, and work to reduce all the stresses that posecritical risks to parks. Addressing activities outside ofparks that can disrupt parks, reducing conventionalair pollutants that harm parks, restoring degradedhabitat, and removing invasive species, for example,can make parks and their resources more resilient.

Other Resource Preservation EffortsAccording to the service’s Management Policies,“NPS managers must always seek ways to avoid, orminimize to the greatest degree possible, adverseimpacts on park resources and values.” To preservepark resources from the threats of an altered climatewill require NPS actions on an unprecedented scale.In addition to other actions called for in theserecommendations:

7. The NPS should develop park-specific andresource-specific plans for protection of the re-sources most at risk in individual parks.

8. The NPS, consistent with applicable laws andpolicies, should plan for a changed future that maybe markedly different from the past, including inunexpected ways. One tool is to consider differentpossible future scenarios—plausible conditions thatcould occur but may not—instead of relying on asingle set of future conditions. To await certainty inwhat the future will bring may take away the ability toaddress it in a sufficient and timely manner.

9. The National Park Service should use all itsauthorities to protect parks from the adverse impactsof a changing climate. In particular, under the CleanAir Act the Service has “an affirmative responsibilityto protect the air-quality related values” of nationalparks. Park resources and values that are adverselyaffected by human-caused climate change fall within

this mandate, and the NPS should fulfill its affirmativeresponsibility under the Clean Air Act to protectthem.

Emission ReductionsNational parks are among the most important placesto concentrate efforts to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases, because successful actions therecan inspire the millions of Americans visiting theparks to make and support similar efforts elsewhere.Parks can demonstrate model management pro-grams and provide a laboratory to teach techniciansand educate the general public.

10. The NPS should adopt for all parks nationwide agoal of becoming climate-neutral in the Service’s ownoperations within parks, as was done in the PacificWest Region by its Climate Change LeadershipInitiative. The NPS should consider whether to adopta schedule, either nation-wide or park-by-park, forfulfilling this vision.

11. The NPS should give an even greater priority toreducing emissions from visitor activities than from itsown operations, as emissions from visitor activitiesdwarf those from NPS operations. In Glacier BayNational Park and Preserve, for example, 97 percentof all emissions of heat-trapping gases come frommarine vessels, essentially all of which are vesselsother than the Service’s. In the case of all actions tobring about reductions in emissions from visitoractivities, the NPS (or concessionaires, as appropri-ate) should explain the actions taken and thereasons for them, as part of NPS’s public educationefforts.

CommunicationWith 275 million visits to national parks in 2008, theNPS has an enormous, unique opportunity tocommunicate what climate change may do to us andwhat we can do about it.

12. NPS officials, beginning with the director, shouldspeak out publicly about the threats that climatechange and its impacts pose to national parks andthe broader ecosystems on which they depend. The

“ Current general management plan (GMP)guidance does not explicitly require paying atten-tion to the effect that changing climate will haveon future park natural and cultural resources,infrastructure, and visitors.”— Coalition of National Park Service Retirees (2008)3

41

NPS Management Policies state that when parkresources and values are at risk from externalthreats, “It is appropriate for superintendents toengage constructively with the broader community inthe same way that any good neighbor would... Whenengaged in these activities, superintendents shouldpromote better understanding and communicationby documenting the park’s concerns and by sharingthem with all who are interested.” This guidanceespecially makes sense with respect to climatechange impacts—and makes sense for other NPSofficials, too, not just park superintendents.

13. The NPS should require concessionaires in aposition to provide environmental education to parkvisitors (and many are required to do so) to provideinformation on climate change and its effects innational parks and what the NPS and the conces-sionaires are doing to address them. For example,visitor lodging within parks can have unobtrusivedisplays pointing out how energy and water arebeing conserved and why that is important.

Climate Change as a NPS PriorityThe Service should accord a changing climate theattention it deserves given the threats it poses toparks. In particular:

14. The NPS Director should issue a Director’s Ordermaking it clear that addressing climate change andits impacts is among the highest priorities throughoutthe service, consistent with applicable laws andpolicies. The order should launch action on particularrecommendations outlined below.

15. The NPS should amend its management policiesto incorporate specific references to managementresponsibilities with respect to climate change andits impacts in parks, consistent with applicable lawsand policies, including the Wilderness Act.

16. The NPS should hold its managers accountable,through personnel evaluation, for their actions incomplying with service policies and requirements foraddressing climate change and its impacts.

17. The Service should continue to seek, andCongress should support, the creation of a separateNPS climate change office within the service’s naturalresources stewardship and science program, toensure cross-cutting support for service actions toaddress climate change and its impacts in parks.Addressing climate change should be identified as acore mission of the natural resources and scienceprogram.

FundingThe National Park Service will need new funds to beable to address the new threats of climate change,and the Congress and the Administration shouldprovide that funding.

18. Pending congressional climate bills wouldprovide a portion of the revenue raised from the saleof emission permits under a national cap-and-tradeemission-reduction program to the National ParkService and other federal land management agen-cies for natural resources adaptation activities.Those proposals would provide an important sourceof funds to the NPS and others to enable them toaddress climate change impacts.

19. As another source of funding, the Administrationand NPS should seek, and Congress should ap-prove, an amendment to the Federal Lands Recre-ation Enhancement Act to be able to use funds fromnational park entrance and recreation fees toaddress climate change and its impacts in nationalparks, including actions to reduce emissions fromNPS operations or visitor activities and actions toadapt to climate change threats and impacts, solong as information on those expenditures and theiraccomplishments is communicated to park visitors.The authorization for the NPS to use entrance andrecreation fees within the parks, without awaitingseparate congressional appropriation actions, wasan important breakthrough in 1997 to enable theService to address what was then widely regardedas a primary need of the national parks—reducingthe backlog of unmet maintenance and constructionneeds. With climate change now looming as agreater threat to national parks, the use of thesefunds should be broadened to include addressingclimate-change needs as well as maintenance andconstruction needs. This amendment to the lawwould provide funding for emission-reductionmeasures and visitor-education measures as well asadaptation measures, and so it would be a broader

“[P]erhaps most importantly, the onset andcontinuance of climate change over the next

century requires NPS managers to think differ-ently about park ecosystems than they have in

the past. Preparing for and adapting to climatechange is as much a cultural and intellectual

challenge as it is an ecological one.”— U.S. Climate Change Science Program (2008)4

42

and more flexible source of funds than the naturalresources adaptation fund described above.

20. The Administration should request and Congressshould approve adequate funding of the Land andWater Conservation Fund to enable the acquisition ofimportant lands within or near existing parks foraddition to those parks, and of lands for the creationof new parks.

NPS Science and ResearchIdentifying and monitoring climate change effects onkey resources of national parks are not only essentialfor protection of those resources, but also importantfor a broader understanding of climate changeeffects in the world at large. National parks are areaswith spectacular resources, usually much lessaffected by human activities and other stresses thanother lands; the parks provide some of our very bestopportunities to learn how climate change is affect-ing and will affect natural and cultural resources. Theabilities of the National Park Service to acquirescientific knowledge about park resources, however,was set back when much of its scientific researchcapacity was transferred to the U.S. GeologicalSurvey in 1993.

21. The Congress, Administration, and the NPSshould reestablish within the Service the full range ofscientific and research capacity, and the authority todirect that science and research, that it had prior to1993, by returning to the NPS the research programsand staff that were transferred that year to the U.S.Geological Survey.

22. The NPS scientific capacity should not just berestored to earlier levels, but strengthened to enablethe Service to assess (and then address) the natureof full range of climate-change-related threats toparks, now and in the future. This will require ex-panded NPS scientific and research capacity atnational, regional, and park levels.

23. The NPS should identify in every unit of thenational park system the resources and processes atrisk from climate change. This need not await fullpark management planning efforts; it can be accom-plished through summaries of the literature, guidedresearch, gatherings of experts, and simple brain-storming. Climate Friendly Parks workshops (seebelow) are a beginning.

24. The NPS should review its Inventory and Monitor-ing Program, in which every national park has

established a number of vital signs for monitoringchange over time; these should be reviewed toensure they adequately include the impacts ofclimate change. If not, the vital signs and the moni-toring plans should be updated.

PartnershipsThe NPS does not have, and never will have, theresources or the ability to address climate change byitself. Given the scope of the challenges that it nowfaces, it is more important than ever that the Servicestrengthen existing partnerships with others andcreate new partnerships to deal with climate change.This includes:

25. The NPS will need to cooperate more withfederal, state, and local natural-resource agenciesand land managers to achieve coordinated manage-ment responses in national parks and on surroundinglands to climate-change impacts, which obviouslytranscend political and land borders.

26. The NPS also should actively engage othersoutside the Service, including scientists, non-governmental organizations, and members of thegeneral public, to develop a shared understandingof the problems posed by climate change, identifyways to preserve park resources and to pursueeffective efforts in response. For example, in 2007,the managers of Saguaro National Park, recognizingthat the threats to the park from an invasive grass—buffelgrass (see page 22)—could not be dealt withjust by actions within park boundaries, joined with 14other public and non-profit entities in a BuffelgrassWorking Group. In short order, that collaborativeeffort has led to a public summit, the development ofan area-wide strategic plan for addressing the threat,and the creation of a new nonprofit organization, theSouthern Arizona Buffelgrass Coordination Center, tolead regional action.6 If the park’s resources, includ-ing its namesake saguaros, are to be saved, thesekind of creative institutional arrangements andpartnerships will be essential.

27. On scientific research, much of the best workdone in national parks to acquire information aboutclimate change and its effects is done by othersbesides the NPS, including the U.S. GeologicalSurvey, universities, and others. (Much important

“ There is no comprehensive coordinated researchon climate change ongoing in parks.”— Coalition for National Park Service Retirees (2008)5

43

Gresearch work would remain within USGS even if theNational Park Service’s scientific research capacity isrestored according to the pre-1993 organizationalstructure within the Department of the Interior, asrecommended above.) The NPS should expand itsarrangements with others to encourage and allowadditional research on climate change in the parks.

Climate Friendly ParksOver 80 national parks (out of 391) have participatedin some way in the Climate Friendly Parks program,NPS’s most visible climate-change initiative to date.That program is a partnership between NPS and theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency to help thoseparks protect their natural and cultural resourcesfrom climate change. Twenty-three have conductedan inventory of their emissions of heat-trappinggases, and 19 have action plans to reduce theiremissions. So far, decisions about participation in theprograms are up to the discretion of individual parksuperintendents.

28. The NPS should make a national commitmentand develop a schedule to expand the ClimateFriendly Parks program to all parks (with exceptionsonly for those few parks with small enough opera-tions and visitation where doing so would not makesense.)

29. The NPS should post online summaries of allClimate Friendly Parks workshops in particular parks.(Not all now are posted.)

30. The NPS should post online all emission invento-ries and climate action plans for all parks for whichthey are completed. (Not all now are posted.)

31. The NPS should make Climate Friendly Parksprogram activities a priority for interpretation effortsfor environmental education of park visitors.

International LeadershipThe National Park Service is the best known andmost respected natural resource managementagency in the world, and has a worldwide role to playin addressing human-caused climate change.

32. The NPS should exercise leadership amongnatural resources management agencies around theworld in exploring and promoting new institutionalarrangements and creative approaches needed toaddress the broad-scale problems precipitated byclimate change.

FEDERAL ACTION TO REDUCEHEAT-TRAPPING GASES

— Contributed by Theo Spencer, NRDC

Global warming is one of the most serious threats notonly to our national parks, but to our environment,our health, and our economy. The most recentscientific studies prove that global warming is herenow and is already causing environmental changesthat will have significant economic and socialimpacts. In fact, scientists say that carbon dioxidelevels in our atmosphere are the highest they havebeen in the past 650,000 years.

The good news is that we can stop the worsteffects of global warming by making factories moreefficient, cutting energy waste in homes and offices,making cars go farther on a gallon of gasoline, andshifting to cleaner technologies. But we need to actnow, and act decisively, to prevent dangerousimpacts from becoming inevitable. Each year thatpasses without tackling global warming head-onmakes the problem more difficult and expensive tosolve.

Unfortunately, a host of market barriers andirrational incentives currently block investment incost-effective global warming solutions. To unlockthe potential that these technologies offer, we need acomprehensive package of policies to transform thecapital-intensive and slow-moving energy sectors.Well-designed policies can promote investment inglobal warming solutions while improving thecompetitiveness of U.S. businesses and minimizingcosts for residential, commercial, and industrialenergy consumers.*

To help solve this problem, the federal govern-ment must take three essential steps:

• Enact comprehensive mandatory limits on globalwarming pollution to reduce emissions by at least 20percent below current levels by 2020 and 80 percentby 2050. This will deliver the reductions that scien-tists currently believe are the minimum necessary,and provide businesses the economic certainty

* Although in the United States the vast majority of globalwarming emissions are from fossil fuel combustion, in manydeveloping countries the largest source of emissions isdeforestation, which leads to a loss of CO2 stored in bothtrees and soils. Thus, in those countries, a somewhat differentsuite of abatement approaches will be required. However, asthese countries develop, they will be in the market for energysystems, and the United States, if it effectively develops anddeploys clean energy and energy efficiency technologiesdomestically, could find major export opportunities in this area.

44

needed to make multi-million and multi-billion dollarcapital investments.

• Overcome barriers to investment in energyefficiency to lower emissions reduction costs,starting now.

• Accelerate the development and deployment ofemerging clean energy technologies to lower long-term emissions reduction costs.

Enact Mandatory Limits on GlobalWarming PollutionA mandatory cap will guarantee that we meetemissions targets in covered sectors of the economyand will drive investment toward the least costlyreduction strategies. If properly designed to supportefficiency and innovation, such a program canactually reduce energy bills for many consumers andbusinesses. The following design elements areessential to achieving these results:

Comprehensive Coverage. At a minimum, a federalemissions cap should cover heat-trapping pollutantsfrom all large stationary sources (power plants, fac-tories, etc.) and the carbon content of transportationand heating fuels at the point of wholesale distribu-tion (oil refineries and natural gas distributioncompanies).

Use Allowance Value in the Public Interest. As withother public goods such as broadcast spectrum, the

value of pollution allowances should be used forpublic purposes, such as achieving additionalemission reductions from uncapped sources as wellas to reduce costs for residential and non-residentialenergy users through energy efficiency and invest-ments in low-carbon technologies. A portion of theallowances’ value can also be used to help ad-versely affected workers and low-income families, aswell as to adapt to the impacts of global warmingthat can no longer be avoided.

Limited Use of Offsets. Offsets are credits generatedby specific projects outside the capped portion ofthe economy. Any offsets provision must includestandards to ensure that reductions are real, surplus,verifiable, and permanent, as well as have a firmnumerical limit.

Overcome Barriers to Energy EfficiencyToday there are few incentives for investment in cost-effective energy efficiency and emerging low-carbontechnologies. While a mandatory cap on emissions isessential and can help fund efficiency investments,many opportunities require additional federal, state,or local policy to overcome barriers to investmentsthat are already cost effective even without a priceon greenhouse gas emissions.

Building, Industry, and Appliance Efficiency. Policiesshould include:

Cutting U.S. Global Warming Pollution 80% by 2050: Cost and Payoff by Sector

45

• Codes, standards, and incentives—Minimumefficiency codes and standards for commercial andresidential buildings, appliances, and equipment areessential for driving the market to more efficientproducts that can also save the consumer money.*Refrigerators today are bigger and less expensivebut still use less than one-third the energy of those35 years ago—because appliance standards havechanged the market.

• Federal and state-level regulatory reform—Afederal cap-and-trade system for global warmingemissions could distribute allowance value to statesbased on demonstrated improvements in the energyintensity of buildings to help put efficiency on a levelplaying field with new energy supply. We also needto reform utility regulation with measures like“decoupling” profits from sales, plus incentives fordelivering efficiency so that helping customers saveenergy becomes the most profitable thing utilitiescan do.

Smart Transportation: Advanced Vehicles and SmartGrowth. Policies should include:

• Performance standards—The federal governmentshould further increase automobile fuel economystandards or set global warming pollution standardsto promote the production of efficient vehicles thatreduce consumers’ fuel costs.

• Transportation, smart growth, and support for localgovernments—To minimize vehicle miles traveled,federal, state, and local government must establishpolicies that encourage investment in transportation,housing, and neighborhood design to reduce sprawland improve convenience.

Promote Emerging Low-Carbon SolutionsTo accelerate the “learning by doing” needed todevelop an affordable low-carbon energy supply, wemust support rapid development and deployment ofrenewable electricity, low-carbon fuels, and carboncapture and storage, including channeling a sub-stantial share of CO2 allowance value from a federalemissions cap towards innovation.

Renewable Electricity. Policies should include:

• Renewable electricity standards and incentives—The federal government should establish a nationalstandard to ensure steady expansion of the renew-able electricity market, as 25 states already do.Following the states’ lead, the federal governmentshould also provide long-term, performance-basedincentives to support the continued growth ofpromising technologies, such as solar photovoltaics.

• Infrastructure upgrades—Energy regulators mustsupport transmission capacity upgrades to enableincreased use of renewables, subject to carefulenvironmental review.

Carbon Capture and Storage. Policies shouldinclude:

• No new dirty coal plants—Federal regulationsshould require any new coal-fired power plant tocapture and permanently geologically sequester atleast 85 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions.State and federal governments must also develop aneffective regulatory framework for site selection,operation, and monitoring for carbon capture andgeologic storage systems (CCS). Additionally, stateand federal incentives are needed to overcome thecurrent cost barrier to CCS.

The United States is finally starting to movetoward addressing the threat of global warming. Wehave the solutions at hand to solve the problem whilecreating jobs and enhancing our national security byreducing our dependence on imported oil. Startingnow will build the momentum the market needs togenerate even more technological advances. Andacting now means we stop wasting money on oldpolluting infrastructure and start leading the globaleconomy to a clean energy future. Failure to act willresult in unacceptable economic and environmentalrisks from global warming—not just to our nationalparks, but to our health, our security, and ourchildren’s future. The time is now for political leader-ship both at home and abroad.

* As an example of the effectiveness of this strategy, in the1990s, NRDC joined with the public and private sector toimplement long-term market incentives that were given to thefirst refrigerators that both met ambitious energy efficiencystandards and phased out ozone-depleting chemicals. As adirect result of this “golden carrot” design competition, energyuse in refrigerators today has been cut by 75 percent and thereal price of refrigerators has declined as well.

46

“The establishment and protection of the National Park System is one ofthe best ideas America has institutionalized. Our parks provide inspiration, education,

and enjoyment. Moreover, they represent some of our greatest resources of geneticand biological diversity and intact ecosystems. They are our seed banks for restoring the

nation’s land and waters already ravaged by our careless development and the earlyimpacts of climate change. In one sense, they represent a life boat for our

biological future. We need to take immediate action to reduce our use of fossil fuelsand the resulting climate disruption before we sink our life boat and destroy

the values and purposes of our national parks for future generations.”Mike Finley, former superintendent of Everglades,

Yosemite, and Yellowstone national parks7

47

48

NOTESFor general matters of science with respect toclimate change and its overall impacts, readers arereferred principally to an excellent report by the U.S.government’s Global Change Research Program,Global Climate Impacts in the United States, re-leased in 2009, which is cited in many of the follow-ing notes. It is a summary of the science of climatechange and the impacts of climate change on theUnited States, now and in the future, in eminentlyreadable form. For any reader interested in moredetailed information on climate change and itseffects across the United States, that report listsseveral hundred sources on particular points.

Introduction1. J. S. Baron and others, “National Parks,” in U.S.

Climate Change Science Program [“USCCSP”],Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources, S. H. Juliusand J. M. West, eds., report by the U.S. ClimateChange Science Program and the Subcommittee onGlobal Change Research, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Washington, DC, 2008, p. 4-4,http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap4-4/sap4-4-final-report-all.pdf.

2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[“IPCC”], “Summary for Policymakers,” prepared byR. Alley and others, in IPCC, Climate Change 2007:The Physical Science Basis: Contribution of WorkingGroup I to the Fourth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S.Solomon and others, eds., Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, U.K., 2007, pp. 5, 10, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf.

3. U.S. Global Change Research Program[“USGCRP”], T. R. Karl, J. M. Melillo, and T. C.Peterson, editors, Global Climate Change Impactsin the United States, Cambridge University Press,New York, NY, 2009, p. 17, http:/www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts.

4. IPCC, “Technical Summary,” prepared by S.Solomon and others, in IPCC, The Physical ScienceBasis (see note 2), p. 60, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf.USGCRP, Climate Change Impacts, (see note 3), p.19. USGCRP, Climate Change Impacts (see note 3),p. 16.

5. USGCRP, Climate Change Impacts (see note 3),p. 29.


7. USGCRP, Climate Change Impacts (see note 3),pp. 23-24.



Chapter 1 – National Parks Most at Risk1. D. E. Lawson and D. C. Finnegan, “Climate

monitoring in Glacier Bay National Park andPreserve: Capturing climate change indicators:2008 annual report,” p. 6, http://www.nps.gov/glba/naturescience/upload Lawson_Finnegan_2008_AnnualClimateMonitoringReport.pdf.

Chapter 2 – Loss of Ice and Snow.1. IPCC, “Observations: Changes in snow, ice, and

frozen ground,” prepared by P. Lemke and others, inIPCC, The Physical Science Basis (see note 2,Introduction), p. 357.

2. D. B. Fagre, “Adapting to the reality of climatechange at Glacier National Park, Montana, USA,” inProceedings of the Conferencia Cambio Climatico,Bogota, Colombia, 2005, in press, http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/GCC/Fagre_Bogota_Conference_paper_FINAL.pdf.

3. M. H. P. Hall and D. B. Fagre, “Modeled climate-induced glacier change in Glacier National Park,1850-2100,” Bioscience 53, 2 (2003): 131-140.

4. M. Jamison, “Melting into history,” Missoulian, Oct.2, 2007; reprinted in USA Today, Oct. 14, 2007,http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-10-11-glacier-park_N.htm.

5. North Cascades National Park, National ParkService [“NPS”], “North Cascades National ParkService Complex: Glacier Monitoring Program,”http://www.nps.gov/noca/naturescience/glacial-mass-balance1.htm.

6. M. Pelto, “North Cascade glacier retreat 1984-2007,” Nichols College North Cascades GlacierClimate Project, http://www.nichols.edu/departments/ Glacier/globalwarming.html. M. Pelto,“The disequilibrium of North Cascade, Washingtonglaciers,” presentation at MTNCLIM 2006conference, Sept. 2006, slide 38, http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/cirmount/meetings/mtnclim/2006/talks/pdf/pelto_talk_mtnclim2006.pdf.

7. J. Riedel, Mount Rainier National Park, NPS,personal communication (email to T. Easley), Aug.21, 2009.

8. T. H. Nylen, “Spatial and temporal variations ofglaciers (1913-1994) on Mt. Rainier and the relationwith climate,” M.S. thesis, Portland State University,2004, http://www.glaciers.pdx.edu/Thesis/Nylen/Nylen_2004.pdf.

9. J. Riedel, Mount Rainier National Park, NPS,personal communication (email to T. Easley), Aug.21, 2009.

10. H. Basagic, “Quantifying twentieth century glacierchange in the Sierra Nevada, California,” M. S.thesis, Portland State University, 2008, http://www.glaciers.pdx.edu/Thesis/Basagic/basagic_thesis_2008.pdf.

11. Denali National Park and Preserve, NPS, “DenaliNational Park & Preserve: Kahiltna Glacier,” http://www.nps.gov/dena/naturescience/kahiltna.htm.

12. J. Riedel,North Cascades National Park, NPS,personal communication (telephone conversationwith T. Easley), May 19, 2006.

13. Hall and Fagre, “Modeled glacier change” (see note3, this chapter), pp. 131-132.

14. University of Montana and others, “The case forrestoring bull trout in Glacier National Park…and aframework to do it,” p. 4, http://www.montana.edu/mtcfru/GNP%20Bull%20Trout%20Brochure.pdf. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, “Bull Trout facts,” 1998,http://library.fws.gov/Pubs1/bulltrout.pdf.

15. Environmental Leadership Program, NPS, “GlacierBay National Park & Preserve action plan,” pp. 1-2,http://www.nps.gov/climatefriendlyparks/downloads/Action%20Plans%20and%20Inventories/Glacier%20Bay%20Action%20Plan.pdf.

16. P. Mote and others, “Declining mountain snowpackin western North America,” Bulletin of the AmericanMeteorological Society 86 (2005): 39-49.

17. D. W. Pierce and others, “Attribution of decliningwestern U.S. snowpack to human effects,” Journalof Climate 21 (2008): 6425- 6444.

18. IPCC, “North America,” prepared by C. B. Field andothers, in IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Impacts,Adaptation and Vulnerability: Contribution ofWorking Group II to the Fourth Assessment Reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,M. L. Parry and others, eds., Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK, 2007, p. 621.

19. K. Hayhoe and others, “Emissions pathways,climate change, and impacts on California,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,101 (2004): 12422–12427. J. T. Payne and others,“Mitigating the effects of climate change on thewater resources of the Columbia River, ClimaticChange 62 (2004): 233–256. N. S. Christensen andothers, “The effects of climate change on thehydrology and water resources of the ColoradoRiver Basin,” Climatic Change 62 (2004): 337–363.

20. USGCRP, Climate Change Impacts (see note 3,Introduction), p. 45.

21. S. Saunders and T. Easley, Losing Ground: WesternNational Parks Endangered by Climate Disruption,report of the Rocky Mountain Climate Organizationand Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC,

New York, 2006, p. 21, http://rockymountainclimate.org/website%20pictures/Losing%20Ground.pdf. IPCC, “Observations:Surface and atmospheric climate change,”prepared by K. Trenberth and others, in IPCC, ThePhysical Science Basis (see note 2, Introduction),p. 251.

Chapter 3 – Loss of Water1. USGCRP, Climate Change Impacts (see note 3,

Introduction), pp. 41-46.


3. National Research Council of the NationalAcademies, Colorado River Basin WaterManagement: Evaluating and Adjusting toHydroclimatic Variability, National Academies Press,Washington, DC, 2007, p. 83.

4. S. Saunders, C. Montgomery, and T. Easley, Hotterand Drier: The West’s Changed Climate, report ofthe Rocky Mountain Climate Organization andNatural Resources Defense Council, NRDC, NewYork, 2008, p. 15, http://rockymountainclimate.org/website%20pictures/Hotter%20and%20Drier.pdf.

5. M. Hoerling and others, “Reconciling projections ofColorado River streamflow,” Southwest Hydrology 8,3 (2009): 20-21, 31, http://www.swhydro.arizona.edu/archive/V8_N3/feature2.pdf.


7. D. D. Breshears and others, “Regional vegetationdie-off in response to global-change-type drought,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences102, 42 (2005): 15144-15148.

8. Continental Divide Research Learning Center, NPS,“Climate change in Rocky Mountain National Park:Preservation in the face of uncertainty” (summary ofworkshop on Nov. 13-14, 2007), http://www.nps.gov/romo/parkmgmt/upload/climate_change_rocky_mountain2.pdf.

9. J. Lundquist and J. Roche, “Climate change andwater supply in western national parks,” ParkScience 26, 1 (2009), http://www.nature.nps.gov/ParkScience/print.cfm?PrintFormat=pdf.

10. Environment Canada, “Below-average conditionsthroughout the system,” Level News 15, 10 (Oct. 5,2007), http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/water/level-news/ln200710_e.html.

11. Great Lakes Area, NPS, “Impacts of MidwestWarming,” 2007, http://www.nps.gov/apis/naturescience/upload/2007%20MWR%20Climate%20Change%20Site%20Bulletin%20-%20Great%20Lakes%20FINAL.pdf. B.M. Lofgren and others,“Evaluation of potential impacts on Great Lakeswater resources based on climate scenarios of two

49

50

GCMs,” Journal of Great Lakes Resources 28, 4(2002): 537–554, http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/fulltext/2002/20020020.pdf.

12. Natural Resources Stewardship and SciencesDirectorate, NPS, “Climate Change and Impacts toResources around the Great Lakes,” U.S.Department of the Interior, 2007, http://www.nps.gov/apis/naturescience/upload/Climate%20Change%20Talking%20Points%20Great%20Lakes-August2007.pdf.

Chapter 4 – Higher Seas & More ExtremeWeather1. USGCRP, Climate Change Impacts (see note 3,

Introduction), pp. 25, 150.

2. S. J. Williams and others, “Sea-level rise and itseffects on the coast,” in U.S. Climate ChangeScience Program, Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-LevelRise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region, J. G. Titus(coordinating lead author) and others, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC,2009, p. 20.


4. D. Kimball, Everglades National Park, NPS,testimony to the Subcommittee on Interior,Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee onAppropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Apr.26, 2007.

5. C. Mitchell, Everglades and Dry Tortugas NationalParks, NPS, “Climate change and EvergladesNational Park: A park manager’s perspective,”presentation at Florida Bay and Adjacent MarineSystems Conference, Naples, Florida, Dec. 8, 2008,slide 6, http://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/FloridaBay2008/presentations/Tuesday/am/0910%20Mitchell.pdf.

6. L.G. Pearlstine and others, South Florida NaturalResources Center, NPS, Potential ecologicalconsequences of climate change in South Floridaand the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis,SFNRC Technical Series 2009:1, EvergladesNational Park, Homestead, Florida, 2009, p. 9, http://www.nps.gov/ever/naturescience/featuredpublication.htm.

7. Kimball, testimony (see note 51).

8. B. T. Gutierrez, S.J. Williams, and E.R. Thieler,“Ocean coasts,” in USCCS, Coastal Sensitivity (seenote 2, this chapter), pp. 43-56, 55-56.

9. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,“Linear mean sea level (MSL) trends and 95%confidence intervals in feet/century,” http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/msltrendstablefc.htm.

10. R. Alvarez and others, “Fair warning: Globalwarming and the Lone Star State,” EnvironmentalDefense, 2006, p.11, http://www.edf.org/

article.cfm?contentID=5239.

11. USGCRP, Climate Change Impacts (see note 3,Introduction), pp. 34-36.

12. IPCC, “North America,” (see note 18, Chapter 2), p.630.


14. U.S. Climate Change Science Program [“USCCSP”],T.R. Karl and others, editors, Weather and ClimateExtremes in a Changing Climate. Regions of Focus:North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. PacificIslands, National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, Washington, DC, 2008, pp. 4-5.USGCRP, Climate Change Impacts (see note 3,Introduction), p. 32.

15. USCCSP, Weather and Climate Extremes (seeprevious note), p. 104.

16. Mount Rainier National Park, NPS, “Mount RainierNational Park: A year after the flood” (news release),Nov. 2, 2008, http://www.nps.gov/mora/parknews/upload/Flood%20Anniversary%20Release%20Nov%2007.pdf.

17. J. Lundquist and J. Roche, “Climate change andwater supply in western national parks,” ParkScience vol. 26, no. 1 (2009), http://www.nature.nps.gov/ParkScience/print.cfm?PrintFormat=pdf.


Chapter 5 – Loss of Plant Communities1. USGCRP, Climate Change Impacts (see note 3,

Introduction), p. 82. IPCC, “North America” (seenote XXX), pp. 624, 631.

2. Colorado State Forest Service, ColoradoDepartment of Natural Resources, 2006 Report onthe Health of Colorado’s Forests, p. 15, http://csfs.colostate.edu/pdfs/06fhr.pdf.

3. USGCRP, Climate Change Impacts (see note 3,Introduction), p. 82. “Bark beetle outbreaks inwestern North America: Causes andconsequences,” B. Bentz, editor, report of BarkBeetle Symposium, Snowbird, Utah, Nov. 15-18,2005, University of Utah Press, p. 24.

4. Benz, “Bark beetle outbreaks” (see previous note),p. 24.

5. W. Romme and others, “Recent forest insectoutbreaks and fire risk in Colorado forests: a briefsynthesis of relevant research,” Colorado StateUniversity Fort Collins, 2006, http://www.colorado.edu/geography/class_homepages/geog_5161_ttv_s09/RommeEtAl_Insects&FireRisk_CFRI_06.pdf.Colorado State Forest Service, 2006 Report (seenote 2, this chapter), p. 15.

6. B. J. Bentz and G. Schen-Langenheim, “Themountain pine beetle and whitebark pine waltz: Hasthe music changed?,” proceedings of conference“Whitebark pine: A Pacific Coast perspective,” U.S.Forest Service, Logan, UT, 2007, http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/fid/wbpine/papers/2007-wbp-impacts-bentz.pdf. See also Benz, “Bark beetleoutbreaks” (see note XXX, this chapter), p. 24.

7. Region 2, U.S. Forest Service and Colorado StateForest Service, “Forest health aerial surveyhighlights” (news conference handout), Jan. 14,2008, http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/news/2008/01/press-kit/survey_higlights.pdf.

8. Colorado State Forest Service, ColoradoDepartment of Natural Resources, 2008 Report: TheHealth of Colorado’s Forests, p. 17, http://csfs.colostate.edu/pages/documents/894651_08FrstHlth_www.pdf.

9. M. E. Rocca and W. H. Romme, “Forest not“destroyed”: survivors of bark beetle outbreaks willbecome the future forest,” unpublished paper,Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 2008.Colorado State Forest Service, 2008 Report (seenote 8, this chapter), p. 17.

10. R. Cables, Rocky Mountain Region, U.S. ForestService, testimony, Subcommittee on NationalParks, Forests and Public Lands and Subcommitteeon Water and Power, Committee on NaturalResources, U.S. House of Representatives, June16, 2009, http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/Documents/20090616/joint/testimony_cables_bentz.pdf.

11. Colorado State Forest Service, 2008 Report (seenote 8, this chapter), p. 4.

12. J. J. Worrall and others, “Rapid mortality of Populustremuloides in southwestern Colorado, USA,” ForestEcology and Management 255 (2008): 686–696,http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/fhm/reports/sad_2008.pdf.

13. P. van Mantgem and others, “Widespread increaseof tree mortality rates in the Western United States,”Science 323 (2009): 521•523.

14. H. Diaz and J. Eischeid, “Disappearing ‘alpinetundra,’ Köppen climatic type in the western UnitedStates,” Geophysical Research Letters 34 (2007):L18707, doi:10.1029/2007GL031253. K. Redmondand J. Abatzoglou, “Recent accelerated warming inwestern United States mountains,” presentation toAmerican Geophysical Union, San Francisco, Dec.12, 2007, slides 18-30, http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/cirmount/meetings/agu/pdf2007/redmond_talk_agu2007.pdf.

15. N. Hobbs and others, Future Impacts of GlobalClimate on Rocky Mountain National Park: ItsEcosystems, Visitors, and the Economy of ItsGateway Community – Estes Park, 2003, pp. 16-17,http://www.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/star/papers/2003_final_report.pdf.

16. P. Lesica and B. McCune, “Decline of arctic-alpineplants at the southern edge of their range followinga decade of climatic change,” Journal of VegetationScience 15, no. 5 (2004): 679-690.

17. D. B. Fagre, “Spatial changes in alpine treelinepatterns, Glacier National Park, Montana,” http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/treeline_rsrch.htm.

18. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,California Environmental Protection Agency, L.Mazur and C. Milanes, eds., Indicators of ClimateChange, p. 137, http://oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/epic/pdf/ClimateChangeIndicatorsApril2009.pdf.

19. California Environmental Protection Agency,Indicators of Climate Change(see previous note),pp. 137-142.

20. D. B. Fagre and D. L. Peterson, “Ecosystemdynamics and disturbance in mountainwildernesses: Assessing vulnerability of naturalresources to change,” Climatic Change 59, nos. 1-2(2003): 74-81. C. Millar and others, “Response ofsubalpine conifers in the Sierra Nevada, California,U.S.A., to 20th-century warming and decadalclimate variability,” Arctic, Antarctic and AlpineResearch 36 (2004):181-200. Yosemite NationalPark, NPS, “Tuolumne Meadows Lodgepole PineRemoval,” 2006, http://www.nps.gov/archive/yose/planning/projects/tmtrees.pdf.

21. T.J. Perfors, J. Harte, and S. Alter. “Enhancedgrowth of sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate) inresponse to manipulated ecosystem warming,”Global Change Biology 9, 5 (2003): 736-742. Seealso F. Saavedra, and others, “Changes in floweringand abundance of Delphinium nuttalianum(Ranunculaceae) in response to a subalpine climatewarming experiment,” Global Change Biology 9, 6(2003): 885-894.

22. D. W. Inouye, “Effects of climate change onphenology, frost damage, and floral abundance ofmontane wildflowers,” Ecology 89, 2 (2008): 353-362.

23. T. C. Esque and others, “Buffelgrass fuel loads inSaguaro National Park, Arizona, increase fire dangerand threaten native species,” Park Science 24, 2(2007), http://www.nature.nps.gov/ParkScience/print.cfm?PrintFormat=pdf.

24. Esque, “Buffelgrass” (see previous note).

25. Saguaro National Park, NPS, “The fight to savesaguaros,” 2008, http://www.nps.gov/sagu/naturescience/upload/FightSaveSaguaros2.25.pdf.

26. Esque, “Buffelgrass” (see note 24, this chapter).


28. M. Murphy, “Freeze-free desert,” Southwest ClimateChange Network, 2008, http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/feature-articles/freeze-free-desert.

51

52

29. K.L. Cole and others, “Transient dynamic ofvegetation response to past and future climaticchanges in the southwestern United States,” poster,http://www.climatescience.gov/workshop2005/posters/P-EC4.2_Cole.pdf; K. P. Dole and others,“The relative importance of climate change and thephysiological effects CO2 on freezing tolerance forthe future distribution of Yucca brevifolia,” Globaland Planetary Change, vol. 36, nos. 1-2 (2003), pp.137-146.

30. T. Swetnam, University of Arizona, testimony,Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and PublicLands, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S.House of Representatives, Apr. 4, 2009, http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/Documents/20090407/testimony_swetnam.pdf.


32. South Florida Resource Center, Potential EcologicalConsequences (see note 6, Chapter 4), pp. 12-15.

33. Kimball, testimony (see note XX).

34. South Florida Natural Resources Center, PotentialEcological Consequences (see note 6, Chapter 4),p. iv. http://www.nps.gov/ever/naturescience/featuredpublication.htm.

35. Great Smoky Mountains National Park, NPS,“Plants,” http://www.nps.gov/grsm/naturescience/plants.htm.

36. USGCRP, Climate Change Impacts (see note 3,Introduction), pp. 81, 108.

Chapter 6 – Loss of Wildlife1. IPCC, “Ecosystems, their properties, goods, and

services,” A. Fischlin and others, authors, in IPCC,Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (see note18,Chapter 2), p. 213.


3. Nature Conservancy, “Climate change: Alaska seesshifting lands and species on the move,” http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/features/art24460.html.

4. P. Gonzalez and others, “Potential impacts ofclimate change on habitat and conservation priorityareas for Lynx canadensis (Canada Lynx),” report tothe U.S. Forest Service, Nature Conservancy,Arlington, VA, 2007, http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/climate.change/climate.change.vegetation.shifts/climate_change_Lynx.pdf.

5. South Florida Natural Resources Center, PotentialEcological Consequences (see note 6, Chapter 4),p. 11.

6. E. A. Beever, “Persistence of pikas in two low-elevation national monuments in the western United

States,” Park Science 21, 2 (2002), pp. 23-29, p. 23.

7. E. A. Beever, P .F. Brussard, and J. Berger, “Patternsof apparent extirpation among isolated populationsof pikas (Ochotona princeps) in the Great Basin,”Journal of Mammology 84, 1 (2003), 37-54. K.Krajick, “All Downhill from Here?” Science 303(2004): 1600-1602.

8. Climate Change in Rocky Mountain National Park(see note 8, Chapter 3), p. 7.

9. C.W. Epps and others, “Effects of climate change onpopulation persistence of desert-dwelling mountainsheep in California,” Conservation Biology 18, 1(2004): 102-113.

10. C. L. Douglas, “Weather, disease, and bighorn lambsurvival during 32 years in Canyonlands NationalPark,” Wildlife Society Bulletin 29, 1 (2001): 297-305.L. C. Bender and M. E. Weisenberger, “Precipitation,density, and population dynamics of desert bighornsheep on San Andres National Wildlife Refuge, NewMexico,” Wildlife Society Bulletin 33, 3 (2005): 956-962.

11. California Environmental Protection Agency,Indicators of Climate Change in California (see note18, Chapter 5), pp. 155-160.

12. T. L. Root and others, “Fingerprints of globalwarming on wild animals and plants,” Nature 421(2003): 57–60.


14. C. E. Burns, K. M. Johnson, and O. J. Schmitz,“Global change and mammalian species diversity inU.S. national parks,” Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 100, 20 (2003): 11474-11477.

15. Burns, “Species diversity” (see note 14, thischapter).

16. Committee on Ecological Impacts of ClimateChange, National Research Council, EcologicalImpacts of Climate Change, National AcademiesPress, Washington, DC, 2008, p. 33, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12491.html.

17. Great Lakes Area, NPS, “Impacts of MidwestWarming,” (see note 12, Chapter 3)..

18. Hobbs, Future Impacts (see note 15, Chapter 5), p.19.

19. Alvarez, “Fair Warning” (see note 10, Chapter 4),p.11.

20. South Florida Natural Resources Center, PotentialEcological Consequences (see note 6, Chapter 4),pp. 18-21.

21. G. San Miguel, Mesa Verde National Park, NPS,personal communication (email to S. Saunders),Aug. 10, 2009.

22. K. S. Van Houtan and O. L. Bass, “Stormy oceansare associated with declines in sea turtle hatching”

Current Biology 17, 15 (2007): R590-R591, https://webdrive.service.emory.edu/users/kvanhou/public_html/articles/VanHoutan_Bass_2007.pdf.

23. South Florida Resource Center, Potential EcologicalConsequences (see note 6, Chapter 4), pp. 17-18.

24. IUCN-The World Conservation Union, “Climatechange - impacts,” http://www.iucn.org/themes/climate/impacts.htm. J.A. Pounds and others,“Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemicdisease driven by global warming,” Nature 439(2006): 161-167.

25. Van Houtan, “Stormy oceans” (see note 22, thischapter), p. R591.

26. I. Lacan and K.R. Matthews, Sierra NevadaResearch Center, “Loss of breeding habitat forimperiled mountain yellow-legged frog,” Slide 7,http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/snrc/bio_diversity.

27. U.S. Climate Change Science Program and theSubcommittee on Global Change Research,“Biodiversity,” A. Janetos and others, authors, in TheEffects of Climate Change on Agriculture, LandResources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in theUnited States, Washington, DC., 2008, p. 158, http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/saps/304.

28. C.A.F. Enquist, E.H. Girvetz, and D.F. Gori, “Climatechange vulnerability assessment for biodiversity inNew Mexico, part II: Conservation implications ofemerging moisture stress due to recent climatechanges in New Mexico,” The Nature Conservancyin New Mexico,(Santa Fe, NM, 2008, http://nmconservation.org/dl/CC_report2_final.pdf.

29. R. Tosches, “Warm waters deadly to Yellowstonetrout,” Denver Post, July 29, 2007, http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6489924?source=rss. S.Kinsella, “Trout in trouble: The impacts of globalwarming on trout in the interior West,” report ofNatural Resources Defense Council and MontanaTrout Unlimited, 2008, p. 7, http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/trout/contents.asp.


31. USGCRP, Climate Change Impacts (see note 3,Introduction), pp. 84, 152.



34. N. Mantua, I. Tohver, and A. Hamlet, “Chapter 6:Salmon: Impacts of climate change on key aspectsof freshwater salmon habitat in Washington state,” inJ.S. Littell and others (eds.), Washington ClimateChange Impacts Assessment: EvaluatingWashington’s Future in a Changing Climate, ClimateImpacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle,

WA,2009, p. 228, http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciach6salmon649.pdf.

35. USCCSP, “Biodiversity,” in Agriculture, LandResources (see note 27, this chapter), p. 160.

36. Acropora Biological Review Team, “AtlanticAcropora status review document,” report toNational Marine Fisheries Service, Mar. 3, 2005,http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdf/050303%20status%20review.pdf.

37. USGCRP, Climate Change Impacts (see note 3,Introduction), p. 84. South Florida NaturalResources Center, Potential EcologicalConsequences (see note 6, Chapter 4), p. 16. U.S.Climate Change Science Program, Weather andClimate Extremes (see note XXX), p. 38.

38. USCCSP, “Biodiversity” (see note 27, this chapter),p. 160.

39. M. Lewis, Biscayne National Park, NPS, personalcommunication (email to S. Saunders), Aug. 21,2009.

40. M. J. Paddack and others, “Recent region-widedeclines in Caribbean reef fish abundance,” CurrentBiology 19, 7 (2009): 590-595.

41. K. Oberhauser and A. T. Peterson, “Modelingcurrent and future potential wintering distributions ofeastern North American monarch butterflies,”Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences 100,24 (2003): 14063-14068.

42. USGCRP, Climate Change Impacts (see note 3,Introduction), p. 80-81.

43. J. Marburger, Great Lakes Research and EducationCenter, NPS, personal communication (email to S.Saunders), Sept. 11, 2009.

44. S.M. Imholt, “Effects of forecasted climate changeon a butterfly-plant interaction in the NorthCascades National Park,” M.S. thesis, WesternWashington University, 2006, http://www.nps.gov/noca/naturescience/upload/Butterfly%20Climate%20Change.pdf.

45. USCCSP, “Biodiversity” (see note 27), pp. 151-181.


Chapter 7 – Loss of Historical and CulturalResources1. J. G. Titus and J. Wang, “Maps of lands close to sea

level along the Middle Atlantic coast of the UnitedStates: An elevation data set to use while waiting forLIDAR,” Section 1.1, in: Background DocumentsSupporting Climate Change Science ProgramSynthesis and Assessment Product 4.1, J.G. Titusand E.M. Strange, eds., U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Washington, DC, 2008, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/section1_1_may2008.pdf; http://maps.risingsea.net/Regional_Jue/NYC_Area_1m_ntidal_600dpi.jpg.

53

2. P. C. Frumhoff and others, Confronting ClimateChange in the U.S. Northeast: Science, Impacts,and Solutions, synthesis report of the NortheastClimate Impacts Assessment, Union of ConcernedScientists, Cambridge, MA 2007, p. 19, http://www.northeastclimateimpacts.org/pdf/confronting-climate-change-in-the-u-s-northeast.pdf.

3. New York City Panel on Climate Change, ClimateRisk Information (2009), p. 20, http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/NPCC_CRI.pdf.

4. U. S. Geological Survey, “A plan for acomprehensive national coastal program,” 2006, p.6, http://marine.usgs.gov/coastal-plan/index.html.

5. S. J. Williams and others, “Sea-level rise and itseffects on the coast,” in USCCSP, Coastal Sensitivity(see note 2, Chapter 4), pp. 11-24, 17-18.

6. Pu‘ukohol• Heiau and Kaloko-Honok•hau nationalhistorical parks, NPS, “Coastal hazard report,coastal inundation, overtopping of swells and sea-level rise, http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/coasts/nps/coastalInundation.php.

7. Intermountain Region, NPS, “Vanishing treasures: Alegacy in ruins: Ruins preservation in the AmericanSouthwest,” 1998, http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/vt/longRangePlan.pdf.

Chapter 8 – Less Visitor Enjoyment1. USGCRP, Climate Change Impacts (see note 3,

Introduction), p. 90.



4. R.B. Richardson and J.B. Loomis, “The effects ofglobal warming on mountain tourism: A contingentbehavior methodology,” prepared for Hobbs, FutureImpacts (see note 15, Chapter 5), p. 9.

5. B. Jones and D. Scott, “Climate change, seasonalityand visitation to Canada’s national parks,”Department of Geography, University of Waterloo,Waterloo, Ontario, 2005, p. 2, http://lin.ca/Uploads/cclr11/CCLR11-132.pdf.

6. Yellowstone National Park, NPS, “Yellowstone toimplement mandatory fishing restrictions,” newsrelease, July 20, 2007, http://www.nps.gov/yell/parknews/0739.htm.

7. Natural Resources Stewardship and SciencesDirectorate, NPS, “Climate change and impacts toresources around the Great Lakes, 2007, pp. 8, 10,http://www.nps.gov/apis/naturescience/upload/Climate%20Change%20Talking%20Points%20Great%20Lakes-August2007.pdf.

8. P. Glick and J. Clough, An Unfavorable Tide: GlobalWarming, Coastal Habitats and Sportfishing inFlorida, report of National Wildlife Federation and

Florida Wildlife Federation, NWF, Reston, VA 2006,p. 33, http://www.targetglobalwarming.org/files/AnUnfavorableTideReport.pdf.


10. J. D. Ray, “Annual data summary 2007,” NPS,Denver, CO, 2008, p. 21, http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/ads/2007/GPMP-XX.pdf.

11. Ray, “Annual data” (see previous note), pp. 21-24.



14. T. Baxter and others, “Dark horizons: 10 nationalparks most threatened by new coal-fired powerplants,” National Parks Conservation Association,Washington, DC, 2008, pp. 15-16.

15. Great Smoky Mountains National Park, NPS, “Airquality,” http://www.nps.gov/grsm/naturescience/air-quality.htm.

16. Air Resources Division, NPS, “2006 annualperformance & progress report: Air quality innational parks,” 2007, p. 5, http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/gpra/GPRA_AQ_ConditionsTrendReport2006.pdf.

Chapter 9 – Recommendations1. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Climate

change: Agencies should develop guidance foraddressing the effects on Federal land and waterresources,” report no. GAO-07-863, Aug. 7, 2007,http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-863.

2. Dry Tortugas National Park, NPS, “Final generalmanagement plan amendment environmentalimpact statement,” 2000, p. 13, http://www.nps.gov/drto/parkmgmt/upload/drtofgmpeis.pdf.

3. Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, “GlobalClimate Change Creates New Environments andOrganizational Challenges for National Parks,”professional report series no. 11, p. 5, http://www.npsretirees.org/files/press_attach/PRS%2011%20Climate%20Change.pdf.

4. Baron, “National Parks” (see note 1, Introduction), p.4-6.

5. Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, “NewEnvironments and Organizational Challenges” (seenote 3, this chapter), p. 4.

6. See http://www.buffelgrass.org.

7. M. Finley, personal communication (email to S.Saunders), Sept. 28, 2009.

54

ROCKYMOUNTAIN

CLIMATEOrganization

the

The Rocky Mountain Climate OrganizationP.O. Box 270444, Louisville, CO 80027

1633 Fillmore St., Suite 412, Denver, CO 80206303-861-6481

www.rockymountainclimate.org

MO

UN

T R

AIN

IER

NAT

ION

AL

PA

RK

AC

AD

IA N

ATIO

NA

L P

AR

K

STA

TUE

OF

LIB

ER

TY N

ATIO

NA

L M

ON

UM

EN

T

national parks in peril in the usa-the threats of climate disruption-2009

Documents

govapisnaturescienceupload

desert bighorn

bandelier

liberty national

trail ridge

zion national

elias national

mountain pine