U.S. Climate Change Science Progra

And the Subcommittee on Global Change R

Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Prod

June 2008

Climate-Sensitive Ecosyste

and Resources

095220009318_Cover.indd 1 
Disclaimer: This document, part of the Synthesis and Assessment Products described in the U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program (CCSP) Strategic Plan, was prepared in accordance with Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554) and the information quality act guidelines issued by the U.S

Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 515. The CCSP Interagency Committee relies on U.S. Environmenta

Protection Agency certifi cations regarding compliance with Section 515 and Agency guidelines as the basis for determinin

that this product conforms with Section 515. For purposes of compliance with Section 515, this CCSP Synthesis and 

Assessment Product is an “interpreted product” as that term is used in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines an

is classifi ed as “highly infl uential”. This document does not express any regulatory policies of the United States or any of i

agencies, or provides recommendations for regulatory action.

Senior Graphic Designer, ICF International: .................................Debby Bunting

Graphics Specialist, ICF International: ..........................................Dana Allison

Reference Coordinator, ICF International: ....................................Sarah Shapiro

Logistical and Technical Support: ICF International: ....................Joe Herr, Kathryn Maher,

 Sandy Seymour

FEDERAL EXECUTIVE TEAM

Director, Climate Change Science Program: ...............................William J. Brennan

Director, Climate Change Science Program Offi ce: .....................Peter A. Schultz

Lead Agency Principal Representative to CCSP,

National Program Director for the Global Change 

Research Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: .......Joel D. Scheraga

Product Lead, Global Ecosystem Research and

Assessment Coordinator, Global Change Research

Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: ........................Susan Herrod Julius

Chair, Synthesis and Assessment Product Advisory Group

Associate Director, National Center for Environmental

Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: ...................Michael W. Slimak

Synthesis and Assessment Product Coordinator, 

Climate Change Science Program Offi ce: .....................................Fabien J.G. Laurier

Special Advisor, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: .....................Chad McNutt

Image on cover of bleached Acropora coral, Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary, American Samoa, courtesy of Eric Mielbrecht,

Emerald Coast Environmental Consulting.

Front Matter.indd 2 
Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Produ

 Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Pr

and the Subcommittee on Global Change Res

EDITORS:

Susan Herrod Julius, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Jordan M. West, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

AUTHORS:

Jill S. Baron, U.S. Geological Survey and Colorado State Univer

Linda A. Joyce, U.S.D.A. Forest Service

Brad Griffi th, U.S. Geological Survey

Peter Kareiva, The Nature Conservancy

Brian D. Keller, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrat

Margaret Palmer, University of Maryland

Charles Peterson, University of North Carolina

J. Michael Scott, U.S. Geological Survey and University of Idah

pp

Climate-Sensitive Ecosyste

and Resources

Front Matter.indd 3 ront Matter.indd 3 
SAPs produced by the CCSP aimed at providing current assessments of climate change science to inform pu

debate, policy, and operational decisions. These SAPs are also intended to help the CCSP develop future prog

research priorities. This SAP is issued pursuant to Section 106 of the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Pu

Law 101-606).

The CCSP’s guiding vision is to provide the Nation and the global community with the science-based knowle

needed to manage the risks and capture the opportunities associated with climate and related environme

changes. The SAPs are important steps toward achieving that vision and help to translate the CCSP’s exten

observational and research database into informational tools that directly address key questions being aske

the research community.

This SAP focuses on adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources on Federally owned 

managed lands. It was developed with broad scientific input and in accordance with the Guidelines for Produ

CCSP SAPs, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Information Quality Act, Section 515 of the Treasury 

General Government Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001 (Public Law 106-554), and the guidelines issue

the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 515.

We commend the report’s authors for both the thorough nature of their work and their adherence to an inclu

review process.

Sincerely,

Carlos M. Gutierrez

Secretary of Commerce Chair, 

Committee on Climate Change 

Science and Technology 

Integration

Samuel W. Bodman

Secretary of Energy

Vice Chair, Committee on 

Climate Change Science and 

Technology Integration

John H. Marburger III

Director, Office of Scien

and Technology Policy

Executive Director, 

Committee on Climate Cha

Science and Technology 

Integration

Front Matter.indd 4 ront Matter.indd 4 
TABLE O

3 .........................................................................................................................

National Forests

4 .........................................................................................................................

National Parks

5 .........................................................................................................................

National Wildlife Refuges

6 .........................................................................................................................

Wild and Scenic Rivers

7 .........................................................................................................................

National Estuaries

8 .........................................................................................................................

Marine Protected Areas

9 .........................................................................................................................

Synthesis and Conclusions

Annex A ..............................................................................................................

Case Studies

Annex B ..............................................................................................................

Confi dence Estimates for SAP 4.4 Adaptation Approaches

Glossary and Acronyms ....................................................................................

SAP Workshop Participants .............................................................................

References ..........................................................................................................

Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................

Front Matter.indd Sec1:I 
AAAS Fellow, U.S. EPA

Chapter 3 Lead Author: Linda A. Joyce, USDA Forest Service

Contributing Authors: Geoffrey M. Blate, AAAS Fellow, U.S. EPA; Jeremy S. Littell, JISA

CSES Climate Impacts Group, Univ. Wa.; Steven G. McNulty, USDA Forest Service; Constan

I. Millar, USDA Forest Service; Susanne C. Moser, NCAR; Ronald P. Neilson, USDA Forest 

Service; Kathy A. O’Halloran, USDA Forest Service; David L. Peterson, USDA Forest Servic

Chapter 4 Lead Author: Jill S. Baron, USGS and Colo. State Univ.

Contributing Authors: Craig D. Allen, USGS; Erica Fleishman, NCEAS, Univ. Southern Ca

lif.; Lance Gunderson, Emory Univ.; Don McKenzie, USDA Forest Service; Laura Meyerson

Univ. Rhode Is.; Jill Oropeza, Colo. State Univ.; Nate Stephenson, USGS

Chapter 5 Lead Authors: J. Michael Scott, USGS and Univ. Id.; Brad Griffi th, USGS

Contributing Authors: Robert S. Adamcik, USFWS; Daniel M. Ashe, USFWS; Brian Czech

USFWS; Robert L. Fischman, Indiana Univ. School of Law; Patrick Gonzalez, The Nature 

Conservancy; Joshua J. Lawler, Univ. Wa.; A. David McGuire, USGS; Anna Pidgorna, Univ. 

Chapter 6 Lead Author: Margaret A. Palmer, Univ. Md.

Contributing Authors: Dennis Lettenmaier, Univ. Wa.; N. LeRoy Poff, Colo. State Univ.; 

Sandra Postel, Global Water Policy Project; Brian Richter, The Nature Conservancy; Richard 

Warner, Kinni Consulting

Chapter 7 Lead Author: Charles H. Peterson, Univ. N. Car.;

Contributing Authors: Richard T. Barber, Duke Univ.; Kathryn L. Cottingham, Dartmouth 

College; Heike K. Lotze, Dalhousie Univ.; Charles A. Simenstad, Univ. Wa.; Robert R. Christian, East Car. Univ.; Michael F. Piehler, Univ. N. Car.; John Wilson, U.S. EPA

Chapter 8 Lead Author: Brian D. Keller, NOAA

Contributing Authors: Satie Airamé, Univ. Ca. Santa Barbara; Billy Causey, NOAA; Alan 

Friedlander, NOAA; Daniel F. Gleason, Ga. Southern Univ.; Rikki Grober-Dunsmore, NOAA

Johanna Johnson, Great Barrier Reef MPA; Elizabeth McLeod, The Nature Conservancy; 

Steven L. Miller, Univ. N. Car. Wilmington; Robert S. Steneck, Univ. Maine; Christa Woodley

Univ. Ca. Davis

Chapter 9 Lead Author: Peter Kareiva, The Nature Conservancy

Contributing Authors: Carolyn Enquist, The Nature Conservancy; Ayana Johnson, Univ. Ca

San Diego; Susan Herrod Julius, U.S. EPA; Joshua Lawler, Oregon State Univ.; Brian Peterse

Univ. Ca. Santa Cruz; Louis Pitelka, Univ. Md.; Rebecca Shaw, The Nature Conservancy; 

Jordan M. West, U.S. EPA

Front Matter.indd Sec1:II ront Matter.indd Sec1:II 
Blate, AAAS Fellow, U.S. EPA

 Olympic National Forest

David L. Peterson, USDA Forest Service; Jeremy S. Littell, JISAO CSES Climate Impacts Gr

Univ. Wa.; Kathy A. O’Halloran, USDA Forest Service

 Uwharrie National Forest

 Steven G. McNulty, USDA Forest Service

 National Parks Case Study

 Rocky Mountain National Park

 Jill S. Baron, USGS and Colo. State Univ.; Jill Oropeza, Colo. State Univ.

 National Wildlife Refuges Case Study

 Alaska and the Central Flyway

 Brad Griffi th, USGS; A. David McGuire, USGS

 Wild and Scenic Rivers Case Studies

 Wekiva River

 Rio Grande River

 Upper Delaware River

 Margaret A. Palmer, Univ. Md.; Dennis Lettenmaier, Univ. Wa.; N. LeRoy Poff, Colo. State U

Sandra Postel, Global Water Policy Project; Brian Richter, The Nature Conservancy; Richard 

ner, Kinni Consulting

 National Estuaries Case Study

 The Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System

 Robert R. Christian, E. Car. Univ.; Charles H. Peterson, Univ. of N. Car.; Michael F. Piehler, U

of N. Car.; Richard T. Barber, Duke Univ.; Kathryn L. Cottingham, Dartmouth College; Heike 

Lotze, Dalhousie Univ.; Charles A. Simenstad, Univ. Wa.; John W. Wilson, U.S. EPA

 Marine Protected Areas Case Studies

 The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

 Billy Causey, NOAA; Steven L. Miller, Univ. N. Car. Wilmington; Brian D. Keller, NOAA

 The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

 Johanna Johnson, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

 Papahānaumokuākea (Northwestern Hawaiian Islands) Marine National Monument

 Alan Friedlander, NOAA

 The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

 Satie Airamé, Univ. Ca. Santa Barbara

Annex B Editors: Susan Herrod Julius, U.S. EPA; Jordan M. West, U.S. EPA;

Lead Authors: Jill S. Baron, USGS and Colo. State Univ.; Brad Griffi th, USGS; Linda A. Joy

USDA Forest Service; Brian D. Keller, NOAA; Margaret A. Palmer, Univ. Md.; Charles H. 

Peterson, Univ. N. Car.; J. Michael Scott, USGS and Univ. Id.

Front Matter.indd Sec1:III ront Matter.indd Sec1:III 
Carl Hershner, Virginia Institute of Marine Science

George Hornberger, University of Virginia

Thank you to Sharon Moxley (EPA) and to Versar, Inc fo

to the ACSERAC.

Additional External (Public) Reviewers

We would like to thank the many individuals who provided useful comments during the public review period. The draft manuscript

comments, and response to public comments are publicly available at: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-4/default.php

Stakeholder workshop participants and key reviewers are acknowledged in individual chapters.

US Environmental Protection Agency Internal Reviewers

We would like to thank the following internal reviewers who provided valuable comments on this report in preparation for exter

review:

Peter Beedlow, Office of Research and Development

Paul Bunje, American Association for the Advancement of Science 

Fellow

David Burden, Office of Research and Development

Barry Burgan, Office of Water

Ben DeAngelo, Office of Air and Radiation

Dominic Digiulio, Office of Research and Development

Anne Fairbrother, Office of Research and Development

Bill Fisher, Office of Research and Development

Eric Jorgensen, Office of Research and Development

Chris Laab, Office of Water

Michael Lewis, Office of Research and Development

Jeremy Martinich, Office of Air and Radiation

Larry Merrill, Region 3

Dave Olszyk, Office of Research and Development

Kathryn Parker, Office of Air and Radiation

Amina Pollard, Office of Research and Developmen

Jackie Poston, Region 10

Kathryn Saterson, Office of Research and Developm

Karen Scott, Office of Air and Radiation

Jim Titus, Office of Air and Radiation

Jim Wigington, Office of Research and Developme

Wendy Wiltse, Region 9

Steve Winnett, Region 1

Jeff Yang, Office of Research and Development

3 anonymous reviewers, Office of Research and De

National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Global Change Research Program

We would like to thank our colleagues in the Global Change Research Program who contributed thoughtful insights, reviewed nu

and helped with the production of this report: Amanda Babson (AAAS Fellow), Britta Bierwagen, Geoffrey Blate (AAAS Fellow), An

Thomas Johnson, Chris Pyke1 , Michael Slimak, Chris Weaver. We would also like to acknowledge the administrative support and over

by the National Center for Environmental Assessment.

ICF International (support contractor to NCEA)

We would like to thank our colleagues at ICF International for their logistical and technical support for this report, with special th

Asam, Anne Choate, Randall Freed, Joseph Herr, Bradford Hurley, Kathryn Maher, Sandra Seymour, and Sarah Shapiro. Stakehol

were organized by ICF and facilitated by Bill Dennison of the University of Maryland, Center for Environmental Science.

It was an honor and a pleasure to work with all of the people above as well as the many other colleagues we have encountered in t

management communities who are working to address climate change impacts. We hope that this document will be a positive step 

collective effort to apply adaptation principles for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources.

1 Currently with CTG Energetics.

Front Matter.indd Sec1:IV ront Matter.indd Sec1:IV 
resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Res

S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, a

(Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 1-1 to 1-6. 

For Chapter 2:

Julius, S.H., J.M. West, and G.M. Blate, 2008: Introduction. In: Preliminary review of adaptation options for clim

ecosystems and resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on G

Research [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C

and J.M. Scott (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 2-1 to 2-24.

For Chapter 3:

Joyce, L.A., G.M. Blate, J.S. Littell, S.G. McNulty, C.I. Millar, S.C. Moser, R.P. Neilson, K. A. O’Halloran, and D

2008: National Forests. In: Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resourc

by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Julius, S.H

(eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott (A

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 3-1 to 3-127.

For Chapter 4:

Baron, J.S., C.D. Allen, E. Fleishman, L. Gunderson, D. McKenzie, L. Meyerson, J. Oropeza, and N. Stephenson, 2

Parks. In: Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Repor

Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds

B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors)]. U.S. En

Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 4-1 to 4-68.

For Chapter 5:

Scott, J.M., B. Griffith, R.S. Adamcik, D.M. Ashe, B. Czech, R.L. Fischman, P. Gonzalez, J.J. Lawler, A.D. McG

Pidgorna, 2008: National Wildlife Refuges. In: Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ec

resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Res

S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, a

(Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 5-1 to 5-100.

For Chapter 6:

Palmer, M.A., D. Lettenmaier, N.L. Poff, S. Postel, B. Richter, and R. Warner, 2008: Wild and Scenic Rivers. In

review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Ch

Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. G

Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protec

Washington, DC, USA, pp. 6-1 to 6-73.

For Chapter 7:

Peterson, C.H., R.T. Barber, K.L. Cottingham, H.K. Lotze, C.A. Simenstad, R.R. Christian, M.F. Piehler, and J. W

National Estuaries. In: Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resourc

by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Julius, S.H

(eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott (A

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 7-1 to 7-108.

Front Matter.indd Sec1:V ront Matter.indd Sec1:V 
For Annex A:

Julius, S.H., J.M. West, S. Airamé, R.T. Barber, J.S. Baron, G.M. Blate, B. Causey, R.R. Christian, K.L. Co

Friedlander, B. Griffith, J. Johnson, L.A. Joyce, B.D. Keller, D. Lettenmaier, J.S. Littell, H.K. Lotze, A.D. M

McNulty, C.I. Millar, S.L. Miller, K.A. O’Halloran, J. Oropeza, M.A. Palmer, D.L. Peterson, C.H. Peterson, M.F. 

Poff, S. Postel, B. Richter, C.A. Simenstad, R. Warner, and J.W. Wilson, 2008: Annex A: Case Studies. In: Prelim

of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Scie

and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyc

B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Was

USA, pp. A-1 to A-170.

For Annex B:

Julius, S.H., J.M. West, J S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. 

Annex B: Confidence Estimates for SAP 4.4 Adaptation Approaches. In: Preliminary review of adaptation option

sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommit

Change Research [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. 

Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pp. B-1 to B

Front Matter.indd Sec1:VI ront Matter.indd Sec1:VI 
g

identifying priorities for research, observation, and 

decision support. This Report—SAP 4.4—focuses 

on federally managed lands and waters to provide 

a “Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for 

Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources.” It 

is one of seven reports that support Goal 4 of the 

CCSP Strategic Plan to understand the sensitivity 

and adaptability of different natural and managed 

ecosystems and human systems to climate and related 

global changes.

The purpose of SAP 4.4 is to provide useful 

information on the state of knowledge regarding 

adaptation options for key, representative ecosystems 

and resources that may be sensitive to climate 

variability and change. As its title suggests, this 

report is a preliminary review, defined as “the process 

of collecting and reviewing available information 

about known or potential adaptation options.” The 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

notes that there are few demonstrated examples of 

ecosystem-focused adaptation options (see IPCC 

Fourth Assessment Report, 17.4.2.1 and 4.6.2). 

Thus, the authors of this SAP found it necessary to 

examine adaptation options in the context of a desired 

ecosystem condition or natural resource management 

goal, as set forth by the resource management entity. 

Therefore, this report explores potential adaptation 

options that could be used by natural resource 

managers within the context of the legislative and 

administrative mandates of the six systems examined: 

National Forests, National Parks, National Wildlife 

Refuges, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Estuaries, 

and Marine Protected Areas. Case studies throughout 

this report examine in greater detail some of the 

issues and challenges associated with implementation 

do not allow for a comprehensive covera

federally owned and managed lands and 

which means that some important man

systems (e.g., Bureau of Land Manageme

Department of Defense lands, tribal lands, 

reserves) are not featured in this report. How

preliminary review of existing adaptation kn

does contain science-based adaptation st

that are broadly applicable to not only othe

lands, but also state, local, territorial, tri

non-governmental holdings. Adaptive Mana

a key tool recognized in this report, is an im

concept within the Department of the Inte

an Adaptive Management Technical Gu

released in the spring of 2007. It provides 

analytical framework that is based on the exp

in-depth consultation, and best practices of s

and natural resource managers. The inform

this SAP combined with Interior’s Technic

is available for managers to consider and 

Additional work is needed to refine and ad

body of knowledge, including conducting 

analyses of adaptation options on a case

basis.

It must be noted that a discussion of the 

benefits of implementing the adaptation optio

individually or collectively, was not a co

of the SAP prospectus and is not include

report. Relative to ecosystems, the IPCC n

information is very limited on the econo

social costs and benefits of adaptation m

especially the non-market costs and ben

adaptation measures involving ecosystem pr

among others. Since this is a preliminary 

additional information on the costs and be

certainly warranted.

1 Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 20

tive Management: The U.S. Department of th

Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Worki

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D

Front Matter.indd Sec2:I ront Matter.indd Sec2:I 
II

responses. The adaptation approaches and measures 

suggested in this report are presented as options, not as 

prescriptive directives, standards, or rules.

Michael W. Slimak

Associate Director for Ecology

National Center for Environmental Assessment

Office of Research and Development

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Front Matter.indd Sec2:II ront Matter.indd Sec2:II 
C

of Idaho

Climate variables are key determinants of 

geographic distributions and biophysical 

characteristics of ecosystems, communities, 

and species. Climate change1 is therefore 

affecting many species attributes, ecological 

interactions, and ecosystem processes. Because 

changes in the climate system will continue into 

the future regardless of emissions mitigation, 

strategies for protecting climate-sensitive 

ecosystems through management will be 

increasingly important. While there will always 

be uncertainties associated with the future path 

of climate change, the response of ecosystems to 

climate impacts, and the effects of management, 

it is both possible and essential for adaptation to 

proceed using the best available science.

This report provides a preliminary review 

of adaptation options for climate-sensitive 

ecosystems and resources in the United States. 

The term “adaptation” in this document refers 

to adjustments in human social systems (e.g., 

management) in response to climate stimuli and 

their effects. Since management always occurs 

in the context of desired ecosystem conditions 

or natural resource management goals, it is 

1 Climate change refers to any change in climate 

over time, whether due to natural variability or as 

a result of human activity. This usage differs from 

that in the United Nations Framework Convention 

on Climate Change, which defines “climate change” 

as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly 

or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in 

addition to natural climate variability observed over 

comparable time periods.”

instructive to examine particular goals and 

processes used by different organizations to 

fulfill their objectives. Such an examination 

allows for discussion of specific adaptation 

options as well as potential barriers and 

opportunities for implementation. Using this 

approach, this report presents a series of chapters 

on the following selected management systems: 

National Forests, National Parks, National 

Wildlife Refuges, Wild and Scenic Rivers, 

National Estuaries, and Marine Protected Areas. 

For these chapters, the authors draw on the 

literature, their own expert opinion, and expert 

workshops composed of resource management 

scientists and representatives of managing 

agencies. The information drawn from across 

these chapters is then analyzed to develop the 

key synthetic messages presented below.

Many existing best management practices 

for “traditional” stressors of concern have 

the added benefit of reducing climate change 

exacerbations of those stressors. Changes in 

temperature, precipitation, sea level, and other 

climate-related factors can often exacerbate 

problems that are already of concern to 

managers. For example, increased intensity of 

precipitation events can further increase delivery 

of non-point source pollution and sediments to 

rivers, estuaries, and coasts. Fortunately, many 

management practices that exist to address 

such “traditional” stressors can also address 

climate change impacts. One such practice with 

multiple benefits is the construction of riparian 

buffer strips that (1) manage pollution loadings 

095220009318_SAP Chap 1 Exec Summ.indd 1 95220009318_SAP Chap 1 Exec Summ.indd 1 
2

climate change. As defined in this report, the 

goal of adaptation is to reduce the risk of adverse 

environmental outcomes through activities that 

increase the resilience of ecological systems 

to climate change. Here, resilience refers to 

the amount of change or disturbance that 

a system can absorb without undergoing a 

fundamental shift to a different set of processes 

and structures. Managers’ past experiences 

with unpredictable and extreme events have 

already led to some existing approaches that 

can be adjusted for use in adapting to longerterm climate change. The specific “adaptation 

approaches” described below are derived from 

discussions of existing (and new) management 

practices to maintain or increase ecosystem 

resilience, drawn from across the chapters of 

this report. 

Protecting key ecosystem features involves 

focusing management protections on structural 

characteristics, organisms, or areas that represent 

important “underpinnings” or “keystones” of 

the overall system. Reducing anthropogenic 

stresses is the approach of minimizing localized 

human stressors (e.g., pollution, fragmentation) 

that hinder the ability of species or ecosystems 

to withstand climatic events. Representation

refers to protecting a portfolio of variant forms 

of a species or ecosystem so that, regardless 

of the climatic changes that occur, there will 

be areas that survive and provide a source for 

recovery. Replication centers on maintaining 

more than one example of each ecosystem or 

population such that if one area is affected by a 

disturbance, replicates in another area provide 

insurance against extinction and a source for 

recolonization of affected areas. Restoration

is the practice of rehabilitating ecosystems that 

have been lost or compromised. Refugia are 

areas that are less affected by climate change 

than other areas and can be used as sources 

one or more approaches above should the

based on considerations such as: the ecosys

management goals, type and degree of clim

effects, type and magnitude of ecosys

responses, spatial and temporal scale

ecological and management responses, 

social and economic factors.

Levels of confidence in these adapta

approaches vary and are difficult to ass

yet are essential to consider in adapta

planning. Due to uncertainties associ

with climate change projections as wel

uncertainties in species and ecosystem respon

there is also uncertainty as to how effective 

different adaptation approaches listed ab

will be at supporting resilience. It is there

important to assess the confidence within 

expert community that these approaches 

support a degree of resilience that may a

ecosystems to persist without major lo

of ecosystem processes or functions. U

one of the methodologies presented in 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chan

guidelines2 for estimating uncertaint

the authors of this report developed t

confidence estimates by considering 

separate but related elements of confidence. 

first element is the amount of available evid

(high or low) to support the determination 

the effectiveness of a given adaptation appro

is well-studied and understood. Evide

might consist of any of the following sour

peer-reviewed and gray literature, data 

observations, model results, and the auth

2 Guidance on uncertainty from Climate Change 2

Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cont

tion of Working Group II to the Fourth Assess

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli

Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palut

P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., C

bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 976p

095220009318_SAP Chap 1 Exec Summ.indd 2 95220009318_SAP Chap 1 Exec Summ.indd 2 
key ecosystem features, representation, 

replication, restoration, identifying refuges, and 

especially relocation—is much more variable. 

Despite this variability, many of the individual 

adaptation options under these approaches 

may still be effective. In these cases, a more 

detailed assessment of confidence for individual 

adaptation options is needed, based on a clearer 

understanding of how the ecosystem in question 

functions, the extent and type of climate change 

that will occur there, the resulting ecosystem 

impacts, and the projected ecosystem response 

to the adaptation option.

One method for integrating confidence 

estimates into resource management given 

uncertainty is adaptive management. Adaptive 

management is a process that promotes flexible 

decision-making so that adjustments are made 

in decisions as outcomes from management 

actions and other events are better understood. 

This method supports managers in taking action 

today using the best available information 

while also providing the possibility of ongoing 

future refinements through an iterative 

learning process.

The success of adaptation strategies may 

depend on recognition of potential barriers to 

implementation and creation of opportunities 

for partnerships and leveraging.In many cases, 

perceived barriers associated with legal or social 

constraints, restrictive management procedures, 

limitations on human and financial capital, 

and gaps in information may be converted 

into opportunities. For example, there may be 

a possibility to address difficulties associated 

with information or capacity shortages through 

leveraging of human capital. Existing staff 

could receive training on addressing climate 

change issues within the context of their 

current job descriptions and management 

managers can share data and better design 

monitoring to test scientific hypotheses, 

and outreach specialists can better engage 

the public in understanding and supporting 

adaptation activities. Two additional categories 

of opportunities that are especially promising 

are highlighted below.

The Nation’s adaptive capacity can be 

increased through expanded collaborations 

among ecosystem managers. When managers 

seize opportunities to link with other managers 

to coordinate adaptation planning, they are able 

to broaden the spatial and ecological scope of 

potential adaptation options with a shared vision 

for increasing adaptive capacity. For example, 

many management units are nested within or 

adjacent to other systems. Collaboration across 

systems allows individual units to be, in effect, 

extended beyond their official boundaries to 

encompass entire ecosystems or regions; the 

result is a larger array of options for responding 

to future climate change impacts. Collaboration 

may also enhance research capacity and 

offer opportunities to share data, models, 

and experiences. In addition to overcoming 

limiting factors such as inadequate resources 

and mismatches of management unit size 

with ecosystem extent, collaborations may 

also be used to create flexible boundaries that 

follow unanticipated changes in ecosystems 

or species in response to climate change. 

Exercising opportunities for collaboration 

has the advantage of reducing uncertainties 

associated with attaining management goals 

under climate change because (1) the increase 

in the geographic range over which resources 

can be managed and the associated increase 

in available adaptation options makes success 

more likely, and (2) the increase in the resource 

base, in research capabilities, and in the size of 

095220009318_SAP Chap 1 Exec Summ.indd 3 95220009318_SAP Chap 1 Exec Summ.indd 3 
4

for changing conditions and dynamic responses, 

and with creative re-examination of those 

authorities their full capabilities could be 

applied. For example, federal land and water 

managers may be able to strategically apply 

traditional legislative authorities in nontraditional ways to coordinate management 

outside of jurisdictional boundaries. Similarly, 

while management policies can sometimes be 

limiting, the iterative nature of management 

planning may allow priorities and plans 

to be revisited on a cyclical basis to allow 

for periodic adjustments. Greater agility in 

program planning can increase the probability 

of meeting management goals by overcoming 

implementation barriers associated with 

narrowly defined and interpreted authorities.

Establishing current baselines, identifying 

thresholds, and monitoring for changes 

will be essential elements of any adaptation 

approach. Climate changes may cause 

ecological thresholds to be exceeded, leading 

to abrupt shifts in the structure of ecosystems. 

Threshold changes in ecosystems have profound 

implications for management because such 

changes may be unexpected, large, and difficult 

to reverse. If these ecosystems cannot then be 

restored, actions to increase their resilience 

will no longer be viable. Understanding 

where thresholds have been exceeded in the 

past and where (and how likely) they may 

be exceeded in the future allows managers 

to plan accordingly and avoid tipping points 

where possible. Activities taken to prevent 

threshold changes include establishing current 

baseline conditions, modeling a range of 

possible climate changes and system responses, 

monitoring to identify relevant ecological 

changes, and responding by implementing 

adaptation actions at appropriate scales and 

times. Current baselines capture a benchmark 

may allow managers to identify thresh

beyond which key management goals 

become unattainable. Directed monitoring 

supports managers’ ability to detect chan

in baseline conditions, informs their decis

about the timing of adaptation actions, 

helps them evaluate the effectiveness of t

actions. With such information, a program 

has the authority to, for example, acquire 

interests and water rights to restore a river t

historic flows would better be able to determ

how, when, and where to use this authority

Beyond “managing for resilience,” 

Nation’s capability to adapt will ultima

depend on our ability to be flexible in set

priorities and “managing for chang

Prioritizing actions and balancing compe

management objectives at all scales of deci

making is essential, especially in the m

of shifting budgets and rapidly chang

ecosystems. Using a systematic framew

for priority setting would help manag

catalog information, design strategies, allo

resources, evaluate progress, and inform 

public. This priority-setting could happe

an ongoing way to address changing ecolog

conditions and make use of new informat

Over time, our ability to “manage for resilie

of current systems in the face of climate cha

will be limited as temperature thresholds 

exceeded, climate impacts become sev

and irreversible, and socioeconomic cost

maintaining existing ecosystem structu

functions, and services become excessive

this point, it will be necessary to “manage 

change,” with a re-examination of priorities 

a shift to adaptation options that incorpo

information on projected ecosystem chan

Both “managing for resilience” and “mana

for change” require more observation 

095220009318_SAP Chap 1 Exec Summ.indd 4 95220009318_SAP Chap 1 Exec Summ.indd 4 
095220009318_SAP Chap 1 Exec Summ.indd 5 95220009318_SAP Chap 1 Exec Summ.indd 5 
C

Strategies for protecting climate-sensitive 

ecosystems will be increasingly important for 

management, because impacts resulting from 

a changing climate system are already evident 

and will persist into the future regardless of 

emissions mitigation. Climate is a dominant 

factor influencing the distributions, structures, 

functions, and services of ecosystems. Changes 

in climate can interact with other environmental 

changes to affect biodiversity and the future 

condition of ecosystems (e.g., McCarty, 2001; 

IPCC, 2001; Parmesan and Yohe, 2003). The 

extent to which ecosystem condition may be 

affected will depend on the amount of climate 

change, the degree of sensitivity of the ecosystem 

to the climate change, and the availability of 

adaptation options for effective management 

responses. This Synthesis and Assessment 

Product (SAP), SAP 4.4, is charged with 

reviewing adaptation options for ecosystems 

that are likely to be sensitive to continuing 

changes in climate. SAP 4.4 is one of 21 SAPs 

commissioned by the U.S. government’s 

Climate Change Science Program, seven of 

which examine the sensitivity and adaptability 

of different natural and managed ecosystems 

and human systems to climate and related 

global changes.

Adaptation is defined as an adjustment in 

natural or human systems to a new or changing 

environment. Adaptation to climate change 

refers to adjustment in natural or human systems 

in response to actual or expected climatic 

stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm 

or exploits beneficial opportunities (IPCC, 

2001). In biological disciplines, adaptation 

refers to the process of genetic change within 

a population due to natural selection, whereby 

the average state of a character becomes better 

suited to some feature of the environment 

(Groom, Meffe, and Carroll, 2006). This type 

of adaptation, also referred to as autonomous 

adaptation (IPCC, 2001), is a reactive biological 

response to climate stimuli and does not involve 

intervention by society. Planned adaptation, 

on the other hand, refers to strategies adopted 

by society to manage systems based on an 

awareness that conditions are about to change 

or have changed, such that action is required to 

meet management goals (adapted from IPCC, 

2001). This report focuses on the latter form 

of adaptation, with all subsequent uses of the 

term “adaptation” referring to strategies for 

management of ecosystems in the context of 

climate variability and change. 

The purpose of adaptation strategies is to reduce 

the risk of adverse outcomes through activities 

that increase the resilience of ecological 

systems to climate change stressors (Scheffer

et al., 2001; Turner, II et al., 2003; Tompkins 

and Adger, 2004). A stressor is defined as any 

physical, chemical, or biological entity that can 

induce an adverse response (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2000). Resilience refers to 

the amount of change or disturbance that can 

be absorbed by a system before the system is 

redefined by a different set of processes and 

structures (Holling, 1973; Gunderson, 2000; 

095220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 1 95220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 1 
2

Adaptation options for enhancing ecosystem 

resilience include changes in management

processes, practices, or structures to reduce 

anticipated damages or enhance beneficial 

responses associated with climate variability 

and change. In some cases, opportunities for 

adaptation offer stakeholders outcomes with 

multiple benefits, such as the addition of 

riparian buffer strips that (1) manage pollution 

loadings from agricultural land into rivers 

designated as “wild and scenic” today and (2) 

establish a protective barrier to increases in 

both pollution and sediment loadings associated 

with future climate change. Where there are 

multiple benefits to implementing specific 

adaptation options, this report seeks to identify 

those benefits.

A range of adaptation options may be 

possible for many ecosystems, but a lack of 

information or resources may impede successful 

implementation. In some cases, managers may 

not have the knowledge or information available 

to address climate change impacts. In other 

instances, managers may understand the issues 

and have the relevant information but lack 

resources to implement adaptation options. 

Furthermore, even with improvement in the 

knowledge and communication of available and 

emerging adaptation strategies, the feasibility 

and effectiveness of adaptation will depend on 

the adaptive capacity of the ecological system 

or social entity. Adaptive capacity is defined 

as the potential or ability of a system, region, 

or community to counteract, adjust for, or take 

advantage of the effects of climate change 

(IPCC, 2001). Depending on the management 

goals, there may be biological, physical, 

economic, social, cultural, institutional, or 

technological conditions that enhance or hinder 

adaptation. To the extent possible, this report 

gg

report explores potential adaptation opt

for supporting natural resource managem

goals in the context of management syst

such as the National Park System or 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Managem

systems such as these provide a framewor

processes and procedures used to ensure tha

organization’s objectives are fulfilled.

Specifically, this report supports the stated 

by providing information on (1) the implicat

of the combined effects of climate chan

and non-climate stressors on our abilit

achieve specific resource management go

(2) existing management options as well as 

adaptation approaches that reduce the ris

negative outcomes; and (3) opportunities 

barriers that affect successful implementa

of management strategies to address clim

change impacts. Through the provision of 

information, the desired outcome of this re

is an enhanced adaptive capacity to respon

future changes in climate.

The primary intended audience of this re

is resource and ecosystem managers at fed

state, and local levels; tribes; nongovernme

organizations; and others involved in prote

area management decisions. Additio

audiences include scientists, engineers, 

other technical specialists who will be ab

use the information provided to set prioritie

future research and to identify decision-sup

needs and opportunities. This informa

also may support tribes and governm

agencies at federal, state, and local levels in 

development of policy decisions that prom

adaptation and increase society’s adap

capacity for management of ecosystems 

species within protected areas.

095220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 2 95220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 2 
stakeholders is important in order to ensure 

that proposed adaptation options are analyzed 

in light of both technical rigor and feasibility. 

Given this, the appropriate composition of 

stakeholders for SAP 4.4 includes: (1) those 

who wish to consider options for reducing the 

risk of negative ecological outcomes associated 

with climate variability and change; (2) 

researchers who study climate change impacts 

on ecosystems and topics relevant for adaptation 

to impacts of climate variability and change 

(e.g., ecosystem restoration, sustainability); (3) 

science managers from the physical and social 

sciences who develop long-term research plans 

based on the information needs and decisions at 

hand; and (4) tribes and government agencies 

at federal, state, and local levels who develop 

and evaluate policies, guidelines, procedures, 

technologies, and other mechanisms to improve 

adaptive capacity.

The initial planning of SAP 4.4 involved 

engaging a narrowly defined targeted group 

of expert stakeholders to review the substance 

of the report. Small groups of no more than 20 

people from the fields of adaptation science 

and resource management were asked to 

provide comments to the authors of the 

report on its content through participation 

in a series of six workshops (one for each 

“management system” chapter; see below). 

Chapter lead and contributing authors presented 

draft information on their chapters and case 

studies, and incorporated the expert input into 

their revisions.

Beyond the narrowly defined group of expert 

stakeholders mentioned above, a broader 

array of relevant stakeholders were invited 

to contribute to the shaping of this document 

through a public review process. Feedback was 

received from non-governmental organizations, 

This report examines federally protected and 

managed lands and waters as a context for 

reviewing adaptation options for climatesensitive ecosystems and resources. The 

focus on federal holdings was chosen because 

(1) their protected status reflects the value 

placed on these ecosystems and resources by 

the American public; (2) the management goals 

for federal ecosystems are also representative of 

the range of goals and challenges faced by other 

ecosystem management organizations across 

the United States; and (3) adaptation options 

for federal ecosystems will require a variety 

of responses (equally applicable to non-federal 

lands) to ensure achievement of management 

goals over a range of time scales. 

Approximately one-third of the nation’s land 

base is managed by the federal government 

and administered by different agencies through 

a variety of “management systems.” Since 

a comprehensive treatment of all federal 

holdings is beyond the scope of this report, 

the focus is on representative management 

systems that have clear management goals for 

which adaptation options can be discussed. 

Therefore, adaptation options are reviewed 

for six management systems: national forests, 

national parks, national wildlife refuges, wild 

and scenic rivers, national estuaries, and marine 

protected areas (especially national marine 

sanctuaries). By using a sample of management 

systems, the discussion of adaptation options 

can go beyond a general list to more specific 

options tailored to the management context and 

goals. This approach also allows exploration of 

any specific barriers and opportunities that may 

affect implementation. The array of adaptation 

options discussed should be useful to other 

resource managers, regardless of whether their 

management systems are represented in this 

report. Likewise, the types of barriers and 

095220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 3 95220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 3 
4

suggested methods for addressing those barriers 

should be sufficiently broad to be useful 

to a wider audience of resource managers. 

Other federally protected systems—such 

as wilderness preservation areas, biosphere 

reserves, research natural areas, natural 

estuarine research reserves, and public lands—

could not be examined in this report because of 

limitations on time and resources. As a result, 

certain important and extensive management 

systems (e.g., Bureau of Land Management) 

were not reviewed in this report. Thus, the 

material in this report represents only the 

beginning of what should be an ongoing effort 

to inform and support resource management 

decision making. Other management systems 

not represented in this report would also benefit 

from specific examination of important impacts 

and adaptation options.

strategies in response to climate change. A

these elements vary considerably depend

on the history and organizational structur

the management systems and the locations 

types of ecosystems that they manage. 

Specific management goals for the ecosyst

in the different management systems vary b

on the management principles or framew

employed to reach targeted goals. Nat

resource management goals are commo

expressed in terms of maintaining ecosys

integrity, achieving restoration, preserv

ecosystem services, and protecting wild

and other ecosystem characteristics. 

achievement of management goals is t

dependant on our ability to protect, supp

and restore the structure and functionin

ecosystems.

Changes in climate may affect ecosyst

such that management goals are not achie

Thus, the identified management goals f

the literature review are analyzed for t

sensitivity to climate variability and cha

as well as to other stressors present in 

system that may interact with climate cha

Adaptive responses to climate variability 

change are meant to reduce the risk of fai

to achieve management goals. Theref

each management system chapter discu

adaptation theories and frameworks, as 

as options for modifying existing managem

actions and developing new approache

address climate change impacts.

For each chapter, the above analysis of clim

sensitivities and management respon

includes one or more place-based case stu

that explore the current state of knowle

regarding management options that coul

used to adapt to the potential impacts of clim

• Adaptation options have potential for application in other 

geographic regions or for other ecosystem types.

In order to ensure that the entire collection of case studies 

would include broad representation across geographic areas, 

ecosystem types, and management goals and methods, the following characteristics were required of the group as a whole:

• Addresses a reasonable cross section of important, climatesensitive ecosystems and/or ecosystem services and 

features;

• Addresses a range of adaptation responses (e.g., structural, 

policy, permitting);

• Distributed across the United States and valued by a national 

constituency; and

• Attributes allow for comparison of adaptation approaches 

and their effectiveness across the case studies (e.g., lessons 

learned about research gaps and about factors that enhance 

or impede implementation).

095220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 4 95220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 4 
crosscutting themes and synthetic approaches 

that comprise the “results” of the Synthesis and 

Conclusions chapter. 

2.4 CLIMATE VARIABILITY 

AND CHANGE

C l i m a t e c h a n g e i s d e f i n e d b y t h e 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC) as any change in climate over time, 

whether due to natural variability or as a result 

of human activity (IPCC, 2007b). Climate 

variability refers to variations in the mean state 

and other statistics (such as standard deviations, 

2007b).

2.4.1 Increases in Surface 

Temperature

Evidence from observations of the climate 

system has led to the conclusion that human 

activities are contributing to a warming of the 

earth’s atmosphere. This evidence includes 

an increase of 0.74 ± 0.18°C in global average 

surface temperature over the last century, and 

an even greater warming trend over the last 50 

years than over the last 100 years. Eleven of 

the last 12 years (1995–2006) are among the 12 

Figure 2.1. Map showing the geographic distribution in the United States of SAP 4.4 case studies.

095220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 5 95220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 5 
6

temperature have led to an increase in 

number of frost-free days. In the United Sta

the greatest increases have occurred in the W

and Southwest (Tebaldi et al., 2006).

2.4.2 Changes in Precipitation

Changes in climate have also been manife

in altered precipitation patterns. Over 

last century, the amount of precipitation 

increased significantly across eastern par

North America and several other regions o

world (IPCC, 2007b). In the contiguous Un

States, this increase in total annual precipita

Figure 2.2. Annual mean temperature anomalies 1901–2006. Note: Red shades 

indicate warming over the period and blue shades indicate cooling over the period. 

Data courtesy of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National 

Climatic Data Center.

warmest years since the instrumental record of 

global surface temperature was started in 1850 

(IPCC, 2007b).

In the continental United States, temperatures 

rose linearly at a rate of 0.06°C per decade 

during the first half of the 20th century. That rate 

increased to 0.33°C per decade from 1976 to the 

present. The degree of warming has varied by 

region (Fig. 2.2) across the United States, with 

the West and Alaska experiencing the greatest 

degree of warming (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2007). These changes in 

095220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 6 95220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 6 
over the last century has been 6.1%. When 

looked at by region (Fig. 2.3), however, the 

direction and magnitude of precipitation 

changes vary, with increases of more than 10% 

observed in the East North Central and South, 

and a decrease of more than 7% in Hawaii 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007). 

The form of precipitation has also changed in 

some areas. For example, in the western United 

States, more precipitation has been falling as 

rain than snow over the last 50 years (Knowles, 

Dettinger, and Cayan, 2006).

2.4.3 Warming of the Oceans

Another manifestation of changes in the climate 

system is a warming in the world’s oceans. The 

global ocean temperature rose by 0.10°C from 

the surface to 700 m depth from 1961–2003 

(IPCC, 2007b). Observations of sea-surface 

temperatures, based on a reconstruction of 

the long-term variability and change in global 

mean sea-surface temperature for the period 

1880–2005, show that they have reached their 

highest levels during the past three decades over 

Figure 2.3. Annual precipitation anomalies 1901–2006. Note: Green shades 

indicate a trend towards wetter conditions over the period, and brown shades 

indicate a trend towards dryer conditions. Data courtesy of National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.

095220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 7 95220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 7 
8

all latitudes (Fig. 2.4). Warming has occurred 

through most of the 20th century and appears 

to be independent of measured inter-decadal 

and short-term variability (Smith and Reynolds, 

2005).

2.4.4 Sea Level Rise and Storm 

Intensity

Warming causes seawater to expand and thus 

contributes to sea level rise. This factor, referred 

to as thermal expansion, has contributed 1.6 

± 0.5 mm per year to global average sea level 

over the last decade (1993–2003). Other factors 

contributing to sea level rise over the last decade 

include a decline in mountain glaciers and ice 

caps (0.77 ± 0.22 mm per year), losses from the 

Greenland ice sheets (0.21 ± 0.07 mm per year), 

and losses from the Antarctic ice sheets (0.21 ±

0.35 mm per year) (IPCC, 2007c).

In the United States, relative sea levels have 

been rising along most of the coasts at rates 

of 1.5–3 mm per year (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2007), which is consistent 

with the average rate globally for the 20th

century (1.7±0.5 mm per year) (IPCC, 2007b). 

Relative sea level has risen 3–4 mm per year in 

the Mid-Atlantic states and 5–10 mm per year 

in the Gulf states, due to subsidence combined 

with accelerated global sea level rise (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2007). On 

Florida’s Gulf coast, relative sea level rise has 

led to a rate of conversion of about 2 meters of 

forest to salt marsh annually (Williams et al., 

1999).

The effects of sea level rise in coastal areas will 

be compounded if tropical cyclones become 

more intense. For the North Atlantic, there is 

observational evidence since about 1970 o

increase in intense tropical cyclone acti

which is correlated with increases in trop

sea surface temperatures (IPCC, 200

Various high resolution global models 

regional hurricane models also indicate th

is likely that some increase in tropical cyc

intensity will occur if the climate continue

warm (IPCC, 2007b). This topic remain

area of intense debate and investigation, 

many competing opinions as to the accu

of detection methods, the quality of histor

data, and the strength of various mode

results (e.g., see Donnelly and Woodruff, 2

Landsea, 2007; Vecchi and Soden, 20

Nevertheless, if the prospect of increasin

intense tropical cyclone activity is one plau

scenario for the future, then the possib

of intensified storm surges and associ

exacerbation of sea level rise impacts may m

consideration and planning by managers.

2.4.5 Changes in Ocean pH

Between 1750 and 1994, the oceans absor

about 42% of all emitted carbon dioxide (C

(IPCC, 2007b). As a result, the total inorg

carbon content of the oceans increased by 

±19 gigatons of carbon over this period an

continuing to increase. This increase in oce

carbon content caused calcium carbon

(CaCO3) to dissolve at greater depths and 

to a 0.1 unit decrease in surface ocean pH f

1750–1994 (IPCC, 2007b). The rate of decr

in pH over the past 20 years accelerated to 

units per decade (IPCC, 2007b). A declin

pH, along with the concomitant decreased d

at which calcium carbonate dissolves, 

likely impair the ability of marine organism

use carbonate ions to build their shells or o

climate normal (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007).

095220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 8 95220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 8 
extent has shrunk by 2.7 ± 0.6% per decade. 

The permafrost layer has also been affected 

in the Arctic, to the degree that the maximum 

area of ground frozen seasonally has decreased 

by about 7% in the Northern Hemisphere since 

1900, with the spring realizing the largest 

decrease (up to 15%) (IPCC, 2007b).

2.4.7 Changes in Extreme Events

Whether they have become drier or wetter, 

many land areas have likely experienced an 

increase in the number and intensity of heavy 

precipitation (5 cm of rain or more) events 

(IPCC, 2007b). About half of the increase in 

total precipitation observed nationally has been 

attributed to the increase in intensity of storms 

(Karl and Knight, 1998). Heavy precipitation 

events are the principal cause of flooding in 

most of the United States (Groisman et al., 

2005).

The general warming trend observed in most 

of the United States was also accompanied by 

more frequent hot days, hot nights, and heat 

waves (IPCC, 2007b). Furthermore, higher 

temperatures along with decreased precipitation 

have been associated with observations of more 

intense and longer droughts over wider areas 

since the 1970s. Within the United States, the 

western region has experienced longer and 

more intense droughts, but these appear also 

to be related to diminishing snow pack and 

consequent reductions in soil moisture. In 

addition to the factors above, changes in seasurface temperatures and wind patterns have 

been linked to droughts (IPCC, 2007b).

2.4.8 Changes in Hydrology

During the 20th century, the changes in 

temperature and precipitation described above 

Dettinger, 2004).

Another important change, described in the 

preceding section, was the increase in heavy 

precipitation events documented in the United 

States during the past few decades. These 

changes have affected the timing and magnitude 

of streamflow. In the eastern United States, high 

streamflow measurements were associated with 

heavy precipitation events (Groisman, Knight, 

and Karl, 2001). Because of this association, 

there is a high probability that high streamflow 

conditions have increased during the 20th

century (Groisman, Knight, and Karl, 2001). 

Increases in peak streamflow have not been 

observed in the West, most likely because of 

the reduction in snow cover (Groisman, Knight, 

and Karl, 2001).

2.4.9 Observed Ecological 

Responses

An emerging but growing body of literature 

indicates that over the past three decades, 

the changes in the climate system described 

above—including the anthropogenic component 

of warming— have caused physical and 

biological changes in a variety of ecosystems 

(Root et al., 2005; Parmesan, 2006; IPCC, 

2007a) that are discernable at the global scale. 

These changes include shifts in genetics 

(Bradshaw and Holzapfel, 2006; Franks, Sim, 

and Weis, 2007), species’ ranges, phenological 

patterns, and life cycles (reviewed in Parmesan, 

2006). Most (85%) of these ecological responses 

have been in the expected direction (e.g., 

poleward shifts in species distributions), and it 

is very unlikely that the observed responses are 

due to natural variability alone (IPCC, 2007a). 

The asynchronous responses of different 

species to climate change may alter species’ 

interactions (e.g., predator-prey relationships and 

095220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 9 95220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 9 
10

climatic changes. The most recent models 

project future changes in the earth’s climate 

system that are greater in magnitude and scope 

than those already observed. Based on annual 

average projections (from 21 global climate 

models), surface temperature increases by the 

end of the 21st century will range from 2°C near 

the coasts in the conterminous United States 

to at least 5°C in northern Alaska. Nationally, 

summertime temperatures are projected to 

increase by 3–5°C. Winter temperatures in 

Northern Alaska are projected to increase by 

4.4–11°C. In addition, more extreme hot events 

and fewer extreme cold events are projected to 

occur (IPCC, 2007b).

On average, annual precipitation will likely 

increase in the northeastern United States and 

will likely decrease in the Southwest over the 

next 100 years (IPCC, 2007b). In the western 

United States, precipitation increases are 

projected during the winter, whereas decreases 

are projected for the summer (IPCC, 2007b). 

As temperatures warm, precipitation will 

increasingly fall as rain rather than snow, and 

snow season length and snow depth are very 

likely to decrease in most of the country (IPCC, 

2007b). More extreme precipitation events 

are also projected (Diffenbaugh et al., 2005; 

Diffenbaugh, 2005), which, coupled with an 

anticipated increase in rain-on-snow events, 

would contribute to more severe flooding due to 

increases in extreme runoff (IPCC, 2007b).

The interaction of climate change with other 

stressors, as well as direct stressors from climate 

change itself, may cause more complicated 

responses than have so far been observed. 

In general, during the next 100 years, it is 

likely that many ecosystems will not be able 

to resist or recover from the combination 

In SAPs such as this report, evaluati

of u ncer taint y are com mu nicated 

judgments, findings, and conclusions m

in the text. Treatment of uncertainty invo

characterization and communication of 

distinct concepts: uncertainty in term

likelihood or in terms of confidence in 

science (IPCC, 2007b). Likelihood is rele

when assessing the chance of a specific fu

occurrence or outcome, and is often quanti

as a probability. However, in this rep

judgments and conclusions about adapta

will be associated with qualitative express

of confidence rather than quantitative statem

of likelihood.

Confidence is composed of two separate 

related elements (IPCC, 2007b). The f

element is the amount of evidence availab

support the determination that the effective

of a given adaptation approach is well-stu

and understood. The second element is 

level of agreement or consensus within 

scientific community about the different lin

evidence on the effectiveness of that adapta

approach. Thus, each of the synthetic adapta

approaches drawn from across the chapter

this report is assessed and given a rankin

“high” or “low” for each element (amoun

evidence and amount of agreement). Th

assessments of confidence are presented 

discussed in the Synthesis and Conclus

chapter.

2.6 THE ADAPTATION 

CHALLENGE: THE PURPOS

OF THIS REPORT

Understanding how to incorporate adapta

into strategic planning activities is an impor

challenge because: (1) the climate system 

095220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 10 95220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 10 
may be made to broaden the scope of adaptation 

strategies available to resource managers.

Different approaches are discussed to address 

adaptation in the planning process. These 

approaches generally fall into broad categories 

that may be distinguished by (1) timing of the 

management response: whether the response 

takes place prior to (proactively) or after 

(reactively) a climate event has occurred; 

and (2) intention of the managing agency: 

whether climate-induced changes are formally 

acknowledged and addressed in management 

plans (Box 2.2).

Given that management agencies’ resources are 

likely to fluctuate over time, a key to the planning 

process will be to determine an approach that 

maximizes attainment of established shortand long-term goals, especially in light of the 

effect that climate change may have on those 

goals. This report provides a discussion of key 

questions, factors, and potential approaches 

to consider when setting priorities during 

the planning process, as well as examples of 

adaptation strategies that may be employed 

across different types of ecosystems and 

geographic regions of the country.

Addressing future changes is an imprecise 

exercise, fraught with uncertainties and 

unanticipated changes. Managers have to 

anticipate the interaction of multiple stressors, 

the interdependencies of organisms within 

an ecosystem, and the potential intertwined, 

cascading effects. Thus the ability to measure 

effectiveness of management options, i.e., 

ecological outcomes of specific actions on the 

ground, is essential in order to continuously 

refine and improve adaptation. This report 

raises issues to consider when measuring 

priority information gaps and technical needs.

Finally, some challenges to implementation of 

adaptation options and their ultimate success 

may require fundamental shifts in management 

approaches. This report will seek to identify 

and discuss possible short- and long-term 

shifts in management structures, approaches, 

and policies that increase the likelihood of 

effectiveness and success in implementation, 

and that may open the door to a greater array 

of adaptation options in the future.

BOX 2.2. Approaches to 

Adaptation Planning.

1. No adaptation: future climate change 

impacts are not planned for by the managing agency and are not acknowledged 

as likely to occur.

2. Reactive adaptation: climate change 

impacts are not planned for by the managing agency, and adaptation takes place 

after the impacts of climate change have 

been observed.

3. Anticipatory adaptation:

• Responsive: future climate change 

impacts are acknowledged as likely to 

occur by the managing agency, and responses to those changes are planned 

for when changes are observed.

• Proactive: climate change impacts are 

acknowledged as likely to occur by 

the managing agency, and adaptation 

responses are planned for before the 

changes are observed.

095220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 11 95220009318_SAP Chap 2 Intro.indd 11 
C

3.1 SUMMARY 

The National Forest System (NFS) is composed of 155 national forests (NFs) and 20 national 

grasslands (NGs), which encompass a wide range of ecosystems, harbor much of the nation’s 

biodiversity, and provide myriad goods and services. The mission of the U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS), which manages the NFS, has broadened from water and timber to sustaining ecosystem 

health, diversity, and productivity to meet the needs of present and future generations. The 

evolution of this mission reflects changing societal values (e.g., increasing emphasis on recreation, 

aesthetics, and biodiversity conservation), a century of new laws, increasing involvement of the 

public and other agencies in NF management, and improved ecological understanding. Climate 

change will amplify the already difficult task of managing the NFS for multiple goals. This chapter 

offers potential adaptation approaches and management options that the USFS might adopt to 

help achieve its NF goals and objectives in the face of climate change. 

KEY FINDINGS

Climate change will affect the NFS’s ability to achieve its goals and objectives. Climate 

change will make the achievement of all seven strategic goals more challenging because they 

are all likely to be sensitive to the direct effects of climate change as well as the interactions 

of climate change with other major stressors. 

Climate change will exacerbate the impact of other major stressors on NF and NG 

ecosystems. Wildfires, non-native and native invasive species, extreme weather events, 

and air pollution are the most critical stressors that climate change will amplify within NFS 

ecosystems. Reduced snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and altered hydrology associated with 

warmer temperatures and altered precipitation patterns are expected to complicate western water management and affect other ecosystem services that NFs provide (e.g., winter 

recreational opportunities). Drought will likely be a major management challenge across the 

United States. Ozone exposure and deposition of mercury, sulfur, and nitrogen already affect 

watershed condition, and their impacts will likely be exacerbated by climate change. 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 1 hapter 3_Forests.indd 1 
2

scales of decision making; thus, selection of an approach will be influenced by specific man

agement objectives and the adaptive capacity of the ecological, social, and economic environment. Although none of these approaches may successfully maintain extant ecosystem

under a changing climate, the proactive approach is best suited to support natural adaptiv

processes (e.g., species migration) and maintain key ecosystem services. To succeed, proac

adaptation would require greater involvement and integration of managers at many levels 

appropriately monitor ecosystem changes, adjust policies, and modify specific practices. 

Reducing the impact of current stressors is a “no regrets” adaptation strategy that 

could be taken now to help enhance ecosystem resilience to climate change, at 

least in the near term. Increased effort and coordination across agencies and with privat

landowners to reduce these stressors (especially air pollution, drought, altered fire regim

fragmentation, and invasive species) would benefit ecosystems now, begin to incorporate 

climate change incrementally into management and planning, and potentially reduce future 

teractions of these stressors with climate change. Approaches that quickly address proble

that otherwise would become large and intractable (e.g., the Early Detection/Rapid Respo

program for invasive species) may also help managers reduce the impacts of climate-drive

events such as floods, windstorms, and insect outbreaks. Consideration of post-disturban

management for short-term restoration and for long-term restoration under climate chan

prior to the disturbance (fire, invasives, flooding, hurricanes, ice storms) may identify opp

tunities and barriers. Large system-resetting disturbances offer the opportunity to influen

the future structure and function of ecosystems through carefully designed management 

experiments in adapting to climatic change.

Incorporating climate change into the USFS planning process is an important step 

that could be taken now to help identify suitable management adaptations as well 

ecological, social, and institutional opportunities and barriers to their implementation. Planning processes that include an evaluation of vulnerabilities (ecological, social, and 

economic) to climate change in the context of defining key goals and contexts (manageme

institutional, and environmental) might better identify suitable adaptive actions to be take

present or in the short term, and better develop actions for the longer term. Coordinatio

of assessments and planning efforts across the organizational levels in the USFS might bett

identify spatial and temporal scales for modeling and addressing uncertainty and risk linke

to decision-making. Given the diversity of NFS ecosystems, a planning process that allows 

planners and managers to develop a toolbox of multiple adaptation options would be mos

suitable. 

Better educating USFS employees about climate change and adaptation approach

is another step that could be implemented immediately. Developing adaptation optio

to climate change may require NF staff to have a more technical understanding of climate 

change as well as the adaptive capacity of social and economic environments. The challeng

for NFs to keep up with the rapidly changing science also suggests the need to build on an

strengthen current relationships between researchers (inside and outside of the USFS) an

NF staff.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 2 hapter 3_Forests.indd 2 
will require time and effort to develop. A careful examination of current prioritization 

methods would begin to identify opportunities and barriers to the analysis of tradeoffs and 

development of priorities under a changing climate. A tiered approach to priority-setting 

could include the “no regrets” actions mentioned above (reducing current stressors), “low 

regrets” actions that provide important benefits at little additional cost and risk, and “winwin” actions that reduce the impacts of climate change while also providing other benefits. 

Using triage to set priorities would acknowledge where limited resources might be more 

effective if focused on urgent but treatable problems. 

As discussed in the three case studies (Tahoe NF, Olympic NF, and Uwharrie NF; see 

the Case Study Summaries and Annex A1), the USFS will need to overcome various 

barriers to take advantage of opportunities to implement adaptation options. The collaboration and cooperation with other agencies, national networks, and the public required 

to manage NF lands could be an opportunity or a barrier to adaptation. The ability of the 

USFS to adapt will be enhanced or hindered to the extent that these other groups recognize 

and address climate change. Adaptive management is also both an opportunity and a barrier. 

While it facilitates learning about ecosystem responses to management, it may not be useful 

when the ability to act adaptively is constrained by policies or public opinion, or when actions 

must be taken quickly. 

Applied research could help fill gaps in understanding and data while also providing 

enhanced tools for decision support. Research priorities include studies that assess the socioeconomic impacts of adaptation options, develop ways to reduce ecosystem vulnerability 

to disturbances that will be exacerbated by climate change (e.g., insects, fire, invasives), and 

show how climate change can be better incorporated into long-term forest planning (including improved communication). The USFS could also take advantage of current infrastructure 

and coordinate with other agencies to enhance monitoring and mapping efforts with climate 

change in mind.

There is a clear need for the USFS as a whole to respond to the potential impacts of 

climate change. While this report focuses on the NFS, climate change needs to be addressed across all functional lines and program areas (including state and private forestry, international programs, and research) of the USFS. Further enhancing the relationship between 

NFS managers, state and private forestry staffs, and scientists in the research branch should 

help the USFS address this challenge.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 3 hapter 3_Forests.indd 3 
4

Benjamin Hough described the environmental 

harm resulting from European forest practices 

and proposed that the United States take action to 

avoid such impacts. Congress directed the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) to report 

on forest conditions, and in 1876 Hough—as 

the USDA special forestry agent—completed 

the first assessment of U.S. forests. In 1881, the 

Division of Forestry within USDA was created 

with the mission to provide information. Three 

years later, research was added to the mission.

With the passage of the Forest Reserve Act 

of 1891, President Harrison established the 

first timber land reserve (Yellowstone Park 

Timber Land Reserve, eventually to become the 

Shoshone National Forest) under the control of 

the General Land Office (Fig. 3.1). Over the next 

two years, Harrison designated more than 13 

million acres (5.26 million ha) within 15 forest 

reserves in seven western states and Alaska 

(Rowley, 1985). The Forest Transfer Act of 1905 

established the U.S. Forest Service, in USDA, 

In the 1891 act, the mission was to “improve 

protect the forest within the boundaries, o

the purposes of securing favorable condition

water flows, and to furnish a continuous su

of timber.” In 1905, Secretary of Agricul

James Wilson wrote that questions of use m

be decided “from the standpoint of the grea

good for the greatest number in the long r

(USDA Forest Service, 1993). The 1936 Re

of the Chief recognized a greater variet

1 See also MacCleery, D., 2006: Reinventing the 

Forest Service: Evolution of the national forests 

custodial management, to production forestr

ecosystem management: A case study for the A

Pacific Forestry Commission. In: Proceedin

the Reinventing Forestry Agencies Workshop. A

Pacific Forestry Commission, FAO Regional O

for Asia and the Pacific, Thailand. 28 Febru

2006. Manila, Philippines. 2 USDA Forest Service. 2007. Table 21 Nati

Forest Lands Annual Acreage (1891 to pres

Report date October 10, 2007, http://www.fs

us/land/staff/lar/2007/TABLE_21.htm, accesse

11-28-2007.

Western 

expansion 

of human 

settlement

Division of 

Forestry 

created in 

USDA

U.S. Forest 

Service 

established 

in USDA

The Weeks Law 

enabled the Federal 

Government to 

purchase previously 

harvested eastern 

forest lands

The Wilderness Act of 

1964, National Trails 

Act of 1968, and Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act of 

1968 identifi ed specifi c 

goals for lands within 

National Forests

The National Forest 

Management Act 

increased public 

participation

USDA conducts fi rst 

assessment of forest 

lands in the US

Forest Reserve 

Act authorizes 

forest reserves

The Multiple UseSustained Yield Act 

gave authority to 

administer the NFs 

for recreation, range, 

timber, watershed, 

wildlife, and fi sh

National 

Environmental Policy 

Act of 1970, Clean 

Air Act of 1970, 

Clean Water Act of 

1972, Endangered 

Species Act of 1973

Healthy Forest 

Restoration Ac

in response to 

concern about 

health of forest

1800s 1876 1881 1891 1905 1911 1960 1964-68 1970-78 1976 2003

Figure 3.1. Timeline of National Forest System formation and the legislative influences on the mis

of the national forests.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 4 hapter 3_Forests.indd 4 
national forest boundaries were identified 

by legislation in the 1960s: Wilderness Act 

of 1964, National Trails System Act of 1968, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968.4 As these 

congressional designations encompassed land 

from many federal agencies, coordination with 

other federal and in some cases state agencies 

became a new component of the management 

of these designated NF lands. By 2006, 23 

percent of the National Forest System’s lands 

were statutorily set aside in congressional 

designations—the national wildernesses, 

national monuments, national recreation areas, 

national game refuges and wildlife preserves, 

wild and scenic rivers, scenic areas, and 

primitive areas. 

Legislation of the 1970s established oversight 

by agencies other than the Forest Service for 

the environmental effect of land management 

within NFs. The Clean Air Act of 1970 and the 

Clean Water Act of 1972 gave the Environmental 

Protection Agency responsibility for setting air 

and water quality standards, and the states 

responsibility for enforcing these standards. 

Similarly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service were 

given a new responsibility through the required 

consultation process in the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 to review proposed management on 

federal lands that could modify the habitat of 

listed species. 

Additional legislation established greater public 

involvement in evaluating management impacts 

and in the forest planning process. The National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 

required all federal agencies proposing actions 

that could have a significant environmental 

effect to evaluate the proposed action as well 

3 16 U.S.C. § 528-531

4 16 U.S.C. § 1271-1287 P.L. 90-542

national staffs, and the management philosophies 

used to guide natural resource management. 

Additionally, the public, environmental groups, 

internal agency sources, and the Forest Service’s 

own research community were reporting that 

substantial changes were needed in natural 

resource management.1 In 1992, Forest Service 

Chief Dale Robertson announced that “an 

ecological approach” would now govern the 

agency’s management philosophy. In 1994, Chief 

Jack Ward Thomas issued the publication Forest 

Service Ethics and Course to the Future, which 

described the four components of ecosystem 

management: protecting ecosystems, restoring 

deteriorated ecosystems, providing multipleuse benefits for people within the capabilities 

of ecosystems, and ensuring organizational 

effectiveness. MacCleery1 notes that this 

shift to ecosystem management occurred 

without explicit statutory authority, and as an 

administrative response to many factors such as 

public involvement in the planning processes, 

increased technical diversity within the Forest 

Service staffs, increased demand for recreational 

opportunities, and increased understanding in 

the natural resource sciences. 

After the active wildfire season in 2000, federal 

agencies drafted the National Fire Plan to reduce 

the risk of wildfire to communities and natural 

resources. The Plan has focused prevention on 

the reduction of woody biomass (mechanical 

thinning, prescribed fire, wildland fire use, 

removal of surface fuels) and the restoration of 

ecosystems where past land use had altered fire 

regimes. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 

2003 included provisions to expedite NEPA and 

other processes to increase the rate at which fuel 

treatments were implemented in the wildlandurban interfaces of at-risk communities, atrisk municipal watersheds, areas where fuel 

treatments could reduce the risk of fire in 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 5 hapter 3_Forests.indd 5 
6

habitat of threatened and endangered species, 

and where wind-throw or insect epidemics 

threaten ecosystem components or resource 

values.5

The 2007–2012 USDA Forest Service Strategic 

Plan describes the mission of the Forest Service, 

an agency with three branches: National Forest 

Systems, Research, and State and Private, as: 

“To sustain the health, diversity and productivity 

of the Nation’s forest and grasslands to meet the 

needs of present and future generations” (USDA 

Forest Service, 2007b). The mission reflects 

public and private interests in the protection and 

preservation of natural resources, a century of 

laws passed to inform the management of NF 

5 H.R. 190

lands, partnerships with states for steward

of non-federal lands, and a century of rese

findings. 

3.2.3 Interpretation of Goals 

At the national level, the USDA Forest Ser

Strategic Plan identifies a set of strat

priorities that are implemented over a pe

of time through annual agency budgets. 

strategic priorities or goals are based 

national assessments of natural resources 

in response to social and political trends (US

Forest Service, 2007b) (Box 3.1). Within 

NFS, these goals are interpreted in each l

of the organization: national, regional, 

individual administrative unit (forest, grassl

and prairie) (Fig. 3.2). 

The Chief’s staff provides broad policy and 

direction for the agency, works with the 

President’s Administration to develop a budget 

to submit to Congress, provides information to 

Congress on accomplishments, and monitors 

activities of the agency.

The regional offi ce staff coordinates activities 

between national forests, monitors activities on 

national forests to ensure quality operations, 

provides guidance for forest plans, and allocates 

budgets to the forests.

Many on-the-ground activities occur in the 

ranger districts, including trail construction and 

maintenance, operation of campgrounds, and 

management of vegetation and wildlife habitat.

The forest level coordinates activities between 

districts, allocates the budget, and provides 

technical support to each district.

Level of Organization Jurisdiction

USDA

Under Secretary for Natural National Resources and Environment 

Regional

Forest

District

Chief of Forest Service

9 Regional Forests

600 Ranger Districts

10-100 staff in each ranger 

district manages from 50,000 

acres to 1 million+ acres of land

Forest Supervisors for 155 

national forests and 20 

grasslands 

Figure 3.2. Jurisdiction and organizational levels within the National Forest System.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 6 hapter 3_Forests.indd 6 
to move its resources toward its desired future 

condition. Project planning includes specific 

on-the-ground management for recreation, 

fisheries, restoration, vegetation management, 

and fuel treatments. 

Individual administrative units have worked 

together to develop documents that guide 

management across several units. For example, 

the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan was initiated 

in 1993 to end an impasse over the management 

of federal lands within the range of the northern 

spotted owl. The area encompassed 24.5 million 

acres (~10 million ha); 17 NFs in Washington, 

Oregon, and California; and public lands 

in Oregon and Washington managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management. 

juniper woodlands within the Manti-LaSal 

NF in Utah; northern hardwood forests on 

the White Mountains NF in New Hampshire; 

mixed hardwoods on the Wayne-Hoosier NF 

in Indiana; oak-hickory forests on the Pisgah 

NF in North Carolina; and ponderosa forests 

in the Black Hills NF of South Dakota, the 

Coconino and Sitgreaves NFs of Arizona, and 

the Lassen NF in California (Adams, Loughry, 

and Plaugher, 2004). The National Grasslands 

(NGs) include ecosystem types ranging from 

shortgrass prairie on the Pawnee NG in 

Colorado to tallgrass prairie on the Midewin 

NG in Illinois, and from tallgrass prairie on the 

Sheyenne NG to the stark badlands found in 

the Little Missouri NG, both in North Dakota. 

Figure 3.3. One hundred fifty-five national forests and 20 national grasslands across the United States 

provide a multitude of goods and ecosystems services, including biodiversity.6

6 USDA Forest Service Geodata Clearinghouse, 2007: FSGeodata Clearinghouse: other Forest Service data 

sets. USDA Forest Service Geodata Clearinghouse Website, Overlay created in ArcMap 8.1, boundary files 

are the alp_boundaries2 file set, http://fsgeodata.fs.fed.us/clearinghouse/other_fs/other_fs.html, accessed on 

7-30-2007.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 7 hapter 3_Forests.indd 7 
8

(e.g., genes, species, communities, ecosystems, 

and landscape types), and functional diversity 

(e.g., genetic, demographic, and ecosystem 

processes, life histories, and landscape-scale 

processes and disturbances). Biodiversity 

conservation has become an important goal of 

the USFS and is a consideration in planning.7

National forests provide important habitat for 

many rare, threatened, and endangered plants 

and animals, ranging from charismatic species 

such as the grey wolf (Canis lupus) to lesser 

known species such as Ute ladies’ tresses 

(Spiranthes diluvialis). Climate change will 

amplify the current biodiversity conservation 

7 For example see USDA Forest Service, 7-11-2007: 

Rocky Mountain region: species conservation program. USDA Forest Service Website, http://www.

fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/, accessed on 7-30-2007.

services provided by NFs. Although tim

harvest (Fig. 3.4) and domestic livest

grazing now occur at lower than historical le

(see also Mitchell, 2000; Haynes et al., 20

NFs harvested more than 2.2 billion board 

in 20068 and more than 7000 ranchers re

on NFs and national grasslands for gra

their livestock.9 About 60 million Ameri

(20% of the nation’s population in 3,400 to

and cities) depend on water that origin

in national forest watersheds (USDA Fo

8 USDA Forest Service, 2006: FY1905-2006 an

national sold and harvest summary. Available 

http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/rep

sold-harvest/documents/1905-2006_Natl_S

Harvest_Summary.pdf, USDA Forest Service F

Management, Washington, DC. 9 USDA Forest Service, 2007: Grazing Statis

Summary 2005. Washington, DC, pp.iii-108.

Figure 3.4. Historical harvest levels across the national forests.8

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 8 hapter 3_Forests.indd 8 
American people. 

Over the past few decades, the USFS and 

the public have come to appreciate the full 

range of ecosystem services that NFs provide 

(see Box 3.2). The Millennium Ecosystem 

Assessment (2005) defines ecosystem services 

as the benefits people derive from ecosystems, 

and classifies these benefits into four general 

categories (Box 3.2): provisioning (i.e., products 

from ecosystems), regulating (i.e., regulation of 

ecosystem processes), cultural (i.e., nonmaterial 

benefits), and supporting services (i.e., services 

required for production of all other ecosystems 

services). Biodiversity can be treated as an 

ecosystem service in its own right, or can be seen 

as a necessary condition underpinning the longterm provision of other services (Millennium 

Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Balvanera et 

al., 2006; Díaz et al., 2006). This report treats 

biodiversity as an ecosystem service. The 

growing importance of regulating services such 

as pest management, and watershed and erosion 

management (see Goal 1); provisioning services 

such as providing wood and energy (see Goal 

2); and cultural services such as aesthetics and 

especially recreation (Goal 4) are reflected in 

the USFS national goals (see Box 3.1). 

The achievement of strategic and tactical goals 

set forth by the USFS depends on conservation 

and enhancement of ecosystems services at 

various scales. Maintenance and enhancement 

of ecosystems services on NFs is considered 

within the context of all potential uses and 

values of individual NFs. Unlike federal lands 

afforded strict protection, NFs contain multiple 

resources to be used and managed for the 

10 Brown, T.C. and P. Froemke, 2006: An Initial Ranking of the Condition of Watersheds Containing NFS 

Land: Approach and Methodology. USDA Forest 

Service Rocky Mountain Research Station.

benefit of current and future generations (see 

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960). The 

USFS, as the steward of NFs and its resources, 

actively manages NFs to achieve the national 

goals outlined in Box 3.1 and the individual 

goals identified for each NF and NG.

3.3.2 Stressors of Concern on 

National Forests

3.3.2.1 Current Major Stressors

National forests are currently subject to many 

stressors that affect the ability of the USFS to 

achieve its goals. We define the term stressor 

as any physical, chemical, or biological entity 

that can induce an adverse response (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2000). 

Stressors can arise from physical and biological 

alterations of natural disturbances within NFs, 

increased unmanaged demand for ecosystem 

services (such as recreation), alterations of the 

landscape mosaic surrounding NFs, chemical 

alterations in regional air quality, or from a 

legacy of past management actions (USDA 

Forest Service, 2007b). 

Disturbances, both human-induced and 

natural, shape ecosystems by influencing their 

composition, structure, and function (Dale et al., 

2001). Over long time frames, ecosystems adapt 

and can come to depend on natural disturbances 

such as fire, hurricanes, windstorms, insects, 

and disease. For example, sites where fire 

has naturally occurred include plant species 

with seed cones that open only in response to 

heat from wildfire, and thick barked trees that 

ecotourism

Supporting services—primary production, soil formation, 

pollination, nutrient cycling, water cycling

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 9 hapter 3_Forests.indd 9 
10

g

The legacy of past land-use can leave persistent 

effects on ecosystem composition, structure, 

and function (Dupouey et al., 2002; Foster 

et al., 2003). Depending on their scale and 

intensity, extractive activities such as timber 

harvesting, mining, and livestock grazing 

stress NF ecosystems, affecting their resilience 

and the services they provide. Current USFS 

management strategies emphasize mitigation 

of environmental impacts from these activities 

(see section 3.3.3). However, the legacy of 

extractive activities in the past (Rueth, Baron, 

and Joyce, 2002; Foster et al., 2003) is a 

continuing source of stress in NFs. For example, 

past logging practices, in combination with 

fire suppression, fragmentation, and other 

factors, have homogenized forest species 

accumulation of these metals (Rueth, Ba

and Joyce, 2002). The uncontrolled gra

prevailing on federal lands (including a

that are now NFs) until the Taylor Graz

Act was enacted in the 1930s has left a sim

environmental imprint. Overstocked rangel

contributed to widespread erosion, reduced 

productivity, and a shift in species composi

including the invasion of non-native spe

that have altered fire regimes (Rueth, Ba

and Joyce, 2002).

Land Use and Land Cover Change Surroundi

National Forests

Changes in the land use and land co

surrounding NFs have been and conti

to be associated with the loss of open sp

(subdivision of ranches or large timber holdi

(Birch, 1996; Sampson and DeCoster, 20

Hawbaker et al., 2006), the conversio

forestland to urban and built-up uses in 

wildland-urban interface (WUI), and hab

fragmentation (related to increases in r

densities and impervious surfaces). The am

of U.S. land in urban and built-up uses incre

by 34% between 1982 and 1997, the re

primarily of the conversion of croplands 

forestland (Alig, Kline, and Lichtenst

2004). Subdivision of large timber holdings 

results in a change in management, as pri

forest landowners no longer practice fo

management (Sampson and DeCoster, 200

The WUI is defined as “the area wh

structures and other human developments m

or intermingle with undeveloped wildla

(Stewart, Radeloff, and Hammer, 20

Between 1990 and 2000, 60% of all 

housing units built in the United States w

located in the WUI (Fig. 3.5), and curre

39% of all housing units are located in the W

(Radeloff et al., 2005). More than 80% of 

b

p

Figure 3.5. Wildland Urban Interface across the United States 

(Radeloff et al., 2005).

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 10 hapter 3_Forests.indd 10 
options (e.g., fire use). In addition to these 

land use and land cover changes surrounding 

the large contiguous NFs, some NFs contain 

large areas of checkerboard ownership where 

sections of USFS lands and private ownership 

intermingle.

Invasive Species

A species is considered invasive if (1) it is nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration, 

and (2) its introduction causes or is likely to 

cause economic or environmental harm, or 

harm to human health.11 Invasive species have 

markedly altered the structure and composition 

of forest, woodland, shrubland, and grassland 

ecosystems. Non-native insects expanding 

their ranges nationally in 2004 include Asian 

longhorned beetle, hemlock woolly adelgid, 

the common European pine shoot beetle, and 

the emerald ash borer (USDA Forest Service 

Health Protection, 2005). Non-native diseases 

continuing to spread include beech bark disease, 

white pine blister rust, and sudden oak death. 

11 Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species

Frelich et al., 2006).

Non-native invasive plant species have altered 

fire regimes in the western United States, 

including Hawaii (Westbrooks, 1998; Mitchell, 

2000), and consequently other important 

ecosystem processes (D’Antonio and Vitousek, 

1992; Brooks et al., 2004). Cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum), now a common understory species 

in millions of hectares of sagebrush-dominated 

vegetation assemblages in the Intermountain 

West (Mack, 1981), alters the fuel complex, 

increases fire frequency, and reduces habitat 

provided by older stands of sagebrush (Williams 

and Baruch, 2000; Smith et al., 2000; Ziska, 

Faulkner, and Lydon, 2004; Ziska, Reeves, 

and Blank, 2005).12 Similarly, buffelgrass 

(Pennisetum ciliare) and other African grasses 

12 See also Tausch, R.J., 1999: Transitions and thresholds: influences and implications for management 

in pinyon and juniper woodlands. In: Proceedings: 

Ecology and Management of Pinyon-Juniper Communities Within the Interior West, US Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, pp. 361-365.

Figure 3.6. Influence of non-native earthworms on eastern forest floor dynamics (Frelich et al., 2006). 

Forest floor and plant community at base of trees before (a, left-hand photo) and after (b) European 

earthworm invasion in a sugar-maple-dominated forest on the Chippewa National Forest, Minnesota, 

USA. Photo credit: Dave Hansen, University of Minnesota Agricultural Experimental Station.

A B

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 11 hapter 3_Forests.indd 11 
12

Air Pollution 

Ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (NOx), 

and mercury transported into NFs from urban 

and industrial areas across the United States 

affect resources such as vegetation, lakes, 

and wildlife. A combination of hot, stagnant 

summer air masses, expansive forest area, 

and high rates of NOx emissions combine to 

produce high levels of ozone, especially in the 

western, southern, and northeastern regions of 

the United States (Fiore et al., 2002). Current 

levels of ozone exposure are estimated to reduce 

eastern and southern forest productivity by 

5–10% (Joyce et al., 2001; Felzer et al., 2004). 

Elevated nitrogen deposition downwind of 

large, expanding metropolitan centers or large 

agricultural operations has been shown to affect 

forests when nitrogen deposited is in excess of 

biological demand (nitrogen saturation). Across 

the southern United States it is largely confined 

to high elevations of the Appalachian Mountains 

(Johnson and Lindberg, 1992), although recent 

increases in both hog and chicken production 

operations have caused localized nitrogen 

saturation in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain 

(McNulty et al., forthcoming). In the western 

United States, increased nitrogen deposition has 

altered plant communities (particularly alpine 

communities in the Rocky Mountains) and 

reduced lichen and soil mychorriza (particularly 

in the Sierra Nevada mountains of Southern 

California) (Baron et al., 2000; Fenn et al., 

2003). In Southern California, the interaction 

of ozone and nitrogen deposition has been 

shown to cause major physiological disruption 

in ponderosa pine trees (Fenn et al., 2003). 

Mercury deposition negatively affects aquatic 

food webs as well as terrestrial wildlife, as 

a result of bioaccumulation, throughout the 

United States (Chen et al., 2005; Driscoll et 

as te ajooe ssug oad gas e

and permits in NFs; however, the U

determines the availability of land and 

conditions of use, and regulates all surf

disturbing activities conducted under the l

(GAO, 2004). Principal causes of stress 

transportation systems to access oil and 

wells, the oil and gas platforms themsel

pipelines, contamination resulting from s

or the extraction of oil and gas, and flue 

combustion and other activities in gas well 

oil well productions. The extent to which t

stressors affect forests depends on the his

of land use and ownership rights to subsur

materials in the particular NF. For example

and gas development is an important con

in the Allegheny NF because 93% of 

subsurface mineral rights are privately h

and because exploration and extraction h

increased recently due to renewed intere

domestic oil supplies and higher crude oil pr

(Allegheny National Forest, 2006).

Altered Fire Regimes

Fire is a major driver of forest dynamics in 

West, South and Great Lakes region (A

1998; Frelich, 2002), and fire regimes (re

interval and severity) and other characteri

(season, extent, etc.) vary widely across 

United States (Hardy et al., 2001a; Schmi

al., 2002). Fire and insect disturbances inte

often synergistically, compounding rate

change in forest ecosystems (Veblen et 

1994). Historical fire suppression has led t

increase in wildfire activity and altered 

regimes in some forests, resulting in incre

density of trees and increased build-up of f

(Covington et al., 1994; Sampson et al., 2

Minnich, 2001; Moritz, 2003; Brown, Hall, 

Westerling, 2004). Lack of fire or altered 

frequency and severity are considered sou

of stress in those ecosystems dependent u

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 12 hapter 3_Forests.indd 12 
vegetatotougte ceatoooads ad 

trails, target practice and lead contamination, 

and pollution of waterways.14 Impacts of these 

activities include vegetation and habitat loss 

from trampling, soil and surface litter erosion, 

soil compaction, air and water pollution, 

decreased water quality, introduction of nonnative invasive species, and wildfires. The 

creation of unauthorized roads and trails by 

off-highway vehicle (OHVs) causes erosion, 

degrades water quality, and destroys habitat.15

Extreme Weather Events: Wind, Ice, Freeze-thaw 

events, Floods, and Drought

Severe wind is the principal cause of natural 

disturbance in many NFs (e.g., Colorado, 

Veblen, Hadley, and Reid, 1991; Alaska, 

Nowacki and Kramer, 1998; northern temperate 

forests, Papaik and Canham, 2006). Wind is one 

of the three principal drivers (along with fire 

and herbivory) of forest dynamics in temperate 

forests of northeastern and north-central 

North America (for an example of a wind 

event, see Box 3.3) (Frelich, 2002). Turnover 

in northeastern forests depends on creation of 

gaps from individual trees falling down or being 

13 Reviewed in Leung, Y.F. and J.L. Marion, 2000: 

Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: 

a state-of-knowledge review. In: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and Management [Cole, D.N. (ed.)]. 

Proceedings of the Wilderness science in a time of 

change conference, 23, May 1999, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 14 National Forest Foundation, 2006: Recreation. 

National Forests Foundation Website, http://www.

natlforests.org/consi_02_rec.html, accessed on 

5-4-2007. 15 Foltz, R.B., 2006: Erosion from all terrain vehicle 

(ATV) trails on National Forest lands. Proceedings 

of the 2006 ASABE Annual International Meeting, 

9, July 2006, American Society of Agricultural and 

Biological Engineers, Portland Convention Center, 

Portland, OR. Available from http://asae.frymulti.

com/request.asp?JID=5&AID=21056&CID=por20

06&T=2.

extreme storms typically are stand-replacing 

events.16

16 NOAA’s National Weather Service, Storm 

Prediction Center, 2007: The Boundary WatersCanadian Derechos. NOAA Website, http://www.

spc.noaa.gov/misc/AbtDerechos/casepages/jul4-

51999page.htm, accessed on 7-30-2007..

BOX 3.3. The “Boundary Waters-Canadian Derecho,” 

a Straight-Line Wind Event in the Central United States 

and Canada.

During the pre-dawn hours on Sunday, July 4, 1999, thunderstorms were occurring over portions of the Dakotas. 

By 6 AM CDT, some of the storms formed into a bow ech

and began moving into the Fargo, North Dakota area, with 

damaging winds. Thus would begin the “Boundary Waters

Canadian Derecho,” which would last for more than 22 

hours, travel more than 2,080 kilometers at an average sp

almost 96 kph, and result in widespread devastation and 

many casualties in both Canada and the United States. 

In the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA), winds estimated at 128-160 kph moved rapidly, causing serious dama

to 1560 square kilometers of forest in the area. Tens of m

lions of trees were blown down. Sixty people in the BWC

were injured by falling trees, some seriously. Twenty of tho

injured were rescued by floatplanes flying to lakes within t

forest. 

Area affected by the July 4–5, 1999 derecho event (outline

in blue). Curved purple lines represent the approximate 

locations of the “gust front” at three hourly intervals. “+” 

symbols indicate the locations of wind damage or estimate

wind gusts above severe limits (93 kph or greater)16.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 13 hapter 3_Forests.indd 13 
14

al., 2002; Yorks and Adams, 2005). Growth 

form, canopy position, mechanical properties of 

the wood, and tree age and health influence the 

susceptibility of different species to ice damage 

(Bruederle and Stearns, 1985). Severe ice 

storms, such as the 1999 storm in New England, 

can shift the successional trajectory of the forest 

due to the interactions between the storm itself 

and effects of more chronic stressors, such as 

beech bark disease (Rhoads et al., 2002). 

Climate variability and extreme weather events 

also affect ecosystem response. Auclair, Lill, 

and Revenga (1996) identified the relationships 

and Minnemeyer (1997) identified large a

in the Northeast and Canada where this clim

phenomenon affected several hardwood spe

Lack of the insulating layer of snow was sh

to increase soil freezing events in north

hardwood forests (Hardy et al., 2001b). 

Droughts (and even less-severe water str

weaken otherwise healthy and resistant t

and leave them more susceptible to both na

and non-native insect and disease outbre

Protracted droughts have already contrib

to large-scale dieback of species such 

ponderosa pine (see Box 3.4). Vegetation in 

BOX 3.4. Insects and Drought in Piñon-Juniper Woodlands in the Southwest United States.

Between 2002 and 2003, the southwestern United States experienced a sub-continental scale dieback of 

piñon pines (Pinus edulis), Ponderosa pines (P. ponderosa), and juniper (Juniperus monosperma), the dominant 

tree species in the region (Breshears et al., 2005). Piñon pines were hit hardest, and suffered 40–80% 

mortality across an area spanning 12,000 km2 of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. Beetles 

(Ips confusus LeConte) were the proximate cause of death of the piñons, but the beetle infestation was 

triggered by a major “global-change type drought” that depleted soil water content for at least 15 months 

(Breshears et al., 2005). Although a major drought occurred in the same region in the 1950s, mortality was 

apparently less extensive—most prominently Ponderosa and piñon pines older than 100 years and on the 

driest sites died (Allen and Breshears, 1998). In contrast, the more recent drought killed piñons across all 

size classes and elevations. It also killed 2–26% of the more drought-tolerant junipers, and reduced by abou

half the live basal cover of Bouteloua gracilis, a dominant grass in the piñon-juniper woodlands (Breshears 

et al., 2005). The more recent drought also was characterized by warmer temperatures, which increased 

the water stress on the trees. This increased water stress was probably exacerbated by the increased 

densities of piñons that resulted from land use and anomalously high precipitation in the region from about 

1978–1995 (Breshears et al., 2005). 

The scale of this dieback will greatly affect carbon stores and dynamics, runoff and erosion, and other ecosystem processes, and may also lead to an ecosystem type conversion (Breshears et al., 2005). The possibility that vegetation diebacks at the scale observed in this example may become more common under climate 

change presents a major management challenge.

These photos—taken from similar vantages near Los Alamos, NM—

show the large-scale dieback of piñon pines in 2002–2003 that 

resulted from a protracted drought and associated beetle infestation. 

In 2002, the pines had already turned brown from water stress, and 

by 2004, they had lost all their needles.

Photo credit: CD Allen, USGS 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 14 hapter 3_Forests.indd 14 
Floods caused by extreme precipitation events—

especially those that co-occur with or contribute 

to snowmelt—are another important stressor 

in NFs. In floodplain forests, periodic floods 

deposit alluvium, contribute to soil development, 

and drive successional processes (Bayley, 1995; 

Yarie et al., 1998). Tree damage and mortality 

caused by inundation depends on several 

factors including season, duration, water levels, 

temperature and oxygen, mechanical damage, 

and concentration of contaminants. Floods in 

upland forests, however, are considered large, 

infrequent disturbances (Turner et al., 1998; 

Michener and Haeuber, 1998) dominated by 

mechanical damage that affects geophysical 

and ecological processes (Swanson et al., 1998). 

Ecosystems 

A warmer climate is expected to affect ecosystems 

in the western United States by altering stress 

complexes (Manion, 1991)—combinations of 

biotic and abiotic stresses that compromise 

the vigor of ecosystems—leading to increased 

extent and severity of disturbances (McKenzie, 

Peterson, and Littell, forthcoming). Increased 

water deficit will accelerate the stress complexes 

experienced in forests, which typically involve 

some combination of multi-year drought, 

insects, and fire. Increases in fire disturbance 

superimposed on ecosystems with increased 

stress from drought and insects may have 

significant effects on growth, regeneration, 

long-term distribution and abundance of forest 

species, and carbon sequestration (Fig. 3.7).

Figure 3.7. Conceptual model of the relative time scales for disturbance vs. climatic change alone to 

alter ecosystems. Times are approximate. Adapted from (McKenzie et al., 2004).

25-100 yr 100-500 yr

Disturbance

synergy

New fi re regimes

• Move frequent fi re

• More extreme events

• Greater area burned Species responses

• Fire-sensitive species

• Annuals & weedy species

• Specialists with restricted ranges

Fire

Vegetation

Climate

Climatic 

change

Habitat changes

• Broad-scale homogeneity

• Truncated succession

• Loss of forest cover

• Loss of refugia

• Fire-adapted species

Disturbance drives 

ecosystem changes

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 15 hapter 3_Forests.indd 15 
16

temperatures, as negative water balances 

constrain photosynthesis (Hicke et al., 2002), 

although this may be partially offset if CO2

fertilization significantly increases water-use 

efficiency in plants (Neilson et al., 2005b). 

Littell (2006) found that most montane Douglas 

fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forests across the 

northwestern United States appear to be water 

limited; under current climate projections these 

limits would increase in both area affected and 

magnitude.

Temperature increases are a predisposing 

factor causing often lethal stresses on forest 

ecosystems of western North America, acting 

both directly through increasingly negative 

water balances (Stephenson, 1998; Milne, 

Gupta, and Restrepo, 2002; Littell, 2006) 

and indirectly through increased frequency, 

severity, and extent of disturbances—chiefly 

fire and insect outbreaks (Logan and Powell, 

p(ppp) g 

drought-tolerant trees in western North Ame

and piñon-juniper ecosystems characte

lower treelines across much of the W

Piñon-juniper woodlands are clearly wa

limited systems, and piñon-juniper ecoto

are sensitive to feedbacks from environme

fluctuations and existing canopy structure 

may buffer trees against drought (Milne e

1996) (Box 3.4). However, severe multi-

droughts periodically cause dieback of pi

pines, overwhelming any local buffer

Interdecadal climate variability strongly aff

interior dry ecosystems, causing consider

growth during wet periods. This gro

increases the evaporative demand, setting up 

ecosystem for dieback during the ensuing 

period (Swetnam and Betancourt, 1998). 

current dieback is historically unprecede

in its combination of low precipitation and 

temperatures (Breshears et al., 2005). Fig

More severe and extended droughts

Fuel

accumulation

Pinyon pine 

mortality

Global 

warming

Large severe 

fi res Insects

Changes in species composition 

(including exotics)

Figure 3.8. Stress complex in piñon-juniper woodlands of the American Southwest. From McKe

et al. (2004).

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 16 hapter 3_Forests.indd 16 
Changes in species composition (including exotics)

Figure 3.9. Stress complex in Sierra Nevada and southern Californian mixed-conifer forests. 

From McKenzie, Peterson, and Littell (forthcoming).

shows the stress complex associated with piñonjuniper ecosystems. Increased drought stress via 

warmer climate is the predisposing factor, and 

piñon pine mortality and fuel accumulations are 

inciting factors. Ecosystem change comes from 

large-scale severe fires that lead to colonization 

of invasive species (D’Antonio, 2000), which 

further compromises the ability of piñon pines 

to re-establish.

Mixed Conifer Forest of the Sierra Nevada and 

Southern California

These forests experience a Mediterranean 

climate with long, dry summers. Fire frequency 

and extent have not increased concomitantly 

with warmer temperatures, but instead have 

decreased to their lowest levels in the last 

2,000 years. Stine (1996) attributed this decline 

to decreased fuel loads from sheep grazing, 

decreased ignition from the demise of Native 

American cultures, and fire exclusion. Continued 

fire exclusion has led to increased fuel loadings, 

and competitive stresses on individual trees as 

stand densities have increased (Van Mantgem 

et al., 2004). Elevated levels of ambient ozone 

from combustion of fossil fuels affect plant 

vigor in the Sierra Nevada and the mountains 

of southern California (Peterson, Arbaugh, and 

Robinson, 1991; Miller, 1992). Sierra Nevada 

forests support endemic levels of a diverse 

group of insect defoliators and bark beetles, but 

bark beetles in particular have reached outbreak 

levels in recent years, facilitated by protracted 

droughts and biotic complexes that include 

bark beetles interacting with root diseases 

and mistletoes (Ferrell, 1996). Dense stands, 

fire suppression, and exotic pathogens such as 

white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) can 

exacerbate biotic interactions (Van Mantgem et 

al., 2004) and drought stress. Fig. 3.9 shows the 

stress complex associated with Sierra Nevada 

forest ecosystems, and is likely applicable to 

the mountain ranges east and north of the Los 

Angeles basin.

Interior Lodgepole Pine Forests

Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) 

is widely distributed across western North 

America, often forming nearly monospecific 

stands in some locations. It is the principal 

host of the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus 

ponderosae), and monospecific stands are 

particularly vulnerable to high mortality during 

beetle outbreaks. Recent beetle outbreaks have 

caused extensive mortality across millions 

of hectares (Logan and Powell, 2001; Logan 

and Powell, 2005), with large areas of mature 

cohorts of trees (age 70–80 yr) contributing 

to widespread vulnerability.17 Warmer 

temperatures facilitate bark beetle outbreaks in 

two ways: (1) drought stress makes trees more 

17 Carroll, A., 2006: Changing the climate, changing 

the rules: global warming and insect disturbance in 

western North American forests. Proceedings of the 

2006 MTNCLIM conference, Mt. Hood, Oregon. 

Accessed at http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/cirmount/

meetings/mtnclim/2006/talks/pdf/carroll_talk_mtnclim2006.pdf.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 17 hapter 3_Forests.indd 17 
18

suggesting a significant transition to decidu

life forms via more frequent and exten

disturbance associated with climate variab

and change. This transition would be unli

without changes in disturbance regimes, e

under climate change, because both empir

and modeling studies suggest that war

temperatures alone will not favor a life-f

transition (Johnstone et al., 2004; Bach

et al., 2005; Boucher and Mead, 2006).

3.3.3 Management Approaches 

and Methods Currently in Use t

Manage Stressors 

Management approaches addressing the cur

stressors are based on guidance from U

manuals and handbooks, developed thro

planning processes that may occur after 

Stand-replacing

fi re regime

Extensive mature

cohorts (70-80 yrs)

Bark beetles 

and defoliators

Lodgepole pine mortality

Large severe fi les Fuel accumulation

Salvage logging

Higher temperatures & more 

severe and extended droughts

Global 

warming

Changes in species composition (including exotics)

Alaskan Spruce Forests 

The state of Alaska has experienced historically 

unprecedented fires in the last decade, including 

the five largest fires in the United States. 

More than 2.5 million hectares burned in 

the interior during 2004. During the 1990s, 

massive outbreaks of the spruce bark beetle 

(Dendroctonus rufipennis) occurred on and near 

the Kenai Peninsula (including the Chugach 

NF) in southern Alaska (Berg et al., 2006). 

Although periodic outbreaks have occurred 

throughout the historical record, these most 

recent ones may be unprecedented in extent 

and percentage mortality (over 90% in many 

places; Ross et al., 2001; Berg et al., 2006). Both 

these phenomena are associated with warmer 

temperatures in recent decades (Duffy et al., 

2005; Berg et al., 2006; Werner et al., 2006). 

Figure 3.10. Stress complex in interior (British Columbia and United States) lodgepole pine for

From McKenzie, Peterson, and Littell (forthcoming).

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 18 hapter 3_Forests.indd 18 
disturbance (such as ice storms or wind events), 

and developed through regional scientific 

assessment and national planning efforts. 

For example, approaches for invasive species 

management are outlined in the National 

Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive 

Species Management; approaches for altered 

fire regimes are outlined in the National Fire 

Plan. Unmanaged recreation, particularly the 

use off-highway-vehicles, is being addressed 

through the new travel management plan. 

Management of native insects and pathogens 

that become problematic is the responsibility of 

the Forest Health Protection Program, working 

in cooperation with NFs. When extreme 

climate- or weather-related events occur, such 

as large wind blowdown events (see Box 3.3), 

management plans are developed in response to 

the stressor (such as after the blowdown event 

on the Superior National Forest).18 Current 

USFS management strategies emphasize 

mitigation of environmental impacts from 

activities such as timber harvest and grazing 

through environmental analyses and the 

selection of the best management practices. 

Silvicultural practices are used to manipulate 

18 USDA Forest Service, 5-12-2006: Superior National 

Forests: lowdown on the blowdown. USDA Forest 

Service, http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/superior/

storm_recovery/, accessed on 5-7-2007.

and modify forest stands for wildlife habitat, 

recreation, watershed management, and for 

fuels reductions, as well as for commercial 

tree harvests. Management approaches across 

the NFS are influenced by the local climate, 

physical environment (soils), plant species, 

ecosystem dynamics, and the landscape context 

(e.g., WUI, proximity to large metropolitan 

areas for recreational use). 

Adaptive management can be defined as a 

systematic and iterative approach for improving 

resource management by emphasizing learning 

from management outcomes (Bormann, 

Haynes, and Martin, 2007). An adaptive 

management approach was implemented 

through the Northwest Forest Plan to federal 

lands in the Pacific Northwest (Bormann, 

Haynes, and Martin, 2007). The Plan directed 

managers to experiment, monitor, and interpret 

as activities were applied both inside and outside 

adaptive management areas—and to do this as 

a basis for changing the Plan in the future. In 

that application, managers identified adaptive 

management areas; developed organizational 

strategies to apply the adaptive management 

process across the entire plan area (10 million 

acres); established a major regional monitoring 

program; and undertook a formal interpretive 

step that gathered what was learned and 

Figure 3.11. Stress complex in the interior and coastal forests of Alaska. From McKenzie, Peterson, and 

Littell (forthcoming).

Wetlands, fens, 

and bogs

Coniferous and 

deciduous forest

Species conversion

More deciduous 

forest

g

?

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 19 hapter 3_Forests.indd 19 
20

health, watershed health, and wildlife. Several 

watersheds of Tahoe NF are involved in 

each of the three issue areas of the adaptive 

management project.

Lessening the damages caused by native 

insects and pathogens is the goal of the USFS 

Forest Health Protection (FHP) program. 

This program includes efforts to control the 

native species of southern pine beetle and 

western bark beetles. FHP funds southern pine 

beetle suppression, prevention, and restoration 

projects on state lands, private lands, and NFs 

in the South. FHP’s forest health monitoring 

program determines the status, changes, and 

trends in indicators of forest condition annually. 

The program uses data from ground plots and 

surveys, aerial surveys, and other biotic and 

abiotic data sources, and develops analytical 

approaches to address forest health issues. 

Reducing, minimizing, or eliminating the 

potential for introduction, establishment, 

spread and impact of invasive species across 

all landscapes and ownerships is the goal of the 

USFS National Strategy and Implementation 

Plan for Invasive Species Management (USDA 

Forest Service, 2004). The Plan encompasses 

four program elements: (1) prevention, (2) early 

detection and rapid response (EDRR), (3) control 

and management, and (4) rehabilitation and 

restoration. Activities in the Prevention element 

include regularly sanitizing maintenance 

equipment; requiring weed-free certified 

seed for restoration, and use of certified 

weed-free hay; training to identify invasive 

species; cooperating with other institutions and 

organizations to prevent the introduction of new 

forest pests from other countries; and providing 

technical assistance and funding for public 

education and prevention measures for invasive 

species on all lands, regardless of ownership. 

of partnerships in such work as develop

resistant planting stock for five-needle 

restoration efforts following white pine bl

rust mortality, and coordinating at the nati

and regional levels to address the need for 

supply of native plant materials (for exam

seeds and seedlings) for restoration.

Reducing hazardous fuels and enhanc

the restoration and post-fire recover

fire-adapted ecosystems are two goals in 

National Fire Plan. The two other goals fo

on improving fire prevention and suppress

and promoting community assistance. 

updated implementation plan (West

Governors’ Association, 2006) emphasiz

landscape-level vision for restoration of f

adapted ecosystems, the importance of fir

a management tool, and the need to cont

to improve collaboration among governm

and stakeholders at the local, state, regio

and national levels. Land managers red

hazardous fuels through the use of prescr

fire, mechanical thinning, herbicides, graz

or combinations of these and other meth

Treatments are increasingly being focu

on the expanding WUI areas. Where fire 

major component of the ecosystem, wild

fire use—the management of naturally ign

fires—is used to achieve resource benefits. 

appropriate removal and use of woody biom

as described in the USFS Woody Biom

Strategy, has the potential to contribute 

number of the USFS’s strategic goals w

providing a market-based means to red

costs. 

In response to the expanded use of off-high

vehicles, the Forest Service’s new tr

management rule provides the framework 

each national forest and grassland to desig

a sustainable system of roads, trails, and a

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 20 hapter 3_Forests.indd 20 
range; 

• Can serve as a model for examining climate change impacts and adaptations for application across 

entire Sierra Nevada.

Management context

The principal mission of the Tahoe National Forest (TNF) is to “serve as the public’s steward of the lan

and to manage the forest’s resources for the benefit of all American people ...[and]...to provide for 

the needs of both current and future generations.” The 1990 Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (TNF LRMP) details specific goals, objectives, desired future conditions, standards, a

guidelines for a variety of resources including recreation, wilderness, wildlife, timber, water, air quality, 

minerals, and research. 

The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (FPA; USFS, 2004) and the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Librar

Group Forest Recovery Act (US Congress, 1998) provide additional specific direction for the TNF. The 

FPA is a multi-forest plan that specifies goals and direction for (1) reducing buildup of woody fuels and 

minimizing fire risk, and (2) protecting old forests, wildlife habitats, watersheds, and communities on th

national forests of the Sierra Nevada and Modoc Plateau. Forest practices, riparian management, and 

treatments to reduce the likelihood of severe fires specified in the FPA replace sections of the TNF LR

Adaptive management is a key component of the FPA, and the TNF plays a central role in the Sierra 

Nevada Adaptive Management Program. 

The Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act of 1998 also supersedes the TNF LR

for specific resource and geographic areas in the Sierra Nevada, including the Sierraville Ranger Distric

the TNF. The Act was derived from an agreement by a broad coalition of local stakeholders to promot

ecologic and economic health for selected federal lands and communities in the northern Sierra Nevad

The Act launched a pilot project to test a new adaptive management strategy for managing sensitive 

species as well as fire and woody fuels. In addition to implementing a riparian restoration program, the 

emphasis of the pilot project is to test, assess, and demonstrate the effectiveness of fuel-breaks, group 

selection, individual tree selection, and avoidance or protection of specified areas for managing sensitiv

species and wildfire.

Key climate change impacts 

Projected increase of 2.3–5.8°C in annual temperatures by 2100;

• Projected decline in annual snowpack (97% at 1,000 m elevation and 89% for all elevations) by 2100;

• Observed increase in interannual and annual variability of precipitation;

• Observed increase in intensity of periodic multi-year droughts over the past century; 

• Observed increase in large fire events in recent years; 

• Projected increase in length of fire seasons and risk of uncharacteristically severe and widespread 

events; 

• Expected increase in water temperatures in rivers and lakes and decrease in snow, water, and stre

runoff in the warm season;

• Observed increase in severity of higher-elevation insect and disease outbreaks. 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 21 hapter 3_Forests.indd 21 
22

modifying grazing practices to change surfaces from impervious to permeable) could be used to redu

losses from runoff and increase the quantity of stored groundwater for dry periods.

• Erosion and sediment loss following disturbances could be addressed by promptly reforesting affect

areas and salvage-harvesting affected trees (where this activity will not cause further damage), so tha

new forest canopy can be established before shrubs “capture” the site; 

• A focus on reversing post-disturbance mortality and shrub invasion would increase the chances 

successful forest regeneration, leading to restoration of key wildlife habitat and critical watersh

protection functions.

• Fuel treatments could be implemented far beyond the season in which they have historically be

employed, by further supporting and extending the seasonal tour of fire and fuels staff.

• TNF managers and staff have the expertise and are already prepared to seize adaptive opportunit

that would be enabled by a regional biomass and biofuels industry, should a carbon market or regulato

environment develop to support these opportunities. 

• Regular planning cycles afford a chance to build flexibility and responsiveness to climate change in

management policies. 

• “Climate-smart” capacity could be increased, when possible, through staff additions or staff training. 

• Education and outreach activities can be used to increase awareness among policy makers, managers, t

local public, and other stakeholders about the scientific bases for climate change, the implications for t

northern Sierra Nevada and the TNF, and the need for active resource management

Conclusions

In many cases, best management practices (e.g., post-disturbance treatments) may be effective climate 

change adaptation strategies even though they may be intended to achieve other goals (e.g., maintain 

ecosystem health). This creates an opportunity for “win-win” strategies to be implemented, whereby 

benefits would accrue even if the climate did not change.

Barriers to adaptation include public opposition, insufficient funding, limited staff capacity, current large 

scope of on-the-ground needs, disjointed ownership patterns, and existing environmental legislation. 

Some barriers result from the interaction of individual barriers, such as when limited staff capacity and 

insufficient funding result in a continuous reactive approach to priority-setting, rather than a long-term 

planning process. Changing community demographics influence what landowners adjacent to the TNF 

accept in terms of ecosystem management, such as smoke from prescribed fires. 

Opportunities exist for overcoming barriers to adaptation. Current or potential future opportunities 

include the possibility of year-round management for reducing woody fuels, active dialog with the public 

on adaptive management projects, the use of demonstration projects to respond to public concerns, an

the potential of emerging carbon markets to promote the development of regional biomass and biofuel

industries. Examples of promising areas for development include new management strategies that are 

operationally appropriate and practical to address climate change, scientifically supported practices for 

integrated management where resource management goals are integrated rather than partitioned into 

individual plans, prioritization tools for managing a range of species and diverse ecosystems, and dynam

landscape and project planning that incorporates probabilistic measures of habitat quality and availability 

in a temporal and spatial context.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 22 hapter 3_Forests.indd 22 
Air Quality Related Values (AQRV) of Class 

I wilderness areas identified in and mandated 

by the Clean Air Act. Air resources managers 

develop monitoring plans for AQRV, such as pH 

and acid neutralizing capacity in high-elevation 

lakes. The Federal Land Manager must advise 

the air quality permitting agency if a new 

source of pollution, such as from an energy or 

industrial development, will cause an adverse 

impact to any AQRV. 

3.3.4 Sensitivity of Management 

Goals to Climate Change 

All USFS national goals (Box 3.1) are sensitive 

to climate change. In general, the direction and 

magnitude of the effect of climate change on 

each management goal depends on the temporal 

and spatial nature of the climate change features, 

their impact on the ecosystem, and the current 

status and degree of human alteration of the 

ecosystem (i.e., whether the ecosystem has lost 

key components such as late-seral forests; freeflowing streams; or keystone species such as 

beaver, large predators, and native pollinators). 

The sensitivity of the management goals to 

climate change also will depend on how climate 

change interacts with the major stressors in each 

ecoregion and national forest. And finally, the 

sensitivity of the management goals to climate 

change will depend on the assumptions about 

climate that the management activities currently 

make. These assumptions range from the 

relationship between natural regeneration and 

climate to seasonal distributions of rainfall 

and stream flow and management tied to these 

distributions. 

19 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295 Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor 

Vehicle Use; Final Rule, November 9, 2005.

2004; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 

2005; Malcolm et al., 2006), may affect all 

attributes and components of biodiversity 

(sensu Noss, 1990). Numerous effects of 

climate change on biodiversity components 

(e.g., ecosystems, populations, and genes) and 

attributes (i.e., structure, composition, and 

function of these components) have already 

been documented (reviewed in Parmesan, 

2006). Natural disturbances such as fire regimes 

are tightly linked to key climate variables 

(i.e., temperature, precipitation, and wind) 

(Agee, 1996; Pyne, Andrews, and Laven, 1996; 

McKenzie et al., 2004). As a result, changes in 

weather and climate are quickly reflected in 

altered fire frequency and severity (Flannigan, 

Stocks, and Wotton, 2000; Dale et al., 2001). 

Invasive species are currently contributing to a 

homogenization of the earth’s biota (McKinney 

and Lockwood, 1999; Mooney and Hobbs, 

2000; Rahel, 2000; Olden, 2006), increasing 

extinction risks for native species (Wilcove 

and Chen, 1998; Mooney and Cleland, 2001; 

Novacek and Cleland, 2001; Sax and Gaines, 

2003), and harming the economy and human 

health (Pimentel et al., 2000). Species that can 

shift ranges quickly and tolerate a wide range of 

environments, traits common to many invasive 

species, will benefit under a rapidly changing 

climate (Dukes and Mooney, 1999). Thus, this 

goal is sensitive to climate change.

Specific objectives related to this goal include 

reducing the risk to communities and natural 

resources from uncharacteristically severe 

wildfires; reducing adverse impacts from 

invasive non-native and native species, pests, 

and diseases; and restoring and maintaining 

healthy watersheds and diverse habitats. 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 23 hapter 3_Forests.indd 23 
24

loadings and consequently fire behavior. Future 

climate change may offer opportunities to 

conduct prescribed fire outside of traditional 

burn seasons, with increased accessibility 

in some areas in the winter (see Case Study 

Summary 3.1). 

Since the mid-1980s, western forests have 

sustained more large wildfires, of longer 

duration, within a context of longer fire seasons, 

with 60% of the increase occurring at midelevations of the Northern Rocky Mountains 

(Westerling et al., 2006). Land use influences 

do not appear to have altered fire regimes in 

high-elevation forests with long fire return 

intervals (Schoennagel, Veblen, and Romme, 

2004). However, suppression of fires has led to 

the conversion of some lodgepole pine forests to 

fir and spruce. Some of these stand structures 

have changed significantly, which may increase 

their susceptibility to insect infestations (Keane 

et al., 2002). Wildfire risk has increased in 

some ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests 

(Schoennagel, Veblen, and Romme, 2004; 

Westerling et al., 2006), where the exclusion of 

more frequent fires has led to denser stands and 

higher fuel loading. Future climate projections 

for western North America project June to 

August temperature increases of 2–5°C by 

2040 to 2069, and precipitation decreases of 

up to 15% over that time period (Running, 

2006). The potential for increased fire activity 

in high-elevation forests could be exacerbated 

by the increased fuel loads expected to result 

from enhanced winter survival of mountain 

pine beetles and similar pest species (Guarin 

and Taylor, 2005; Millar, Westfall, and Delany, 

forthcoming). Fires that occur in low- and 

mid-elevation forest types have potential for 

increasing fire severity (Keane et al., 2002) 

as future burning conditions become more 

extreme.

Mexico. The analysis of 19 climate mo

and their scenarios used in the Fourth IP

Assessment Report (Seager et al., 2007) s

a consistency in the projections for incre

drought in the Southwest, unlike any see

the instrumental record. In Alaska, war

and longer growing seasons and associ

vegetation shifts under two future clim

scenarios indicated an increase in the 

of forests burned by a factor of two or t

(Bachelet et al., 2005). 

The combination of extended dry per

resulting from fewer, stronger rainfall ev

with warmer temperatures could ren

northeastern forests more susceptible to 

than they have been for the past 100 y

of fire suppression (Scholze et al., 20

Similarly, drought may become an increasi

important stressor in eastern forests, whic

turn may increase the risk of fire in areas 

have experienced low frequency fire regi

during the past century or more (Lafon, H

and Grissino-Mayer, 2005). 

Some climate scenarios project less and ot

more precipitation for the southern United St

(Bachelet et al., 2001). Even under the we

scenarios, however, the South is projecte

experience an increase in temperature-indu

drought and an increase in fires (Lenihan e

forthcoming). On average, biomass consu

by fire is expected to increase by a facto

two or three (Bachelet et al., 2001; Bachel

al., forthcoming). 

Climate Change and Invasive and Native Spe

Management

Invasive species are already a problem 

many areas of the United States (Stein et 

1996; Pimentel et al., 2000; Rahel, 2000; 

Holle and Simberloff, 2005). Climate chan

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 24 hapter 3_Forests.indd 24 
being elucidated (Simberloff, 2000). In some 

cases, however, the likely impacts are better 

understood. For example, future warming may 

accelerate the northern expansion of European 

earthworms, which have already substantially 

altered the structure, composition, and 

competitive relationships in North American 

temperate and boreal forests (Frelich et al., 

2006). In arid and semi-arid regions of the 

United States, increases in annual precipitation 

are expected to favor non-native invasive species 

at the expense of native vegetation on California 

serpentine soils (Hobbs and Mooney, 1991) and 

in Colorado steppe communities (Milchunas 

and Lauenroth, 1995). Understanding the 

potential to prevent and control invasives will 

require research on invasive species’ population 

and community dynamics interacting with a 

changing ecosystem dynamic.

Increasing concentrations of CO2 in the 

atmosphere may also create a competitive 

advantage to some invasive species (Dukes, 

2000; Smith et al., 2000; Ziska, 2003; Weltzin, 

Belote, and Sanders, 2003). These positive 

responses may require a re-evaluation of current 

management practices. Positive responses to 

elevated CO2 have been reported for red brome, 

an introduced non-native annual grass in the 

Southwest (Smith et al., 2000). Increasing 

presence of this exotic grass, along with its 

potential to produce fire fuel, suggest future 

vegetation shifts and increased fire frequency 

(Smith et al., 2000) where vegetation has 

not evolved under frequent fire. The positive 

response to current (from pre-industrial) 

levels of atmospheric CO2 by six invasive 

weeds—Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense (L.) 

Scop.), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis

L.), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.), perennial 

sowthistle (Sonchus L.), spotted knapweed 

(Centaurea stoebe L.), and yellow star-thistle 

expected to exacerbate the current invasive 

species problem in the currently cooler parts 

of the United States (Sasek and Strain, 1990; 

Simberloff, 2000; Weltzin, Belote, and Sanders, 

2003). The northward expansion of the range 

of invasive species currently restricted by 

minimum temperatures (e.g., kudzu and 

Japanese honeysuckle) is a particular concern 

(Sasek and Strain, 1990; Simberloff, 2000; 

Weltzin, Belote, and Sanders, 2003). Invasive 

species with a C4 photosynthetic pathway 

(e.g., itchgrass, Rottboellia cochinchinensis) 

are particularly likely to invade more northerly 

regions as frost hardiness zones shift northward 

(Dukes and Mooney, 1999). Although C3 

species (e.g., lamb’s quarters, Chenopodium 

album) are likely to grow faster under elevated 

CO2 concentrations (Bazzaz, 1990; Drake, 

Gonzalez-Meler, and Long, 1997; Nowak, 

Ellsworth, and Smith, 2004; Ainsworth and 

Long, 2005; Erickson et al., 2007), C4 species 

seem to respond better to warmer temperatures 

(Alberto et al., 1996; Weltzin, Belote, and 

Sanders, 2003), probably because the optimum 

temperature for photosynthesis is higher in C4 

species (Dukes and Mooney, 1999).

Climate change will likely facilitate the 

movement of some native species into the 

habitats of others, and thus create novel species 

assemblages, potentially affecting current 

goods and services. Some of the dispersing 

native species will likely become problematic 

invaders that place many threatened and 

endangered species at greater risk of local 

extinction due to enhanced competition, 

herbivory, predation, and parasitism (Neilson 

et al., 2005a; 2005b). For example, in the Pacific 

Northwest, barred owls (Strix varia), which 

are rapidly migrating generalists from eastern 

forests of the United States, have invaded the 

spotted owl’s range in the Pacific Northwest and 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 25 hapter 3_Forests.indd 25 
26

ecosystem services can be managed within 

each NF. 

Climate Change and Watershed Management

The hydrological regimes of NFs are closely 

linked to climate, as well as to the many other 

variables that climate change may affect. 

Changes in precipitation patterns, including 

declining snowpack, earlier snowmelt, more 

precipitation falling as rain vs. snow (Mote 

et al., 2005), advances in streamflow timing 

(Stewart, Cayan, and Dettinger, 2004; Barnett, 

Adam, and Lettenmaier, 2005; Milly, Dunne, 

and Vecchia, 2005), and the increasing 

frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation 

events (Karl and Knight, 1998; Nearing, 2001; 

Groisman et al., 2005) have affected the 

hydrology, and hence condition of watersheds 

and ecosystems throughout the United States 

(Dettinger et al., 2004; Hayhoe et al., 2004). 

Increases in flooding may occur as a result of 

the increased storm intensity projected by future 

climate models (IPCC, 2007). Changes in the 

distribution, form, and intensity of precipitation 

will make it more challenging to achieve the 

goal of improving watershed conditions.

Water shortages in some areas are projected, 

due to increasing temperatures and changing 

precipitation patterns, as well as to shifting 

demography and increased water demand 

(Arnell, 1999; Whiles and Garvey, 2004). 

National forest ecosystems in more arid parts 

of the country are expected to be particularly 

affected by projected climatic changes (Hayhoe 

et al., 2004; Seager et al., 2007). However, 

even in wetter regions (e.g., the southeastern 

United States), hot temperatures and high 

evapotranspiration rates cause only 50% 

of annual precipitation to be available for 

streamflow (Sun et al., 2005). Thus, future 

scenarios of climate and land-use change 

Cate Cage ad odvesty aagee

Climate change affects biodiversity directl

altering the physical conditions to which m

species are adapted. Although species w

large geographic ranges have a wide rang

physiological tolerance, species that are r

threatened, endangered, narrowly distribu

and endemic, as well as those with lim

dispersal ability, will be particularly at 

under climate change (Pounds et al., 20

because they may not be able to adapt in 

or migrate rapidly enough to keep pace w

changes in temperature (Hansen et al., 2

Wilmking et al., 2004; Neilson et al., 200

Changes in precipitation patterns may dis

animal movements and influence recruitm

and mortality rates (Inouye et al., 2000). 

projected changes in fish habitat associ

with increases in temperature and change

hydrology (Preston, 2006) would cause sh

in the distributions of fish and other aqu

species (Kling et al., 2003). Projected declin

suitable bird habitat of 62–89% would incr

the extinction risk for Hawaiian honeycree

(Benning et al., 2002). Similar projected lo

of suitable habitat in U.S. forests would decr

Neotropical migratory bird species richnes

30–57% (Price and Root, 2005). Interact

among species may also amplify or reverse 

direct impacts of climate change on biodive

(Suttle, Thompsen, and Power, 2007).

Tree species richness is projected to increa

the eastern United States as temperatures wa

but with dramatic changes in forest compos

(Iverson and Prasad, 2001). Projections indi

20 Sun, G., S.G. McNulty, E. Cohen, J.M. Myers, a

Wear, 2005: Modeling the impacts of climate ch

landuse change, and human population dynami

water availability and demands in the Southea

US. Paper number 052219. Proceedings of the 

ASAE Annual Meeting, St. Joseph, MI.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 26 hapter 3_Forests.indd 26 
• Is considered an urban forest because of its proximity to the cities of the greater Seattle area;

• Has numerous stakeholders and land management mandates associated with its natural and cult

resources. 

Management context

The Olympic National Forest (ONF) is a “restoration forest” charged with managing large contiguous 

areas of second-growth forest. Natural resource objectives include managing for native biodiversity and 

promoting the development of late-successional forests; restoring and protecting aquatic ecosystems fr

the impacts of an aging road infrastructure; and managing for individual threatened and endangered spe

as defined by the Endangered Species Act or other policies related to the protection of rare species. M

management focuses on restoring old-growth forests, pristine waterways, and other important habitat

rehabilitating or restoring areas affected by unmaintained logging roads; invasive species control; and m

toring. Because the Northwest Forest Plan dictates that the ONF collaborate with other agencies, it w

be important to reach consensus so that differing agency mandates, requirements, and strategies do no

hinder adaptation to climate change. 

Key climate change impacts

• Observed increase of 1.0°C in annual temperatures since 1920, with most warming in winters and s

1950;

• Observed decrease (30–60%) in spring snowpack, especially at lower elevations since 1950;

• Observed one-to-four-week advance in spring runoff in 2000 versus 1948; 

• Projected increase in temperatures of 1.2–5.5°C by 2090, with greatest increases in summer; 

• Projected decrease in snowpack, shifts in snowmelt and runoff timing, and increases in sum

evapotranspiration; 

• Expected negative consequences of higher temperatures and lower summer flows for resident 

species;

• Expected forest growth decrease at lower elevations and increase at higher elevations;

• Expected increase in floods and area burned by fire; 

• Expected shift in species distribution and abundance. 

Opportunities for adaptation 

• The priorities for the ONF already emphasize management for landscape and biological diversity, 

actions expected to be the most effective in this regard could be further promoted now as an impor

first step toward adaptation to climate change.

• The ONF’s strategic plan leaves enough flexibility so that it can take immediate steps to incorporate 

mate change science into management actions and to enhance resilience to climate change, while at 

same time fostering scientific research to support these actions.

• The early successional forests predominating in the ONF as a result of past timber management o

an opportunity to adapt to climate change with carefully considered management actions, because th

early successional stages are most easily influenced.

• The ONF’s experience collaborating with other agencies and organizations could be leveraged to dev

innovative climate change adaptations that benefit multiple stakeholders; continued cooperation with 

isting and new partners in adapting to climate change will improve the likelihood of success by increa

the overall land base and resources.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 27 hapter 3_Forests.indd 27 
28

that spruce-fir forests in New England could 

be extirpated and maple-beech-birch forests 

greatly reduced in area, whereas oak-hickory 

and oak-pine forest types would increase in 

area (Bachelet et al., 2001; Iverson and Prasad, 

2001). Projected changes in temperature and 

precipitation suggest that southern ecosystems 

may shift dramatically. Depiction of the northern 

shift of the jet stream and the consequent 

drying of the Southeast (Fu et al., 2006) varies 

among future climate scenarios, with some 

showing significant drying while others show 

increased precipitation (Bachelet et al., 2001). 

However, even under many of the somewhat 

wetter future scenarios, closed-canopy forests 

the Southeast may revert, or in some areas, be 

converted to savanna, woodland, or grassland 

under temperature-induced drought stress 

and a significant increase in fire disturbance 

(Bachelet et al., 2001; Scholze et al., 2006). 

Ecosystems at high latitudes and elevations 

(including many coniferous forests), as well as 

savannas, ecosystems with Mediterranean (e.g.,

California) climates, and other water-limited 

ecosystems, are expected to be particularly 

vulnerable to climate change (Thomas et al., 

2004; Millennium Ecosystem Assessm

2005; Malcolm et al., 2006). Temperat

induced droughts in these ecosystems 

expected to contribute to forest dieba

(Bugmann, Zierl, and Schumacher, 20

Millar, Westfall, and Delany, forthcomi

Alpine ecosystems are also projecte

decrease in area as temperatures incre

(Bachelet et al., 2001). Specifically, as treel

move upward in elevation, many species c

be locally extirpated as they get “pushed” 

the top of the mountains (Bachelet et al., 20

Also, given the strong species-area relation

that has been shown for the “island” habitat

the tops of western mountains, species dive

could be significantly reduced as these hab

become smaller or even disappear (McDo

and Brown, 1992).

Simulations of future vegetation distribu

in the Interior West show a significant incr

in woody vegetation as a result of enhan

water-use efficiency from elevated C

moderate increases in precipitation, an

strengthening of the Arizona Monsoon (Nei

et al., 2005a), with the greatest expansio

woody vegetation projected in the north

y pppppgg

impacts and adaptations for managers, and incorporating climate change explicitly into forest policies 

and planning at multiple scales are some of the ways these barriers can be overcome. In addition, the 

availability of regional climate and forest-climate research—and especially a proactive managementscience partnership—set the stage for increases in adaptive capacity.

In the absence of more specific scientific guidance on how to adapt to climate change, and without new 

funding and additional staff, the ONF will likely manage for climate change by continuing to manage for 

biodiversity, which is a reasonable approach assuming that prioritizing landscape and biological diversity will confer adequate resilience to climate change over the long term. An adaptation strategy with 

more specific guidance could include a vision of what is needed; removal of as many barriers as possible; 

increased collaboration among agencies, managers, and scientists at multiple scales; and implementation 

of proven management actions (e.g., early detection/rapid response).

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 28 hapter 3_Forests.indd 28 
the expansion of native species ranges into 

biogeographic areas in which they previously 

could not survive (Simberloff, 2000; Dale 

et al., 2001). This prediction is supported by 

the observed northward shift in the ranges of 

several species, both native and introduced, due 

to the reduction of cold temperature restrictions 

(Parmesan, 2006). In general, climate change 

would facilitate the movement of some species 

into the habitats of others, which would create 

novel species assemblages, especially during 

post-disturbance succession. An entire flora of 

frost-sensitive species from the Southwest may 

invade ecosystems from which they have been 

hitherto restricted, and in the process displace 

many extant native species over the course of 

decades to centuries (Neilson et al., 2005b) as 

winter temperatures warm (Kim et al., 2002; 

Coquard et al., 2004) and hard frosts occur less 

frequently in the interior West (Meehl, Tebaldi, 

and Nychka, 2004; Tebaldi et al., 2006). 

Similar migrations of frost-sensitive flora and 

fauna occurred during the middle-Holocene 

thermal maximum, which was comparable to 

the minimum projected temperature increases 

for the 21st century (Neilson and Wullstein, 

1983). 

Similarly increases in warm temperate/

subtropical mixed forest are projected in 

the coastal mountains of both Oregon and 

Washington, with an increase in broadleaved 

species such as various oak species, tanoak, and 

madrone under many scenarios (Bachelet et al., 

2001; Lenihan et al., forthcoming). However, 

slow migratory rates of southerly (California) 

species would likely limit their presence in 

Oregon through the 21st century (Neilson et 

al., 2005b). 

These potential shifts in species may or may 

not enhance the biodiversity of the areas into 

with achieving desired conditions on NFS 

lands and helps support local communities, 

meets energy resource needs, and promotes 

market-based conservation and stewardship of 

ecosystem services.

Co-benefits of joint carbon sequestration 

and biofuel production, along with other 

potential synergies, are certainly possible 

via forest management (Birdsey, Alig, and 

Adams, 2000; Richards, Sampson, and Brown, 

2006), and would enable contribution to both 

the country’s energy needs and its carbon 

sequestration and greenhouse gas mitigation 

goals. Forest management practices designed 

to achieve goals of removing and storing CO2

are diverse, and the forestry sector has the 

potential for large contributions on the global 

to regional scales (Malhi, Meir, and Brown, 

2002; Krankina and Harmon, 2006). Along 

with preventing deforestation, key activities 

include afforestation, reforestation, forest 

management, and post-harvest wood-product 

development (Harmon and Marks, 2002; 

Von Hagen and Burnett, 2006). Reducing 

deforestation (Walker and Kasting, 1992) and 

promoting afforestation provide important 

terrestrial sequestration opportunities (Nilsson 

and Schopfhauser, 1995),21 as do many forest 

plantation and forest ecosystem management 

practices (e.g., Briceno-Elizondo et al., 2006). 

Many suggested approaches duplicate long21 See also Kadyszewski, J., S. Brown, N. Martin, and 

A. Dushku, 2005: Opportunities for terrestrial carbon sequestration in the west. Winrock International. 

Presented at the Second Annual Climate Change 

Research Conference, From Climate to Economics and Back: Mitigation and Adaptation Options 

for California and the Western United States, 15, 

September 2005. Accessed at http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/events/2005_conference/presentations/2005-09-15/2005-09-15_KADYSZEWSKI.

PDF.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 29 hapter 3_Forests.indd 29 
30

rangeland productivity (Joyce and Nungesser, 

2000; Aber et al., 2001; Hanson et al., 2005; 

Norby, Joyce, and Wullschleger, 2005; Scholze et 

al., 2006). This alteration in forest productivity, 

in turn, will influence biomass available 

for wood products or for energy (Richards, 

Sampson, and Brown, 2006), whether as a direct 

energy source or for conversion to a biofuel. The 

interactions of climate change (e.g., warming 

temperatures, droughts) and other stressors—

including altered fire regimes, insects, invasive 

species, and severe storms—may affect the 

productivity of forests and rangelands. This 

alteration in forest productivity in turn would 

affect the volume of material that could be 

harvested for wood products or for energy, 

or the rate at which a forest would sequester 

carbon on site. The interactions of climate 

change with other stressors such as insects 

(Volney and Fleming, 2000; Logan, Regniere, 

and Powell, 2003), disease (Pounds et al., 

2006), and fire (Flannigan, Stocks, and Wotton, 

2000; Whitlock, Shafer, and Marlon, 2003) 

will challenge the management of ecosystem 

services and biodiversity conservation in NF 

ecosystems. Indeed, Flannigan, Stocks, and 

Wotton (2000) noted that “the change in fire 

regime has the potential to overshadow the 

direct effects of climate change on species 

distribution and migration.” Thus, this goal is 

sensitive to a changing climate.

Climate Change and Ecosystem Services

The distinctive structure and composition 

of individual NFs are key characteristics 

on which forest and rangeland products and 

ecosystem services depend, and that national 

forest managers seek to sustain using current 

management approaches. For example, efforts 

to achieve a particular desired forest structure, 

composition, and function have been based on 

an understanding of ecosystem dynamics as 

to alter NF ecosystems, it will be importan

focus as much on maintaining and enhan

ecosystem processes as on achieving a partic

composition. For these reasons, it wil

increasingly important for the USFS to cons

evaluating current management practices, t

underlying climatic and ecological assumpti

and to consider managing ecosystems for cha

(discussed further in Sections 3.4–3.5).

Although forests are projected to be m

productive under elevated CO2 (Joyce 

Birdsey, 2000; Hanson et al., 2005; No

Joyce, and Wullschleger, 2005), producti

increases are expected to peak by 20

Declines thereafter are likely to be associ

with temperature increases, change

precipitation, ozone effects, and other clim

change stressors (Scholze et al., 2006; Sitc

al., 2007). Productivity increases may be o

especially where water and/or nutrients 

limiting and increases in summer tempera

further increase water stress (Angert et 

2005; Boisvenue and Running, 2006), 

where ozone exposure reduces the capacit

forests to increase their productivity in resp

to elevated CO2 (Karnosky, Zak, and Pregi

2003; Hanson et al., 2005; Karnosky et al., 2

King et al., 2005). In cooler regions where w

will not be a limiting resource, and where o

stressors do not offset potential producti

increases, opportunities may increase for 

production of biofuels and biomass ene

The feasibility of taking advantage of th

opportunities may hinge on whether econo

political, and logistical barriers can be overc

(Richards, Sampson, and Brown, 2006). I

projected, climate change enhances wo

expansion and productivity for the near ter

the intermountain West (Bachelet et al., 20

then forests and woodlands in that region c

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 30 hapter 3_Forests.indd 30 
y , py 

if the natural enemies (e.g., parasitoids) of 

insects are less tolerant of the climate changes 

than are their hosts or prey (Hance et al., 2007). 

In addition, previously confined southern 

insects and pathogens may move northward 

as temperatures warm (see Box 3.5) (Ungerer, 

Ayres, and Lombardero, 1999; Volney and 

Fleming, 2000; Logan, Regniere, and Powell, 

2003; Parmesan, 2006), especially in the 

absence of predatory controls. While the 

expectation is for increased wildfire activity 

associated with increased fuel loads (e.g.,

Fleming, Candau, and McAlpine, 2002), in 

some ecosystems (e.g., subalpine forests in 

Colorado), insect outbreaks may decrease 

susceptibility to severe fires (e.g., Kulakowski, 

Veblen, and Bebi, 2003).

Species, whether or not they are indigenous 

to the United States, may act invasively and 

increase the stress on ecosystems and on 

other native species. The rapid advance of the 

mountain pine beetle beyond its historic range 

(Logan and Powell, 2005) is a case in which 

a native species, indigenous to the American 

West, has begun to spread across large areas 

like an invasive species (as reflected by faster 

dispersal rates and greater range extension) 

because longer and warmer growing seasons 

allow it to more rapidly complete its lifecycle, 

and because warmer winters allow winter 

survival (Logan and Powell, 2001; Carroll 

et al., 2004; Millar, Westfall, and Delany, 

forthcoming). 

22 National Arbor Day Foundation, 2006: Differences between 1990 USDA hardiness zones and 

2006 arborday.org hardiness zones reflect warmer 

climate. Available at http://www.arborday.org/treeinfo/zonelookup.cfm.

fragmentation and urbanization facilitate the 

spread of invasive species, and are key drivers 

contributing to biotic homogenization in the 

United States in general (Olden, 2006) Under 

a changing climate, landscape fragmentation 

may exacerbate or cause unexpected changes 

in species and ecosystems (Iverson and Prasad, 

2001; Price and Root, 2005). Thus this goal will 

be sensitive to a changing climate. 

Climate Change and Open Space

The loss of open space and land-use changes 

that are already problematic may be worsened 

under climate change, due to shifts in species’ 

behaviors and changed habitat requirements. 

The loss of open space is of particular concern 

because it may impede species’ migration 

and exacerbate edge effects (e.g., windthrow, 

drought, and non-native invasive species) during 

extreme climatic events, and possibly result in 

increased population extirpation (Ewers and 

Didham, 2006). Fragmentation may result in 

the loss of larger management unit sizes, broad 

habitat corridors, and continuity of habitat. In 

this regard, enhancing coordination among the 

multiple agencies that manage adjacent lands 

to ensure habitat continuity will be essential 

(Malcolm et al., 2006). Land-use change and 

invasive species are expected to exacerbate 

the effects of climate change, and hence make 

the goal of maintaining environmental benefits 

on forests and grasslands more challenging to 

achieve. 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 31 hapter 3_Forests.indd 31 
32

a combination of factors, including large areas with even-age, monospecific stands (a result of fire suppression and other management practices), drought, and climate change (Colorado State Forest Service 

cited in Paulson, 2007).

Despite the historic scale of the recent MPB outbreak in Colorado’s lodgepole pine forests, periodic 

outbreaks, albeit on a smaller spatial scale, are considered normative (Logan and Powell, 2001). Lodgepole pine and MPB are co-evolved, and lodgepole pine is the MPB’s most important host (Logan and 

Powell, 2001). Lodgepole pine has serotinous cones and is maintained by stand replacing fires that are 

facilitated by MPB-induced mortality. Dead needles from outbreaks are an important fuel, standing dead 

trees serve as fire ladders, and falling limbs and stems provide high fuel loads for high-intensity crown 

fires. Without such fires, more shade-tolerant species would eventually replace lodgepole pine in much 

of its range (Logan and Powell, 2001). 

Other western pines, especially those growing at higher elevations such as whitebark pine, are not 

similarly co-evolved with MPB. Until recently, high elevation and high latitude habitats typically have 

been too harsh for MPB to complete its life cycle in one season. Because the ability to complete its life 

cycle in one season is central to the MPB’s success (Amman, 1973),26 MPB activity has historically been 

restricted to lower elevation pines, which are separated from high-elevation (3,000 m or 10,000 ft in 

Colorado) pines by non-host species. 

Climate change will not only spur further MPB outbreaks, but will also likely facilitate the invasion of 

species currently restricted to more benign environments into whitebark pine and other high-elevation 

pine stands in the wake of MPB infestations (Logan and Powell, 2001). The fact that all aspects of the 

MPB’s seasonality are controlled by seasonal temperature patterns (Logan and Bentz, 1999) supports 

this forecast. It is further supported by the finding that both the timing and synchrony of the beetle’s life 

cycle are responsive to climate change (Logan and Powell, 2001). Specifically, Logan and Powell (2001) 

Warmer winters have spurred extensive mountain pine 

beetle damage in the U.S. and Canadian Rockies. Left from 

Fox (2007); photo below is reprinted with permission from 

Colorado State University Extension, fact 

sheet no. 5.528, Mountain Pine Beetle, by 

D.A. Leatherman. and I. Aguayo.25

23 Western Forestry Leadership Coalition, 2007: Western bark beetle assessment: a framework for cooperative forest steward

Western Forestry Leadership Coalition Website, http://www.wflccenter.org/news_pdf/222_pdf.pdf, accessed on 7-31-2007. 24 The Bugwood Network, 2007: Mountain Pine Beetle - Dendroctonus ponderosae (Hopkins). Bark and Boring Beetles of the W

Website, http://www.barkbeetles.org/mountain/mpb.html, accessed on 7-30-2007. 25 Leatherman, D.A. and I. Aguayo, 2007: Mountain Pine Beetle. Colorado State University Extension Website, http://www.ext.colo

edu/pubs/insect/05528.html, accessed on 7-31-0007. 26 See also Safranyik, L., 1978: Effects of climate and weather on mountain pine beetle populations. In: Proceedings, Symposium: Th

and Practice of Mountain Pine Beetle Management in Lodgepole Pine Forests [Berryman, A.A., G.D. Amman, and R.W. Stark (e

University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, pp. 77-84.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 32 hapter 3_Forests.indd 32 
3.3.4.4 Goal 4: Sustain and Enhance 

Outdoor Recreation Opportunities

The outcome identified for this goal is highquality outdoor recreational opportunities on 

the Nation’s forests and grassland available 

to the public. Specific objectives include 

improving the quality and availability of 

outdoor recreation experiences, securing legal 

entry to NF lands and water, and improving 

the management of off-highway vehicle use. 

National forests across the United States are 

managed for a variety of outdoor recreational 

opportunities, capitalizing on the natural 

resources and ecosystem services available 

within each NF (Cordell et al., 1999). The 

demands on NFs for recreation have diversified 

with population growth (local, regional, and 

national), preferences for different types 

of recreation, and technological influences 

on recreation (off-road motorized vehicles, 

mountain biking, snowboarding). Along with 

camping, hunting, and fishing, recreational 

activities now include skiing (downhill, crosscountry), snowboarding, mountain biking, 

hiking, kayaking, rafting, and bird watching.

Climate Change and Recreation Management

Because individual recreational opportunities 

are often a function of climate (cold-water 

fisheries or winter snow), climate change may 

affect both the opportunity to recreate and 

the quality of recreation (Irland et al., 2001), 

curtailing some recreational opportunities and 

expanding others. 

Winter outdoor recreation—such as alpine 

and Nordic skiing, snowmobiling, skating, ice 

fishing, and other opportunities—may decrease 

able habitats. Further range expansion is likely with additional warming (Carroll et al., 2004). Logan 

and Powell (2001) predict a 7° northward shift in the range of MPB with a doubling of CO2 and an 

associated temperature increase of 2.5°C. Such a shift would allow MPB to occupy previously unoccupied lodgepole pine habitat, and allow an invasion into jack pine ecosystems in both the United 

States and Canada, which have not been previously attacked by MPB (see map at right). The continuous habitat provided by lodgepole pine will 

facilitate this range shift. Although cold snaps and 

depletion of hosts caused previous large-scale 

MPB outbreaks to collapse, the current outbreak 

may not collapse because there is no shortage 

of host trees, and temperatures are expected to 

continue warming (Carroll et al., 2004).

Geographic ranges of lodgepole 

pine (pink), mountain pine beetle 

(hatched), and jack pine (green). 

Source Logan and Powell (2001).

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 33 hapter 3_Forests.indd 33 
34

Global Change Research Program, 2001), with 

limited opportunities for management to sustain 

these opportunities. 

Altered streamf low patterns and warmer 

stream temperatures, observed trends that 

are projected to continue with future climate 

change (Regier and Meisner, 1990; Eaton and 

Scheller, 1996; Rahel, Keleher, and Anderson, 

1996; Stewart, Cayan, and Dettinger, 2004; 

Barnett, Adam, and Lettenmaier, 2005; Milly, 

Dunne, and Vecchia, 2005), may change fishing 

opportunities from salmonids and other coldwater species to species that are less sensitive to 

warm temperatures (Keleher and Rahel, 1996; 

Melack et al., 1997; Ebersole, Liss, and Frissell, 

2001; Mohseni, Stefan, and Eaton, 2003) and 

altered streamflow (Marchetti and Moyle, 

2001). One estimate indicates that cold-water 

fish habitat may decrease by 30% nationally 

and by 50% in the Rocky Mountains by 2100 

(Preston, 2006). More precise estimates of the 

climate change impacts on fish populations 

will depend on the ability of modelers to 

consider other factors (e.g., land use change, 

fire, invasive species, and disease) in addition 

to temperature and streamflow regimes (Clark 

et al., 2001). The projected reductions in volume 

of free-flowing streams during summer months, 

due to advances in the timing of flow in these 

streams (Stewart, Cayan, and Dettinger, 2004; 

Barnett, Adam, and Lettenmaier, 2005; Milly, 

Dunne, and Vecchia, 2005), may also restrict 

canoeing, rafting, and kayaking opportunities 

(Irland et al., 2001). 

Climate change may also increase recreational 

opportunities, depending on the preferences of 

users, the specific climatic changes that occur, 

and the differential responses of individual 

species to those changes. Fewer cold days, 

for example, may encourage more hiking, 

py g 

after disturbances. Recreational opportun

may be curtailed if forest managers decide 

public safety or resource conservation reas

to reduce access during and in the wak

major disturbances such as fire, droug

insect outbreaks, blowdowns, and floods

of which are projected to increase in freque

and severity during the coming decades (IP

2007). Unlike smoke from prescribed fi

which is subject to NAAQS (National Amb

Air Quality Standards),27 wildfire smok

considered a temporary “natural” sourc

EPA and the departments of environme

quality in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, 

is therefore not directly regulated. Within 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, prescr

fire smoke is managed to minimize sm

encroachment on sensitive areas (communi

Class 1 wilderness areas, high use recrea

areas, scenic vistas) during sensitive period

After wildfire, the quality of the recreati

experience has been shown to be affecte

the need to travel through a historical 

area (Englin et al., 1996) and by the 

severity of fire (Vaux, Gardner, and Thom

1984). Groups experiencing different type

recreation (hiking versus mountain bik

react differently to wildfire, and reactions v

across geographic areas (Hesseln et al., 20

Changes in vegetation and other ecosys

components (e.g., freshwater availability 

quality) caused by droughts, insect and dis

outbreaks (Rouault et al., 2006), fires, 

storms may alter the aesthetics, sense of pl

27 Story, M., J. Shea, T. Svalberg, M. Hektner, G. I

soll, and D. Potter, 2005: Greater Yellowstone 

Air Quality Assessment Update. Greater Yellow

Clean Air Partnership. Available at http://w

nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/GYA_AirQ

ity_Nov_2005.pdf.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 34 hapter 3_Forests.indd 34 
to increase the development, survival, rates 

of disease transmission, and susceptibility of 

both human and non-human hosts (Harvell 

et al., 2002; Stenseth et al., 2006). Landuse change leading to conversion of forests 

adjacent to NFs may compound the effect of 

climate change on disease, because increases 

in disease vectors have been associated with 

loss of forests (Sutherst, 2004). Conversely, 

where climate change contributes to a decline 

in the impacts of pathogens—or in cases where 

species have demonstrated an ability to adapt to 

changes in disease prevalence (e.g., Woodworth 

et al., 2005)—the goal may become easier to 

achieve because visitors may have a positive 

experience.

3.3.4.5 Goal 5: Maintain Basic 

Management Capabilities of the Forest 

Service

The outcome identified for this goal is 

administrative facilities, information systems, 

and landownership management with the 

capacity to support a wide range of natural 

resources challenges. The means and strategies 

identified for accomplishing this goal include 

(and are not limited to) recruiting and training 

personnel to develop and maintain strong 

technical and leadership skills in Forest 

Service program areas to meet current and 

future challenges. Resource management 

is challenging in today’s environment, and 

climate change will heighten that challenge. 

Maintaining technical skills associated with 

resource management will require the most 

current information on climate change and 

its potential impacts to ecosystems within the 

NFS, as well as its impacts on the ecological 

and socioeconomic systems surrounding the 

NFs. The depth of this technical understanding 

will influence policy development across 

The capacity of the USFS to address climate 

change may require the staff within NFs to have 

a technical understanding of climate change 

impacts on ecological systems, to be able to 

share technical information and experiences 

(successes as well as failures) about managing 

under climate change efficiently and effectively, 

to be able to apply new knowledge to the 

development of management approaches, and to 

be able to develop and use planning tools with 

climate information. Current understanding 

about the relationships among climate and 

disturbances, ecosystem services, and forest 

and grassland products may no longer be 

appropriate under a changing climate. The 

climate sensitivity of best management practices, 

genetic diversity guidelines, restoration 

treatments, and regeneration guidelines may 

need to be revisited. Many forest managers are 

awaiting information from quantitative models 

about future climates and environments to guide 

climate-related planning, but adequate training 

and user-friendly interfaces will be needed 

before these can be implemented. Limited staff 

capacities within NFs, combined with the scope 

of current on-the-ground management needs, 

could slow the attainment of this goal. 

3.3.4.6 Goal 6: Engage Urban America 

with Forest Service Programs

The outcome identified for this goal is 

broader access by Americans to the longterm environmental, social, economic, and 

other types of benefits provided by the USFS. 

The climate change impacts associated with 

ecosystem services from NFs would suggest 

that this goal will be sensitive to climate 

change.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 35 hapter 3_Forests.indd 35 
36

and agency guidelines” (USDA Forest Service, 

2007a). Incorporating the best scientific 

knowledge will require information on climate 

change and the potential impacts of climate 

change, necessitating a strong tie to and need for 

ongoing research on climate change and natural 

resource management. 

Means and strategies identified for this goal 

include continuing urban forest inventory and 

analysis, to monitor the health and benefits of 

ecological and social services of urban forests 

and more effectively manage these complex 

landscapes; developing and disseminating 

strategies and options such as “green 

infrastructure,” to effectively manage resources 

to maintain environmental quality and services 

in urban and urbanizing landscapes; helping 

communities increase professional urban 

forestry staffing, ordinances, management 

plans, and local advisory and advocacy groups 

for managing forest resources in cities, suburbs, 

and towns; developing and disseminating 

tools to ensure that urban trees and forests 

are strategically planned and managed to 

maximize ecosystem services and benefits; 

engaging partners and educators in conservation 

education and interpretive programs; developing 

methods to measure environmental literacy and 

techniques to engage urban residents in the 

management of urban forests; improving access 

by urban Americans to USFS resources and 

information; and developing partnerships with 

nontraditional partners to engage urban and 

underserved audiences. 

The rapid and continuing growth of the WUI 

in both the eastern and western states is 

dramatically altering the strategic and tactical 

approaches to fire and forest management. 

Urban and urbanizing communities may 

The outcome identified for this goal is 

management decisions are informed by 

best available science-based knowledge 

tools. Means and strategies include develo

and making available cost-effective meth

for transferring scientific informat

technologies, methods, and applicatio

providing information and science-based t

that are used by managers and policymak

developing and implementing effec

processes for engaging users in all ph

of R&D study development; developing 

deploying analysis and decision-supp

systems; developing tools for evaluating 

efficiency and effectiveness of alterna

management practices; and ensuring 

current resource information is availabl

address the strategic, tactical, and operati

business requirements of the USFS.

Under a changing climate, the need will a

for quantitative tools to address comp

issues facing each forest and region, suc

linkages between ecosystems; water resour

disturbances, including drought, fire, infesta

and disease; regional migration patte

including invasions of both native and ex

species; and local to regional carbon sto

and carbon management, such as for biofu

This goal will be sensitive to the impacts 

changing climate on ecosystems and the n

of resource managers. 

Climate Change and Science-based Applicatio

and Tools

As with any natural resource managem

issue, resource managers need access to cur

scientific information, qualitative/quantita

tools to use in decision support analy

at forest and project planning levels, 

management strategies to guide on-the-gro

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 36 hapter 3_Forests.indd 36 
• Is in the process of incorporating climate change considerations into a revised forest plan.

Management context 

The Uwharrie National Forest (UNF) consists of 61 separate fragments that provide key ecosystem 

services—recreation, fresh water, wildlife habitat, and wood products—to millions of people because o

the UNF’s close proximity to several major cities. This combination of fragmentation and high demand 

goods and services already poses unique forest management challenges, which are expected to become 

more difficult as the regional population increases over the next 40 years. For example, climate change 

is expected to significantly affect regional water reserves, including Badin Lake, one of the largest wate

bodies in the region. Much of the area had been converted from drought and fire-resistant tree species 

faster growing but less resistant tree species over the past 60 years. Conversion back to original vegeta

tion is now under consideration in response to climate change. 

Key climate change impacts

• Projected increase in wildfire risk and concerns about sustaining forest productivity;

• Projected increase in water shortages as biological and anthropogenic demand increases and supply 

creases;

• Expected increase in soil erosion and stream sedimentation due to projected increase in frequenc

intense storms; 

• Projected increase in insect outbreaks due to longer growing season and drier forest conditions.

Opportunities for adaptation 

• Re-establishment of more fire- and drought-tolerant longleaf pine through selective forest managem

and replanting could provide increased resistance to potential future drought and unusually severe wil

events. 

• Restoration of historical sites of longleaf pine savannas on the UNF through logging or controlled bur

would result in reduced forest water use, water stress, wildfire fuel loads, and wildfire risk as the re

continues to warm;

• Opportunities to relocate trails farther from streams, and thus increase the size of stream buffer zo

could minimize soil erosion and stream sedimentation under conditions of increasing storm intensity

• Opportunities to engage in a dialogue with surrounding landowners on wildfire management might 

courage clearing and removal of fuels around buildings and dwellings, and thus minimize risks to prop

and lives from the expected increase in wildfires within the landscape mosaic containing the UNF 

these landowners.

Conclusions

Even without climate change, management of the UNF is a complex task. Continued increases in popul

tion and fragmentation of the landscape will only be compounded by climatic change and variability. Wh

an extensive and well-maintained road network across the forest provides excellent access for wildfire 

suppression, and the patchy nature of the forest also helps to isolate fires, ecosystem services on the U

are influenced by activities on the surrounding highly fragmented landscape. The forest’s proximity to p

ulation centers increases the UNF’s visibility and raises the public’s awareness of the need for managem

action to mitigate negative impacts. The UNF could serve as a valuable example for other land manage

on how forests can be managed to reduce climate change impacts through the modification of establish

forest management strategies and tools. 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 37 hapter 3_Forests.indd 37 
38

management is beginning to occur in some of 

the natural resource management communities 

such as water resource planning. However, few 

analytical tools are available to incorporate 

uncertainty analyses into resource planning. 

3.4 ADAPTING TO CLIMATE 

CHANGE 

3.4.1 The Need for Anticipatory 

Adaptation

Climate is constantly changing at a variety of 

time scales, prompting natural and managed 

ecosystems to adjust to these changes. As a 

natural process, without human intervention, 

adaptation typically refers to the autonomous 

and reactive changes that species and ecosystems 

make in response to environmental change such 

as a climate forcing (Kareiva, Kingsolver, and 

Huey, 1993; Smit et al., 2000; Davis and Shaw, 

2001; Schneider and Root, 2002). Organisms 

respond to environmental change (including 

climate change) in one of three ways: adaptation, 

migration, or extinction. Adaptation typically 

refers to genetic changes, but also includes in 

situ acclimation (physiological adaptation to 

the changing environment while remaining in 

place) as well as phenological (e.g., breeding, 

flowering, migration) and behavioral changes. 

This natural adaptation in the ecosystem is 

important to understand, so that the influence of 

management on these natural processes can be 

assessed. Space for evolutionary development 

under climate change may be important to 

incorporate into conservation and restoration 

programs under a changing climate (Rice and 

Emery, 2003). 

We focus on adaptation as interventions and 

adjustments made by humans in ecological, 

social, or economic systems in response to 

reducing greenhouse gas emissions f

energy use and land use changes in o

to minimize the pace and extent of clim

change (Klein et al., 2007). Because adap

strategies undertaken will have associ

effects on carbon dynamics, it is impor

to consider carbon impacts of any propo

adaptive strategy. Forest management pract

designed to achieve mitigation goals of redu

greenhouse gases (CO2 in particular) 

diverse, and have large potential mitiga

contributions on the global to regional sc

(Malhi, Meir, and Brown, 2002; Krankina 

Harmon, 2006). Options for minimizing re

of carbon to the atmosphere include sto

carbon in wood products (Wilson, 2006

using biomass as bioenergy, both electr

and alcohol-based. While many posi

opportunities for carbon sequestration u

forests appear to exist, evaluating spec

choices is hampered by considerable diffic

in quantifying net carbon balance from fo

projects (Cathcart and Delaney, 2006)

particular unintentional emissions suc

wildfire and extensive forest mortality f

insects and disease (Westerling et al., 2

Westerling and Bryant, 2005; Westerlin

al., 2006; Lenihan et al., 2006). Adapta

and mitigation can have positive and nega

influences on each other’s effectiveness (K

et al., 2007). Management practices that lo

vulnerabilities to uncharacteristically se

wildfire and non-fire mortality could m

multiple goals of mitigation and adapta

if such practices also ref lected goals 

other ecosystem services. Both strategie

adaptation and mitigation—are neede

minimize the potential negative impacts, 

to take advantage of any possible posi

impacts from climate variability and cha

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 38 hapter 3_Forests.indd 38 
ability to cope with and/or recover from the 

impact (see review of the literature by Adger, 

2006). Key vulnerabilities can be assessed 

by exploring the magnitude of the potential 

impacts, the timing (now or later) of impacts, the 

persistence and reversibility (or irreversibility) 

of impacts, the likelihood of impacts and 

confidence of those estimates, the potential for 

adaptation, the distributional aspect of impacts 

and vulnerabilities (disadvantaged sectors or 

communities), and the importance of the system 

at risk (Schneider et al., 2007). Of particular 

importance here is a system’s adaptive capacity: 

the ability of a system or region to adapt to the 

effects of climate variability and change. How 

feasible and/or effective this adaptation will 

be depends on a range of characteristics of 

the ecological system, such as topography and 

micro-refugia, soil characteristics, biodiversity; 

pre-existing stresses, such as the presence of 

invasive species or loss of foundation species or 

fragmentation of the landscape; the status of the 

local ecosystem, e.g., early to late successional 

and its intrinsic “inertia” or responsiveness; 

and on characteristics of the social system 

interacting with, or dependent on, the ecosystem 

(Blaikie et al., 1994; Wilbanks and Kates, 1999; 

Kasperson and Kasperson, 2001; Walker et al., 

2002; Adger, 2003). 

As Smit and Wandel (2006) state in their 

recent review, “Local adaptive capacity is 

reflective of broader conditions (Yohe and Tol, 

2002; Smit and Pilifosova, 2003). At the local 

level, the ability to undertake adaptations can 

be influenced by such factors as managerial 

ability; access to financial, technological, 

and information resources; infrastructure; 

the institutional environment within which 

adaptations occur; political influence, etc. 

(Blaikie, Brookfield, and Allen, 1987; Watts 

and Bohle, 1993; Adger, 1999; Handmer, 

conditions, stakeholder support).

While the literature varies in the use of these 

and related concepts such as resilience and 

sustainability, adaptation in the context of NF 

management would be viewed as successful 

if stated management goals (see Section 3.3) 

were continued to be achieved under a changing 

climate regime while maintaining the ecological 

integrity of the nation’s forests at various scales. 

For example, Section 3.3 identified the close 

relationship between ecosystem services and 

management goals, and their sensitivity to 

climate change. While these stated management 

goals are periodically updated or modified, 

this re-examination entails a risk of setting 

goals lower (e.g., lower quality, quantity, or 

production) as environmental and climatic 

conditions deteriorate. For the purposes of this 

report it is assumed that the larger tenets of the 

cumulative laws directing NF management 

remain intact: “the greatest good of the greatest 

number in the long run...without impairment 

of the productivity of the land...[and] secure 

for the American people of present and future 

generations.”

Below, we distinguish different adjustments 

of NF management approaches by reference 

to timing and intention. By “timing” we 

mean when the managing agency thinks 

about a management intervention: after a 

climate-driven, management-relevant event, 

or in advance of such an event. By “intention” 

we mean whether the managing agency 

acknowledges that a change is likely, anticipates 

possible impacts, and begins planning for a 

response prior to it occurring—for example, 

developing a monitoring or early warning 

system to detect changes as they occur (see 

Fig. 3.12). We distinguish three different 

adaptation scenarios: no active adaptation; 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 39 hapter 3_Forests.indd 39 
40

3.4.1.1 No Active Adaptation 

An approach of “no active adaptation” could 

describe two decision-making pathways. The 

event- or crisis-driven approach reacts to a 

climate or related environmental stimulus, 

without foresight and planning. No active 

adaptation could also result from the approach 

where consideration of the potential effects of 

climate change and management investment 

result in a conscious decision not to manage 

for climate change. The first approach would 

be without anticipatory planning, whereas the 

second, appearing as no active adaptation, 

would involve consideration of vulnerabilities 

and impacts. These reactions could be at any 

level of policy- or decision-making—national, 

regional, forest planning level, or project 

level.

The extent and severity of an extreme weather 

or climate event vis-à-vis the ecosystem’s 

ability to naturally adjust to or recover from 

it, as well as the management agency’s ability 

to quickly marshal the necessary response 

resources (money, staff, equipment, etc.) 

when the event occurs, will determine the 

ultimate impacts on the ecosystem and the 

cost to the managing agency. Depending on 

the extent of the impacts on the ecosystem and 

on the managing agency, future attainment of 

There is a strong temptation to not plan ah

because it avoids the costs and staff time nee

to prepare for an event that is uncertain to oc

The risk to the agency of initiating expen

and politically challenging managem

strategies is large in the absence of a str

scientific consensus on vulnerabilities 

climate change effects. However, not plan

ahead also can mean incurring greater c

and may bring with it great risk later on—

that results from inefficiencies in the respo

when it is needed, wasted investments mad

ignorance of future conditions, or potent

even greater damages because precaution

actions were not taken. 

The reactive approach would also refle

management philosophy that does not cons

the likelihood of climate-driven changes 

impacts. Most past forest planning docum

typically described a multi-decadal fu

without climate variability or change. W

the development of the National Fire P

is an example of planning for increasin

challenging wildfires in a cost-efficient man

the influence of climate change on wild

is not considered. Addressing climate cha

in wildland fire management could inc

setting up pathways for information-sha

and coordination of climate change adapta

strategies of wildland fire agencies; conside

climate change and variability when develo

long-range wildland fire management plans 

strategies; and incorporating the likelihoo

more severe fire weather, lengthened wild

seasons, and larger-sized fires when plan

and allocating budgets.28 Most managem

28 National Association of State Foresters, 2

NASF Resolution No. 2007-1. Issue of Concern

role that climate change plays in the severity and 

of wildland fires is not explicitly recognized i

“National Fire Plan” and the Implementation 

for its 120-year Strategy. htt://www.statefores

org/resolution/2007-01.pdf.

Human

Systems

Public Private

gp

• Changes in insurance premiums

• Purchase of air-conditioning

• Compensatory payments, 

subsidies

• Enforcement of building codes

• Beach nourishment

• Construction of house on stilts

• Redesign of oil-rigs

• Early-warning systems

• New building codes, design 

standards

• Incentives for relocation

Figure 3.12. Anticipatory and reactive adaptation for natural and human 

systems (IPCC, 2001b).

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 40 hapter 3_Forests.indd 40 
an increasingly warmer future climate and 

the associated vegetation dynamics. Many 

quantitative tools currently used do not include 

climate or weather in their dynamics. Growth 

and yield models, unmodified by growth and 

density control functions (Dixon, 2003), project 

forest growth without climate information. 

The past climate may not be an adequate guide 

to future climate (Williams, Jackson, and 

Kutzbach, 2007), and our understanding of the 

ecological assumptions underlying restoration 

management practices may also need to be 

revisited (Harris et al., 2006). 

An approach of no active adaptation could also 

result from consideration of the potential for 

climate change, and a conscious decision to 

not prepare for or adapt to it. Examples could 

include low-sensitivity ecosystems, short-term 

projects, or a decision to triage. For lowsensitivity ecosystems, vulnerability is low or 

the likely impacts of climate change are very 

low probability, or the effects of climate change 

are not undesired. Existing projects nearing 

completion, such as high-value short-rotation 

timber that is about to be harvested, could be 

considered not critical to prepare for climate 

change, assuming that the harvest will occur 

before any major threat of climate change or 

indirect effects of climate change emerge. The 

risk is deemed low enough to continue with 

current management. And finally, the decision 

to not manage for a particular species would 

reflect a strategy of no active adaptation. 

Most prioritizing methods rank all options 

with varying priorities. In contrast, proper 

and systematic triage planning includes the 

necessary option of not treating something that 

could/should be treated if more resources (time, 

money, staff, technology) were available. Issues 

needing treatment are relegated untreatable in 

conditions change in ways that no one could 

have anticipated. Or, even if a “no action” plan 

is taken for the short run—say in anticipation 

of an impending harvest—the post-harvest 

plan may also inadvertently not take rapidly 

changing climate conditions into account for the 

“regeneration” of the next ecosystem.

3.4.1.2 Planned Management Responses 

to Changing Climate Regimes, Including 

Disturbances and Extreme Events 

This approach to adaptation assumes that 

adjustments to historical management 

approaches are needed eventually, and are 

best made during or after a major climatic 

event. In this case, the managing agency 

would identify climate-change-cognizant 

management approaches that are to be 

implemented at the time of a disturbance, as 

it occurs, such as a historically unprecedented 

fire, insect infestation, or extreme windfall 

event, hurricanes, droughts and other extreme 

climatic events. A choice is made to not act 

now to prepare for climate change, but rather to 

react once the problem is evident. The rationale, 

again, could be that the climate change impacts 

are too uncertain to enact or even identify 

appropriate anticipatory management activities, 

or even that the best time for action from a 

scientific as well as organizational efficiency 

standpoint may be post-disturbance (e.g., from 

the standpoint of managing successional 

processes within ecosystems and across the 

landscape).

For example, forest managers may see large 

disturbances (fire, flooding, insects, hurricanes) 

as opportunities to react to climate change. Those 

disturbances could be windows of opportunity 

for implementing adaptive practices, such 

as adjusting the size of management units 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 41 hapter 3_Forests.indd 41 
42

drier and warmer locations will be more resistant 

to such changing conditions. In practice, this 

typically means using trees from provenances 

that are farther south or at lower elevation than 

what is currently indicated for a particular 

geographic location (Ying and Yanchuk, 2006). 

Because local climate trends and variability will 

always be uncertain, managers can hedge their 

bets by managing for a variety of species and 

genotypes with a range of tolerances to low soil 

moisture and higher temperatures. In general, 

genetic diversity provides resilience to a variety 

of environmental stressors (Moritz, 2002; Reed 

and Frankham, 2003; Reusch et al., 2005). 

Furthermore, disturbed landscapes could be 

used as experiments in an adaptive management 

context that provide data for evaluating and 

improving approaches to adapt ecosystems to a 

warmer climate. An example may be to reforest 

an area after a fire or windfall event with a type 

of tree species that is better adjusted to the new 

or unfolding regional climate. This may be 

difficult to achieve, because the climate that 

exists during the early years of tree growth will 

be different from those that will persist during 

the later stages of tree growth.

Significant cost efficiencies, relative to the 

unplanned approach, may be achieved in 

this approach, as management responses are 

anticipated—at least generically—well in 

advance of an event, yet are implemented 

only when “windows of opportunity” open. 

Future constraints to implementing such 

changes will need to be anticipated and planned 

for, and, if possible removed in advance for 

timely adaptation to be able to occur when the 

opportunity arises. For example, managers 

could ensure that the genetic nursery stock 

is available for wider areas, or they could 

re-examine regulations restricting practices 

The management approach that is most forw

looking is one that uses current informa

about future climate, future environme

conditions, and the future societal contex

NF management to begin making change

policy and on-the-ground management 

and when future windows of opportunity o

Opportunities for such policy and managem

changes would include any planning or pro

analysis process in which a description of 

changing ecosystem/disturbance regim

climate changes would be used to identi

proactive management strategy. 

Relevant information for forest mana

may include projections of regional or e

local climates, including changes in ave

temperature, precipitation, change

patterns of climatic extremes and disturba

patterns (e.g., fire, drought, flooding), sh

in seasonally important dates (e.g., grow

degree-days, length of fire season), expe

future distribution of key plant species, 

changes in hydrological patterns. The ab

of climate science to provide such informa

at higher spatial and temporal resolution 

been improving steadily over recent years, 

is likely to improve further in coming y

(IPCC, 2007). Current model predictions h

large uncertainties, which must be considere

making management adaptation decisions 

Sections 3.4.2.1 and 3.4.2.2 for other treatm

of uncertainty). Other relevant informa

may be species-specific, such as the clim

conditions favored by certain plant or ani

species over others, or the ways in wh

changed climatic conditions and the resu

habitats may become more or less favor

to particular species (e.g., for threatene

endangered species). The overall goal

planned anticipatory management would b

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 42 hapter 3_Forests.indd 42 
and insect concerns are at least partially 

mitigated by widely spaced trees, because 

trees have less competition and higher vigor. 

Low canopy bulk densities in thinned stands, 

with concurrent treatments to abate surface 

fuels, can substantially mitigate wildfire 

risk (Peterson et al., 2005). However, not all 

forest landscapes and stands are amenable to 

thinning, nor is it ecologically appropriate in 

some upper-elevation forest types. In these 

situations, shelterwood cutting that mitigates 

extreme temperatures at the soil surface can 

facilitate continued cover by forest tree species 

while mitigating risks of uncharacteristically 

severe fire, insects, and disease (Graham 

et al., 1999). Again, it will be important to 

assess the tradeoffs between these silvicultural 

benefits and potential for genetic erosion 

resulting from the shelterwood treatment 

(Ledig and Kitzmiller, 1992). This approach is 

economically feasible in locations where wood 

removed through thinnings and shelterwood 

cuttings can be marketed as small-dimensional 

wood products or biomass (Kelkar et al., 2006). 

To identify and provide the most relevant 

information to support such an anticipatory 

approach to adaptation, it is critical that 

scientists and managers work together to form 

a growing mutual understanding of information 

needs and research capabilities in the context 

of ongoing, trusted relationships (Slovic, 1993; 

Earle and Cvetkovich, 1995; Cash, 2001; Cash 

et al., 2003; Cash and Borck, 2006; Vogel et 

al., forthcoming).29 Further examples of such 

information needs are described in the next 

section and in the case studies (see Case Study 

Summaries and Annex A1).

29 See also Tribbia, J. and S.C. Moser, in press: More 

than information: what California coastal managers 

need to prepare for climate change. Environmental 

Science & Policy.

using forest sector economic models that 

assume “perfect foresight” have shown that 

when a diverse set of management options 

are available to managers under conditions of 

extensive mortality events from climate change, 

the economic impacts on the wood product 

sector, even with large-scale mortality events, 

are less costly than otherwise (Sohngen and 

Mendelsohn, 1998; Joyce, 2007). 

This approach may not be able to maintain 

ecosystems that currently exist (as those are 

better adapted to current climate regimes), 

but it may be best suited to support natural 

adaptive processes—such as planning corridor 

development to facilitate species migration to 

more appropriate climates, or managing for 

protection of viable habitats for threatened 

and endangered species to enhance or extend 

opportunities for adaptation (see Section 

3.4.3.3). Under such a management approach, 

the specific management targets—such as 

outputs of particular rangeland and forest 

products, or maintenance of a particular species 

habitat—may themselves be adjusted over 

time, as the opportunities for those ecosystem 

services diminish under a changing climate 

and new opportunities for other services 

may have a greater chance of being met. The 

inability to maintain ecosystems that currently 

exist may suggest activities such as longterm seed bank storage with future options 

for re-establishing populations in new and 

more appropriate locations. Assessing the 

potential for this type of change will draw on 

ecological, economic, and social information. 

Importantly, such an approach would need to 

involve managers at various levels to monitor 

changes in the ecosystem (i.e., observed on 

the ground); coordinate and make appropriate 

changes in policies, regulations, plans, and 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 43 hapter 3_Forests.indd 43 
44

incorporate local knowledge into firefighting 

and rehabilitation efforts (Graham, 2003). 

This coordination was also important to 

establish a recovery base that continues once 

emergency personnel and resources have left 

the community. These partnerships should be 

developed as early as possible during the fire, 

and perhaps might best be developed before any 

fire in order to systematize actions, increase 

efficiency, and decrease potential contentions 

between locals and federal agencies by building 

trust (Graham, 2003). Lessons learned in 

integrating fire management across local to 

state to federal agencies may help in similar 

considerations of cross-scale integration of 

resource managers to address current and 

future resource management under a changing 

climate. 

3.4.2 Approaches for Planning in 

the Context of Climate Change

3.4.2.1 Use of Models and Forecasting 

Information

Many forest managers are awaiting information 

from quantitative models about future climates 

and environments to guide climate-related 

planning. Increasingly sophisticated models 

are being developed at regional and finer spatial 

scales. In general, while model information 

will be important for planning, the best use of 

this information at local and regional scales 

currently is to help organize thinking, attain 

insight into the nature of potential processes, 

and understand qualitatively the range of 

magnitudes and likely direction and trends of 

possible future changes. Focusing on results 

that are similar across diverse models may 

indicate results of greater likelihood.

more difficult than climate to model accura

at local scales, because threshold and non-li

responses, lags and reversals, individual

behaviors, and stochastic (involving probabi

events are common (Webb, III, 1986; Da

1989). Models typically rely on directi

shifts following equilibrium dynamic

entire plant communities (or, physiogno

community types), whereas especiall

heterogeneous and mountainous regi

patchy environments increase the likelihoo

complex, individualistic responses. 

At the global scale, this uncertainty is d

with through simultaneous analysis of mul

scenarios (IPCC, 2007), which yields a w

range of potential future climate conditi

Similarly, approaches at finer spatial sc

could be developed to use scenario anal

(Peterson, Cumming, and Carpenter, 2

Bennett et al., 2003) (alternative future clim

scenarios can be used to drive ecosystem 

other natural resource models), thus exami

the possible range of future conditio

Scenario analysis can help to identify pote

management options that could be usefu

minimize negative impacts and enhance 

likelihood of positive impacts, within the ra

of uncertainty.

Uncertainty does not imply a complete 

of understanding of the future or a basis 

a no action decision. Managing in the 

of uncertainty will best involve a suit

approaches, including planning analy

that incorporate modeling with uncertai

and short-term and long-term strategies 

focus on enhancing ecosystem resistance 

resilience, as well as actions taken that 

ecosystems and resources move in synchr

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 44 hapter 3_Forests.indd 44 
rangelands, and to identify the rural and urban 

forestry opportunities to mitigate the buildup 

of atmospheric CO2. Since 1990, the RPA 

Assessments (e.g., USDA Forest Service, 1993; 

USDA Forest Service, 2000; USDA Forest 

Service, forthcoming) have included an analysis 

of the vulnerability of U.S. forests to climate 

change, and the impact of climate change on 

ecosystem productivity, timber supply and 

demand, and carbon storage (Joyce, Fosberg, 

and Comandor, 1990; Joyce, 1995; Joyce and 

Birdsey, 2000; Haynes et al., 2007). These 

analyses have identified several important 

aspects of the analysis of climate change impacts 

on the forest sector. Transient analyses, where 

annual dynamics are followed throughout the 

projection period, allow interactions between 

ecosystem responses to climate change and 

market responses to identify adaptation options 

to the changing climate. The forest sector trade 

at the global scale can influence the forest sector 

responses (price as well as products) within 

countries. National level analyses aggregate 

impacts across regions, and it remains important 

to identify the regional response, which may be 

greater, because that is where management 

decisions will be made (Joyce, 2007). Most 

critically, all of these analyses have stressed the 

importance of evaluating the ecological and the 

economic response in an integrated fashion

Adaptation strategies may vary based on 

the spatial and temporal scales of decision 

making. Planning at regional or national scales 

may involve acceptance of different levels of 

uncertainty and risk than appropriate at local 

(e.g., NF or watershed) scales. National analyses 

associated with RPA offer the opportunity 

to develop potential approaches to link 

assessments at the national, regional, multiforest, and NF scales. Such an approach could 

stakeholders from local to national levels 

would be critical. Such a linked assessment 

could guide NFs and their partners in terms 

of a process to assess the impacts of climate 

change on natural resources and ecosystem 

services within their boundaries, across their 

boundaries, and at larger spatial scales such as 

regional and national. 

Forest Planning and Project Analyses

The following planning steps have been 

suggested as appropriate in a climate-change 

context when beginning a project (Spittlehouse 

and Stewart, 2003; see examples therein): 

1. Define the issue (management situation, 

goals, and environmental and institutional 

contexts);

2. Evaluate vulnerabilities under changing 

conditions;

3. Identify suitable adaptive actions that can 

be taken at present or in the short term; 

and

4. Develop suitable adaptive actions that 

could be taken in the longer term.

In a survey of the forest plans available online 

in December 2006, 15 plans from a total of 

121 individual forests had included references 

to climate change (terms “climate change,” 

“climate variability,” or “global warming”) 

in the sections of the plan describing trends 

affecting management or performance 

risks, or, in earlier plans, as a concern in the 

environmental impact statement; both of these 

types of references are similar to Step 2 above 

(evaluating vulnerabilities). 

Given the challenges of the uncertainty in 

climate scenarios at fine spatial scale (Section 

3.4.2.1), a set of assumptions to be considered 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 45 hapter 3_Forests.indd 45 
46

change is uncertain. The assumptions to be 

examined (listed in Box 3.6) explore underlying 

premises about climate and climate change in 

the management processes. 

One information-gathering option to help define 

the underlying assumptions and vulnerabilities 

to climate change might be to consider 

convening a science-based (e.g., USFS research 

team) rapid assessment or “audit” of existing 

forest planning documents (e.g., the Forest Land 

Management Plan, or larger plans such as the 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan amendment or the 

Northwest Forest Plan, and project plans). The 

purpose of the audit would be to determine the 

level of climate adaptedness, pitfalls, and areas 

for improvement in current forest plans and 

operations. Such an audit could focus on current 

management direction (written policy); current 

management practices (implementation); and 

priorities of species (e.g., specific targeted 

species) and processes (fire, insects/disease). 

The audit would highlight concrete areas of 

the plans and projects that are poorly adapted 

to potential changes in climate, as well as 

those that are already climate-proactive. Audit 

recommendations would identify specific 

areas where changes are needed, and where 

improvements in forest planning or project-level 

planning and management could be made.

Information and tools needed to assist 

adaptation form the basis for a long-term, 

management-science partnership continually 

refining scientific information for resource 

management decisions. A wide suite of modeling 

approaches that project climate change impacts 

on ecosystems are available (for example, 

Melillo et al., 1993; Joyce and Birdsey, 2000; 

30 West, 2005: Letter and Attachments. File Code 

4070, letter dated July 26, 2005. Pacific Northwest 

Station.

on the assumption of equilibrium relations

between vegetation and climate, a concept 

is no longer considered a valid descriptio

ecosystem dynamics and biogeography

addition, the recent literature on non-an

future climates and 30 years of literatur

paleoecology demonstrate that species resp

individualistically and uniquely in time 

space, and models must take into acco

competition and ecological disturbance, not 

gradual temperature change. Understand

the strengths and weaknesses of the avail

models and where these models can contri

to planning and analysis needs, as well as 

development of pathways to add climat

existing planning and analysis tools used 

NFs, are critical research needs. 

In the short-term, natural resource mana

could benefit from a manager’s guide w

current state-of-the art scientific conc

and techniques. Critical gaps in scient

understanding of the impacts of climate cha

and of management on ecosystem servi

hinder adaptation by limiting assessmen

risks, efficacy, and sustainability of acti

Assistance and consultation on interpre

climate and ecosystem model output wo

provide the context and relevance of m

predictions to be reconciled with manag

priorities for adaptation. 

3.4.3 Approaches for Managem

in the Context of Climate Chan

3.4.3.1 Toolbox of Management 

Approaches 

A primary premise for adaptive approac

is that change, novelty, uncertainty, 

uniqueness of individual situations are expe

to define the planning backdrop of the fut

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 46 hapter 3_Forests.indd 46 
gy, y pgy pjy 

uncertainty about local effects of climate change could be achieved through enhancing the resiliency 

of forests by considering that:

• Diverse plantings will likely be more adaptable to changing conditions than will single species 

stands.

• Prescribed fire and thinning could be used to keep tree densities low to improve resistance to 

drought and pest infestations.

• Nitrogen-fixing species, intermixed in a stand, may facilitate regrowth after disturbance in a rapidly 

changing environment, although they may compete for water on droughty sites.

• Encouraging local industries that can adapt to or cope with variable kinds of forest products because 

of the uncertainty in which tree species will prosper under changed climate. 

• Some vegetation types in vulnerable environments (e.g., ecotonal, narrow distribution, reliant on 

specific climate combinations, situations sensitive to insect/pathogens) will be highly sensitive to 

changes in climate and may undergo type conversions despite attempts at maintaining them (meadow 

to forest, treeline shifts, wetland loss). Some of these changes are likely to be inevitable.

• Reforestation after wildfire may require different species (i.e., diverse plantings, as mentioned above) 

than were present on the site pre-fire to better match site-type changes due to climate effects. 

• Genetic diversity of planting stock may require different mixes than traditionally prescribed by seed 

zone guidelines.

• Massive forest diebacks may be clues to site transition issues.

• Behavior of invasive species is likely to be different as climates shift.

• Increasing interannual climate variability (e.g., dry periods followed by wet, as in alternating ENSO 

patterns) may set up increasingly severe fuels situations.

• Non-linear, non-equilibrium, abrupt changes in vegetation types and wildlife behavior may be more 

likely than linear, equilibrium, and gradual changes.

• Water supply and water quality issues might become critical, particularly if increased or prolonged 

drought or water quality changes are the local consequences of climate change.

• Carbon storage to reduce greenhouse gas and other effects might be important. 

Adaptive Management: Effects due to climate change (e.g., wildfire severity/acreage trends, vegetation trends, insect and disease trends) may become more apparent as new information becomes 

available to NFs through regional or sub-regional inventories, data collection, and research. This 

information may be useful for adjusting desired conditions and guidelines as plans are implemented. 

Information of interest might include: 

• The frequency, severity, and area trends of wildfire and insect/disease disturbances, stratified by 

environment 

• The distribution of major forest types. For example, the lower and upper elevational limits of forests 

and woodlands might change as precipitation, temperature, and other factors change. These trends 

might be detected through a combination of permanent plots (e.g., Forest Inventory and Analysis 

plots) and remotely sensed vegetation data (e.g., gradient nearest neighbor analyses).

• Stream flow and other indicators of the forests’ ability to produce water of particular quality and 

quantity.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 47 hapter 3_Forests.indd 47 
48

experience and iteratively incorporating lessons 

into future plans—adaptive management in 

its broadest sense—is an appropriate lens 

through which natural-resource management 

is conducted (Holling, 2001; Noss, 2001; 

Spittlehouse and Stewart, 2003). Dynamism 

in natural conditions is appropriately matched 

by dynamic approaches to management and 

adaptive mindsets.

Given the nature of climate and environmental 

variability, the inevitability of novelty and 

surprise, and the range of management 

objectives and situations, a central dictum is 

that no single approach will fit all situations

(Spittlehouse and Stewart, 2003; Hobbs et al., 

2006). From a toolbox of options such as those 

proposed below, appropriate elements (and 

modifications) should be selected and combined 

to fit the situation. Some applications will 

involve existing management approaches used 

in new locations, seasons, or contexts. Other 

options may involve experimenting with new 

practices. 

A toolbox approach recognizes that strategies 

may vary based on the spatial and temporal 

scales of decision making. Planning at regional 

scales may involve acceptance of different 

levels of uncertainty and risk than appropriate at 

local (e.g., NF or watershed) scales. The options 

summarized below fall under adaptation, 

mitigation, and conservation practices (Dale et 

al., 2001; IPCC, 2001a). Based on the toolbox 

approach, an overall adaptive strategy will 

usually involve integrating practices that 

have different individual goals. An important 

consideration in building an integrative 

strategy is to first evaluate the various types of 

uncertainty: for example, uncertainty in present 

environmental and ecological conditions, 

including the sensitivity of resources; uncertainty 

presented in Box 3.7 and are elaborated u

further in the sections that follow. Example

institutional and planning adaptations, give

Box 3.8, are also elaborated upon further in 

sections that follow.

3.4.3.2 Reducing Existing Stresses

The USFS implements a variety of managem

approaches to reduce the impact of exis

stressors on NFs (see Section 3.3.3), and 

increased emphasis on these efforts repres

an important “no regrets” strategy. It is li

that the direct impacts of climate chang

ecosystems and the effects of interaction

climate change with other major stressors 

render NFs increasingly prone to more frequ

extensive, and severe disturbances, espec

drought (Breshears et al., 2005; Seager et 

2007), insect and disease outbreaks (Lo

and Powell, 2001; Carroll et al., 2004), inva

species, and wildfire (Logan and Pow

2001; Brown, Hall, and Westerling, 20

McKenzie et al., 2004; Logan and Pow

2005; Skinner, Shabbar, and Flanningan, 20

(see also Section 3.3.2). The elevated w

stress resulting from warmer temperat

in combination with greater variabilit

precipitation patterns and altered hydrol

(e.g., from less snowpack and earlier snowm

Mote et al., 2005) would increase the freque

and severity of both droughts and flo

(IPCC, 2001a). Air pollution can negati

affect the health and productivity of NFs, 

the fragmented landscape in which many 

are situated impedes important ecosys

processes, including migration. Effort

address the existing stressors would add

current management needs, and potenti

reduce the future interactions of these stres

with climate change. 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 48 hapter 3_Forests.indd 48 
• Modify genetic diversity guidelines to increase the range of species, maintain high effective 

population sizes, and favor genotypes known for broad tolerance ranges.

• Where ecosystems will very likely become more water limited, manage for drought- and 

heat-tolerant species and populations, and where climate trends are less certain, manage 

for a variety of species and genotypes with a range of tolerances to low soil moisture 

and higher temperatures.

• Spread risks by increasing ecosystem redundancy and buffers in both natural environments and plantations.

• Use the paleological record and historical ecological studies to revise and update restoration goals so that selected species will be tolerant of anticipated climate.

• Where appropriate after large-scale disturbances, reset succession and manage for asynchrony at the landscape scale by promoting diverse age classes and species mixes, a variety 

of successional stages, and spatially complex and heterogeneous vegetation structure.

• Use the paleological record and historical ecological studies to identify environments 

buffered against climate change, which would be good candidates for long-term conservation.

• Establish or strengthen long-term seed banks to create the option of re-establishing 

extirpated populations in new/more appropriate locations.

BOX 3.8. Examples of institutional and planning adaptations to improve the 

readiness of the USFS to cope with climate change.

• Rapidly assess existing USFS forest plans to determine the level of preparedness to climate change, examine underlying assumptions about climate, suggest improvements, and 

forge a long-term management-science partnership to continually refine information for 

resource management decisions.

• Anticipate and plan for more extreme events (e.g., incorporate likelihood of more severe 

fire weather and lengthened wildfire seasons in long-range fire management plans) that 

may lead to surprises and threshold responses and remove (if possible) future constraints 

to timely adaptive responses.

• Use climate and ecological models to organize thinking and understand potential changes 

in ecosystem processes, as well as the likely direction and magnitude of future climate 

trends and impacts, to explore adaptation options for climate change.

• Adjust management goals based on updated baseline conditions for species and ecosystems 

that have been significantly/cumulatively disturbed and are far outside of the historical 

range of variation.

• Use the federally mandated Resource Planning Assessment process to link assessments at 

the national, regional, and NF scales, and to provide guidance on assessing climate change 

impacts, uncertainty, vulnerability, and adaptation options.

• Coordinate with other agencies, as well as the private sector and other stakeholders, to 

reduce pollution and other landscape-scale anthropogenic stressors.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 49 hapter 3_Forests.indd 49 
50

al., 2007a; 2007b). Preparedness is an important 

element in reducing the potential impacts of 

drought on individuals, communities, and the 

environment. The development or refinement 

of drought plans that incorporate preparedness, 

mitigation, and response efforts would address 

the current stresses of drought, as well as 

begin to address potential adaptations to likely 

future droughts. Increased coordination among 

local, state, and federal government agencies 

on drought planning and drought-related 

policies (fire closures, recreation uses, and 

grazing management) would help in this 

regard. Coordination with the Bureau of 

Land Management, whose lands intermingle 

extensively with NF land, would be particularly 

beneficial. Enhancing the effectiveness of 

observation networks and current drought 

monitoring efforts would provide information 

on which to make management decisions, 

particularly in response to the impacts of drought 

on aquatic ecosystems, wildlife, threatened and 

endangered species, and forest health. Increased 

collaboration among scientists and managers 

would enhance the effectiveness of prediction, 

information delivery, and applied research, and 

would help develop public understanding of and 

preparedness for drought. 

Invasive species are currently a problem 

throughout NFs, and disturbances such as fire, 

insects, hurricanes, ice storms, and floods 

create opportunities for invasive species to 

become established on areas ranging from 

multiple stands to landscapes. In turn, invasive 

plants alter the nature of fire regimes (Williams 

and Baruch, 2000; Lippincott, 2000; Pimentel 

et al., 2000; Ziska, Reeves, and Blank, 2005)12

as well as hydrological patterns (Pimentel et 

al., 2000), in some cases increasing runoff, 

erosion, and sediment loads (e.g., Lacey, 

for invasives, this EDRR approach may 

be appropriate for other types of disturban

because it could allow managers to resp

quickly to the impacts of extreme ev

(disturbances, floods, windstorms, in

outbreaks), with an eye toward adaptation

The USFS allocates considerable resou

toward wildfire management (see Section 3.

The projected increase in frequency, seve

and extent of fire under climate change is 

likely to affect watershed condition, soil qua

erosional processes, and water quantity 

quality in NFs (Wagle and Kitchen, Jr., 1

Neary et al., 1999; Spencer, Gabel, and Ha

2003; Certini, 2005; Guarin and Taylor, 2

Neff, Harden, and Gleixner, 2005; Neary, R

and DeBano, 2005; Murphy et al., 2006; De

and Sala, 2006; Hauer, Stanford, and Lor

2007). 

The National Fire Plan describes a wide var

of approaches to manage wildfire, the m

prominent of which is hazardous fuels reduc

Fuel abatement approaches include prescr

fire, wildland fire use (see Section 3.3.3), 

various mechanical methods such as crush

tractor and hand piling, tree removal (to prod

commercial or pre-commercial produ

and pruning. Incorporation of additio

climate information into fire management 

planning may enhance current efforts to add

wildfires.31

Air pollution from a variety of sources decre

forest productivity, diminishes waters

31 National Association of State Foresters, 2

NASF Resolution No. 2007-1.Issue of Concern

role that climate change plays in the severity and 

of wildland fires is not explicitly recognized i

“National Fire Plan” and the Implementation 

for its 120-year Strategy. http://www.statefore

org/resolution/2007-01.pdf.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 50 hapter 3_Forests.indd 50 
Efforts to reduce fragmentation and land use 

change near NFs by creating habitat corridors, 

increasing the size of management units, and 

identifying high-value conservation lands 

outside of NFs that could be managed in a 

coordinated way with the USFS will yield 

ecological benefits regardless of climate 

change. Large, connected landscapes will be 

even more critical as native species attempt to 

migrate or otherwise adapt to climate change. 

As is the case with air pollution, reducing 

these stressors with this approach will require 

increased coordination across federal, state, 

and local agencies as well as with private 

landowners.

One of the legacies of past management in NFs 

(see Section 3.3.2.1) is the presence of large 

landscapes consisting of even-aged stands, 

which are vulnerable to large-scale change 

by fire, insects, disease, and extreme weather 

events and their interactions. Management 

that emphasizes diverse, uneven age stands 

will benefit many NF ecosystems regardless 

of climate change. This approach would also 

likely enhance ecosystem resilience to climate 

change.

3.4.3.3 Adaptation Options

Forestalling Ecosystem Change

Create Resistance to Change

Notwithstanding the importance of dynamic 

approaches to change and uncertainty, one set 

of adaptive options is to manage ecosystems and 

resources so that they are better able to resist the 

influence of climate change (Parker et al., 2000; 

Suffling and Scott, 2002). From rare species 

with limited available habitat to high-value 

forest plantation investments near rotation, 

maintaining the status quo for a limited period 

is an important adaptation approach, building 

on current understanding and management 

practices. Healthy forest stands recover more 

quickly from insect disturbances than do stressed 

stands, and conservation of biodiversity would 

aid in successful species migrations (Lemmen 

and Warren, 2004). Maintaining key processes, 

such as hydrological processes and natural 

disturbances, would be important. Management 

for resistance might require ensuring reasonable 

use of water from forests, and appropriate road 

closures to minimize invasive species transport 

(Christen and Matlack, 2006). 

Fragmentation and land-use changes that 

are already problematic may be worsened 

under climate change due to shifts in species 

behaviors and changed habitat requirements. 

Anticipating these impacts for high-risk, highvalue, and sensitive resources may require 

adopting landscape management practices that 

enable species movements. Creating larger 

management unit sizes, broad habitat corridors, 

and continuity of habitat would increase 

resistance of animal species to climate change 

by improving their ability to migrate. In this 

regard, enhancing coordination among the 

multiple agencies that manage adjacent lands 

to ensure habitat continuity will be essential 

(Malcolm et al., 2006).

In the arid West, aggressive prophylactic 

actions may be needed to increase resistance of 

ecosystems from risks of climate-exacerbated 

disturbances such as drought, insect outbreak, 

and uncharacteristically severe wildfire. 

Resistance practices include thinning and 

fuels abatement treatments at the landscape 

scale to reduce crown fire potential and risk 

of insect epidemic, maintaining existing 

fuelbreaks, strategically placed area treatments 

that will reduce fuel continuity and drought 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 51 hapter 3_Forests.indd 51 
52

involve intensive treatments, such as those used 

in high-value agricultural situations: resistance 

breeding, novel pheromone applications (such 

as sprayable micro-encapsulated methods), 

complex pesticide treatments, and aggressive 

fuelbreaks. Abrupt invasions, changes in 

behavior and population dynamics, and longdistance movements of native and non-native 

species may occur in response to changing 

climates. Monitoring non-native species, 

and taking aggressive early and proactive 

actions at key migration points to remove 

and block invasions, are important steps to 

increase resistance. However, monitoring 

species range distributions may indicate that 

native species, considered non-native to a 

particular area, may be migrating. Evaluating 

the original objectives and the changing local 

assemblages of species may be necessary before 

taking aggressive action. Conditions could be 

cumulatively adjusting to a changing climate, 

and maintenance of the status quo may not be 

feasible. 

Efforts to increase resistance may be called 

for in other high-value situations. Building 

resistance to exacerbated effects of air pollution 

from climate change may require that aggressive 

thinning and age-control silvicultural methods 

are applied at broad landscape scales, that mixed 

species plantations be developed, that broader 

genetic parameters be used in plantations, or 

that plantations are switched to resistant species 

entirely (Papadopol, 2000). 

Resisting climate change inf luences on 

natural forests and vegetation over time 

will almost always require increasingly 

aggressive treatments, accelerating efforts and 

investments over time, and a recognition that 

eventually these efforts may fail as conditions 

cumulatively change. Critical understanding 

Maintaining prior species may requ

significant extra and repeated efforts to su

needed nutrients and water, remove compe

understory, fertilize young plantations, dev

a cover species, thin, and prune. More seriou

forest conditions that have been treate

resist climate-related changes may c

thresholds and convert (i.e., be lost) thro

extreme events such as wildfire, ice sto

tornado, insect epidemic, or drought, resul

in significant resource damage and loss. 

this reason, in some situations, resista

options may best be applied in the short t

and for projects with short planning horiz

and high value, such as short-rotation biom

or biofuels plantings. Alternative approa

that work with processes of change, rather 

against the direction of climate-related cha

may enable inevitable changes to happen m

gradually over time, and with less likelih

of cumulative, rapid, and catastrophic imp

For example, widely spaced thinning 

shelterwood cuttings that create many niche

planted or naturally established seedlings 

facilitate adaptation to change on some site

selecting these alternative approaches, a hol

analysis may be required to identify the b

point beyond which intervention to nat

selection and adaptation to climate chan

may not be possible or cannot be manage

reasonable cost.

Promote Resilience to Climate Change

Resilient ecosystems are those that not o

accommodate gradual changes relate

climate, but resile (return to a prior condi

of that ecosystem) after disturbance. Promo

resilience is the most commonly sugge

adaptive option discussed in a climate-cha

context (e.g., Dale et al., 2001; Spittlehouse 

Stewart, 2003; Price and Neville, 2003), 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 52 hapter 3_Forests.indd 52 
species, commodities, or low 

fire vulnerability—and these 

choices may or may not result in 

a decision to resile the system to 

a former state. An understanding 

of the ecological consequences of 

the changing climate is a critical component of 

identifying adaptation strategies.

An example of promoting resilience in forest 

ecosystems is a strategy that combines practices 

to reduce fire or insect and disease outbreaks 

(resistance) with deliberate and immediate plans 

to encourage return of the site, post-disturbance, 

to species reflective of its prior condition 

(resilience). Given that the plant establishment 

phases tend to be most sensitive to climateinduced changes in site potential, intensive 

management dedicated to the revegetation 

period through the early years of establishment 

may enable retention of the site by desired 

species, even if the site is no longer optimal for 

those species (Spittlehouse and Stewart, 2003). 

Practices could include widely spaced thinnings 

or shelterwood cuttings to promote resilience 

with living stands, and rapid treatment of forests 

killed by fire or insects. In forests killed by 

fire or other disturbance, resilience could be 

promoted by maintaining some degree of shade 

as appropriate for the forest type; intensive site 

preparation to remove competing vegetation; 

replanting with high-quality, genetically 

appropriate, and diverse stock; diligent standimprovement practices; and minimizing 

invasion of non-native species (Dale et al., 2001; 

Spittlehouse and Stewart, 2003). Many of these 

intensive forestry practices may have undesired 

effects on other elements of ecosystem health, 

and thus have often come under dispute. 

However, if the intent is to return a forest stand 

to its prior condition after disturbance under 

changing climate (i.e., to promote resilience), 

then deliberate, aggressive, intensive, and 

immediate actions may be necessary. 

Similar to the situation with regard to resistance 

options, the capacity to maintain and improve 

resilience will, for many contexts, become more 

difficult as changes in climate accumulate and 

accelerate over time. These options may best be 

exercised in projects that are short-term, have 

high value (e.g., commercial plantations), or 

under ecosystem conditions that are relatively 

insensitive to the potential climate change effects 

(e.g., warming temperatures). Climate change 

has the potential to significantly influence the 

practice and outcomes of ecological restoration 

(Harris et al., 2006), where the focus is on 

tying assemblages to one place. A strategy 

that combines practices to restore vigor and 

redundancy (Markham, 1996; Noss, 2001) and 

ecological processes (Rice and Emery, 2003), so 

that after a disturbance these ecosystems have 

the necessary keystone species and functional 

processes to recover to a healthy state even if 

species composition changes, would be the goal 

of managing for ecosystem change.

Managing for Ecosystem Change

Enable Forests to Respond to Change

This suite of adaptation options intentionally 

plans for change rather than resisting it, with a 

goal of enabling forest ecosystems to naturally 

adapt as environmental changes accrue. Given 

that many ecological conditions will be moving 

naturally toward significant change in an attempt 

to adapt (e.g., species migration, stand mortality 

and colonization events, changes in community 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 53 hapter 3_Forests.indd 53 
54

happeneither in known directions, with goals 

planned for a specific future, or in unknown 

directions, with goals planned directly for 

uncertainty. Examples of potential practices 

include the following:

1. Assist transitions, population adjustments, 

range shifts, and other natural adaptations. 

Use coupled and downscaled climate and 

vegetation models to anticipate future regional 

conditions, and project future ecosystems 

into new habitat and climate space. With 

such information, managers might plan for 

transitions to new conditions and habitats, 

and assist the transition—e.g., as appropriate, 

move species uphill, plan for higher-elevation 

insect and disease outbreaks, reduce existing 

anthropogenic stresses such as air quality 

or land cover changes, anticipate species 

mortality events and altered fire regimes, or 

consider loss of species’ populations on warm 

range margins and do not attempt restoration 

there (Ledig and Kitzmiller, 1992; Parker et 

al., 2000; Spittlehouse and Stewart, 2003). 

Further examples might be to modify rotation 

lengths and harvest schedules, alter thinning 

prescriptions and other silvicultural treatments, 

consider replanting with different species, shift 

desired species to new plantation or forest 

locations, or take precautions to mitigate likely 

increases in stress on plantation and forest 

trees. 

A nascent literature is developing on the 

advantages and disadvantages of “assisted 

migration,” the intentional movement of 

propagules or juvenile and adult individuals into 

areas assumed to become their future habitats 

(Halpin, 1997; Collingham and Huntley, 2000; 

McLachlan, Hellmann, and Schwartz, 2007). 

may be refugial during warming conditi

as in inversion-prone basins, deep and nar

canyons, riparian zones, and north slo

Such patterns, and occupation of them 

plants during transitional climate periods

corroborated in the paleoecological rec

(Millar and Woolfenden, 1999; Millar et 

2006). Additionally, land use change 

agricultural practices can alter local 

regional precipitation and climate patte

(Foley et al., 2005; Pielke, Sr. et al., 2006)

Despite the challenges in mountainous terr

anticipating where climate and local spe

habitats will move will become increasi

important. On-the-ground monitorin

native species gives insight into what pl

themselves are experiencing, and can sug

the directions of change and appropr

natural response at local scales. This can a

management strategies that mimic emerg

natural adaptive responses. For instance, 

species mixes (mimicking what is regenera

naturally), altered genotype selections, modi

age structures, and novel silvicultural cont

(e.g., selection harvest versus clearcut) ma

considered.

2. Increase Redundancy and Buffers. T

set of practices intentionally manages fo

uncertain but changing future, rather th

specific climate future. Practices that inv

spreading risks in diverse opportunities ra

than concentrating them in a few are favo

using redundancy and creating diversity 

key. Forest managers can facilitate nat

selection and evolution by managing the nat

regeneration process to enhance disturba

that initiate increased seedling development 

genetic mixing, as has been suggested for w

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 54 hapter 3_Forests.indd 54 
Options that include using diverse environments 

and even species margins will provide additional 

flexibility. A benefit of redundant plantings 

across a range of environments is that they can 

provide monitoring information if survival 

and performance are measured and analyzed. 

Further, plantations originating as genetic 

provenance tests and established over the 

past several decades could be re-examined 

for current adaptations. This diversification 

of risk could also be achieved using natural 

regeneration and successional processes on 

NFs. A range of sites representing the diversity 

of conditions on a NF could be set aside after 

disturbance events to allow natural regeneration 

and successional processes to identify the 

most resistant species and populations. Other 

examples include planting with mixed species 

and age classes, as in agroforestry (Lindner, 

Lasch, and Erhard, 2000); increasing locations, 

sizes, and range of habitats for landscape-scale 

vegetation treatments; assuring that fuels 

are appropriately abated where vegetation is 

treated; and increasing the number of rare 

plant populations targeted for restoration, as 

well as increasing population levels within 

them (Millar and Woolfenden, 1999). In the 

same way, opportunistic monitoring, such as 

horticultural plantings of native species in 

landscaping, gardens, or parks, may provide 

insight into how species respond in different 

sites as climate changes, as well as engaging the 

public in such information gathering. 

3. Expand Genetic Diversity Guidelines. 

Existing guidelines for genetic management 

of forest plantations and restoration projects 

dictate maintenance of and planting with local 

germplasm. In the past, small seed zones, used 

for collecting seed for reforestation or restoration, 

have been delineated to ensure that local gene 

sufficient information is available, germplasm 

could be moved in the anticipated adaptive 

direction; for instance, rather than using local 

seed, seed from a warmer (often, downhill) 

current population would be used. By contrast, if 

an uncertain future is accepted, expanding seed 

zone sizes in all directions and requiring that 

seed collections be well distributed within these 

zones would be appropriate, as would relaxing 

seed transfer guidelines to accommodate 

multiple habitat moves, or introducing longdistance germplasm into seed mixes. Adaptive 

management of this nature is experimental by 

design, and will require careful documentation 

of treatments, seed sources, and outplanting 

locations in a corporate data structure to 

learn from both failures and successes of such 

mixes. 

Traditional best genetic management practices 

will become even more important to implement 

under changing climates. Paying attention not 

only to the source but the balance of genetic 

diversity within seedlots and outplanting 

collections (i.e., maintaining high effective 

population sizes) is prudent: approaches 

include maximizing the number of parents, 

optimizing equal representation by parents (e.g., 

striving for equal numbers of seeds/seedlings 

per family), and thinning plantations such 

that existing genetic diversity is not greatly 

reduced. Genotypes known or selected for 

broad adaptations could also be favored. By 

contrast, although economic incentives may 

override, using a single or few genotypes (e.g., 

a select clone or small clonal mix) is a riskier 

choice in a climate change context.

4. Ma n age for A s y n c h ron y a n d Use 

Establishment Phase to Reset Succession to 

Current Conditions. Changing climates over 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 55 hapter 3_Forests.indd 55 
56

broad landscape. These then become further 

vulnerable to rapid shifts in climate, such as 

is occurring at present, which appear to be 

synchronizing forests through massive droughtinsect-related diebacks. An opportunity exists 

to proactively manage the early successional 

stages that follow widespread mortality, by 

deliberately reducing synchrony.32 Asynchrony 

can be achieved through a mix of activities 

that promotes diverse age classes, species 

mixes, stand diversities, genetic diversity, 

etc., at landscape scales. Early successional 

stages are likely the most successful (and 

practical) opportunities for resetting ecological 

trajectories that are adaptive to present rather 

than past climates, because this is the best 

chance for widespread replacement of plants. 

Such ecological resetting is evidenced in 

patterns of natural adaptation to historic climate 

shifts (Davis and Shaw, 2001). 

5. Establish “Neo-Native” Plantations and 

Restoration Sites. Information from historic 

species ranges and responses to climate 

change can provide unique insight about 

species behaviors, ecological tolerances, and 

potential new habitats. For instance, areas that 

supported species in the past under similar 

conditions to those projected for the future 

might be considered sites for new plantations 

or “neo-native” stands of the species. These 

may be well outside the current species range, 

in locations where the species would otherwise 

be considered exotic. For instance, Monterey 

pine (Pinus radiata), endangered throughout 

its small native range, has naturalized along 

the north coast of California far disjunct from 

32 Mulholland, P., J. Betancourt, and D.D. Breshears, 

2004: Ecological Impacts of Climate Change: Report From a NEON Science Workshop. American 

Institute of Biological Sciences, Tucson, AZ.

6. Promote Connected Landscapes. Capa

to move (migrate) in response to chang

climates is key to adaptation and long-t

survival of plants and animals in nat

ecosystems (Gates, 1993). Plants migrate

“shift ranges” by dying in unfavorable sites 

colonizing favorable edges, including inte

species’ margins. Capacity to do this is a

by managing for porous landscapes; tha

landscapes that contain continuous habitat 

few physical or biotic restrictions, and thro

which species can move readily (recr

establish, forage) (Halpin, 1997; Noss, 20

Promoting large forested landscape units, 

flexible management goals that can be modi

as conditions change, will encourage spe

to respond naturally to changing clim

(Holling, 2001). This enables managers to w

with, rather than against, the flow of cha

Evaluating and reducing fragmentation, 

planning cumulative landscape treatm

to encourage defined corridors as wel

widespread habitat availability, is a proac

approach.

7. Realign Significantly Disrupted Conditi

Restoration treatments are often prescribed 

forest species or ecosystems that have b

significantly or cumulatively disturbed and 

far outside natural ranges of current variat

Because historical targets, tradition

used as references for restoration, are o

inappropriate in the face of changing clima

re-alignment with current process rather 

restoration to historic pre-disturbance cond

may be a preferred choice (Millar and Bruba

2006; Harris et al., 2006; Willis and Bi

2006). In this case, management goals s

to bring processes of the disturbed landsc

into the range of current or anticipated fu

environments (Halpin, 1997). An exam

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 56 hapter 3_Forests.indd 56 
Salinity increased, groundwater springs 

disappeared, and ecological thresholds were 

crossed as a series of unexpected consequences 

unfolded, threatening Mono Lake’s aquatic and 

terrestrial ecosystems. An innovative solution 

involved a 1990 court-mediated re-alignment 

process. Rather than setting pre-1941 lake levels 

as a restoration goal, a water-balance model 

approach, considering current climates as well 

as future climatic uncertainties, was used to 

determine the most appropriate lake level for 

present and anticipated future conditions.33

Options Applicable to Both Forestalling Change 

and Managing for Change

Anticipate and Plan for Surprise and Threshold 

Effects

Evaluate potential for indirect and surprise 

effects that may result from cumulative climate 

changes or changes in extreme weather events. 

This may involve thinking outside the range of 

events that have occurred in recent history. For 

example, reductions in mountain snowpacks 

lead to more bare ground in spring, so that 

“average” rain events run off immediately rather 

than being buffered by snowpacks, and produce 

extreme unseasonal floods (e.g., Yosemite 

Valley, May 200534). Similarly, without 

decreases in annual precipitation, and even with 

increasing precipitation, warming minimum 

33 State of California, 1994: Decision and Order 

Amending Water Right Licenses to Establish Fisher 

Protection Flows in Streams Tributary to Mono Lake 

and to Protect Public Trust Resources at Mono Lake 

and in the Mono Lake Basin. State Water Resources 

Board Decision 1631, pp.1-212. 34 Dettinger, M., J. Lundquist, D. Cayan, and J. Meyer, 

2006: The 16 May 2005 Flood in Yosemite National 

Park--A Glimpse into High-Country Flood Generation in the Sierra Nevada. Presentation at the 

American Geophysical Union annual meeting, San 

Francisco. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/cirmount/meetings/agu/pdf2006/dettinger_etal_poster_AGU2006.

pdf

been learned from paleo-historic studies about 

likely surprises and rapid events as a result of 

climate change. Anticipating these events in 

the future means planning for more extreme 

ranges than in recent decades, and arming 

management systems accordingly (Millar and 

Woolfenden, 1999; Harris et al., 2006; Willis 

and Birks, 2006).

Experiment with Refugia

Plant ecologists and paleoecologists recognize 

that some environments appear more buffered 

against climate and short-term disturbances, 

while others are sensitive. If such “buffered” 

environments can be identified locally, 

they could be considered sites for long-term 

retention of plants, or for new plantations 

(commercial or conservation). For instance, 

mountainous regions are highly heterogeneous 

environmentally; this patchiness comprises a 

wide range of micro-climates within the sites. 

Further, unusual and nutritionally extreme 

soil types (e.g., acid podsols, limestones, etc.) 

have been noted for their long persistence of 

species and genetic diversity, resistance to 

invasive species, and long-lasting community 

physiognomy compared with adjacent fertile 

soils (Millar, 1989). During historic periods of 

rapid climate change and widespread population 

extirpation, refugial populations persisted 

on sites that avoided the regional climate 

impacts and the effects of large disturbance. 

For example, Camp (1995) reported that 

topographic and site characteristics of oldgrowth refugia in the Swauk Pass area of the 

Wenatchee National Forest were uniquely 

identifiable. These populations provided both 

adapted germplasm and local seed sources 

for advance colonization as climates naturally 

changed toward favoring the species. In 

similar fashion, a management goal might 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 57 hapter 3_Forests.indd 57 
58

resilient to climate-influenced disturbances 

(Holling, 2001; Noss, 2001). Management goals 

for species and ecosystems across the spectrum 

of NFs also vary for many reasons. As a result, 

proactive climate planning will reflect a range 

of management intensities. Some species and 

ecosystems may require aggressive treatment 

to maintain viability or resilience, others may 

require reduction of current stressors, and 

others less intensive management, at least in 

the near future. 

While evaluating priorities has always been 

important in resource management, the 

magnitude and scope of anticipated needs, 

combined with diminishing availability of 

or institutional capacity. Triage in a natu

resource context sorts management situat

(“patients”) into categories accordin

urgency, sensitivity, and capacity of avail

resources to achieve desired goals (“surviv

Cases are rapidly assessed and sorted into t

to five major categories (“color tags”) 

determine further action:

1. Red: Significant ongoing emergen

immediate attention required. Cases in 

category are extremely urgent, but may 

successfully treated with immediate atten

given available resources. Without attent

they will rapidly fail; in the medical se

the patient will die soon if untreated. Th

cases receive the highest priority for treatm

and use of available resources. Dependin

available resources, some of these cases ma

assigned black rather than red.

2. Yellow: Strong to medium potential 

emergency. Cases in this category are sens

to disruption, vulnerable due to histor

disturbance (degree and extent of trauma), h

the capacity with small additional disturba

to become rapidly worse, but are margin

stable at the time of assessment. These c

have medium priority.

3. Green: Low likelihood for emerge

conditions. Cases in this category may h

some problems but overall are relativ

resistant to disturbance, have low stres

high capacity to deal with stress, a histor

low vulnerability, and show signs of retai

stability at least in the short term with l

need for intervention. These cases receive 

priority, but conditions are monitored regul

for change.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 58 hapter 3_Forests.indd 58 
longterm or soleuse approach to priority

setting. Other approaches may be used for 

quick prioritizing of traditional management 

plans and practices. An example would be 

rapid assessments of current national forest 

land management plans, performed by teams 

of climate experts that visit NFs. Teams would 

rapidly review planning documents, interview 

staff, and visit representative field sites; 

they would conclude their visits with a set of 

recommendations on what aspects of the overall 

local forest management practices and plans are 

in (1) immediate need of significant revision, 

(2) need of revision in a longer time frame, and 

(3) no need of revision; already climate-savvy. 

Similar integrated threat assessment tools 

are being developed that help managers and 

decision-makers grasp categories of urgency. 

In situations where available resources can be 

augmented, where time is not a critical factor, 

and where more information can be obtained, 

traditional evaluations and priority-setting 

will be most appropriate. Triage may be used, 

however, at any time and at any scale where 

urgency arises, and when demands become 

greater than normally managed. The common 

alternative under these conditions, reacting 

to crises chaotically and without rules of 

assessment, will achieve far less success in the 

long run than triage-based approaches.

3.4.5 Barriers to Adaptation 

Approaches

The USFS will need to overcome various 

barriers to take advantage of opportunities 

to implement adaptations to climate change. 

Insufficient resources, various uncertainties, 

checkerboard ownership patterns, lengthy 

planning processes, agency targets and reward 

systems, and air quality standards that restrict 

proposed new approaches. The USFS may need 

to encourage planners and managers to relax 

perceptions about rules and other constraints 

that may, in reality, afford enough flexibility 

to try something new. Scientists would then 

need to be given the resources and support to 

test new approaches that are developed through 

this innovative process.

3.5 CONCLUSIONS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

3.5.1 Climate Change and 

National Forests

The mission of the NFs has broadened over 

time, from protecting water and producing 

timber to managing for multiple resources 

and now, to sustaining the health, diversity, 

and productivity of the nation’s forests and 

grasslands to meet the needs of present and 

future generations. Increasingly ecosystem 

management, ecological integrity, resilience, 

and sustainability have become important 

concepts and goals of NF management. 

The management of NF lands has broadened 

to include involvement by several other federal 

agencies, including EPA, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

and the Bureau of Land Management, as well 

as coordination on management of lands within 

NFs for national systems such as the Wilderness 

Preservation System, National Trails, National 

Monuments, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. The 

checkerboard ownership patterns of many of the 

western forests, the scattered private in-holdings 

of many NFs, and the scattered land parcels 

of the eastern forests result in the important 

need to coordinate with other federal and state 

agencies and with private land owners. Public 

involvement has increased. This broader level 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 59 hapter 3_Forests.indd 59 
60

timing, and locations of extreme weather 

events such as the occurrence of ice storms; 

wind events such as derechos, tornados, and 

hurricanes; and flooding associated with highintensity rainfall events or with shifts between 

rain and snow events. Local land management 

goals differ greatly by NF and grassland, and by 

management units within NFs (e.g., wilderness, 

matrix working forests associated with the 

Northwest Forest Plan, ski areas, campgrounds, 

etc). Thus, no single approach to adaptation to 

climate change will fit all NFs. This diversity 

of climatic changes and impacts will interact 

with the diversity of stressors, the diversity of 

ecosystems, and the diversity of management 

goals across the NFs—in short, responses to 

climate change will need to reflect local and 

regional differences in climate, ecosystems, and 

the social and economic settings.

The NFs have, in many aspects, begun to address 

many of the challenges of climate variability 

and change—changes to historic disturbance 

regimes, historically unprecedented epidemics 

of native insects, large-scale forest mortality, 

extreme and unseasonal weather events, spread 

of non-native invasive species, drought, fuels 

accumulation, and ecosystem fragmentation. 

Current management approaches include 

landscape-scale planning and coordinated 

agency planning for fire suppression, regional 

water management, and coordinated agency 

efforts for invasive species, among others. 

Adaptation options for climate-sensitive 

ecosystems encompass three approaches: no 

active planning for a changing environment, 

reaction to a changing disturbance regime, and 

anticipatory adaptation actions. The rationale for 

each adaptation approach involves consideration 

of the costs and benefits associated with the 

ecological, social, and economic components 

Responding to a climate-induced chang

disturbance (i.e., implementing adaptat

after disturbances occur) might be justi

in situations where managers determ

that adjustments to historical managem

approaches are needed eventually, but 

best made during or after a major climati

disturbance event. In this instance, adap

actions are incorporated after the disturba

occurs. The third option involves anticipa

and specifically preparing for climate cha

opportunities and impacts. The choice invo

using the best available information ab

future climate and environmental conditi

and the best available information about 

societal context of forest management, to b

making changes to policy and on-the-gro

management now, as well as when fu

windows of opportunity open. Each respo

may be appropriate in some circumstances 

not in others.

3.5.2 Management Response 

Recommendations

3.5.2 1 Integrate Consideration of 

Climate Change across All Agency 

Planning Levels 

Adaptation strategies may vary based 

the spatial and temporal scales of deci

making within the USFS. The integratio

climate change and climate change impact

ecosystem services into policy development 

planning across all levels of the agency—U

strategic goals, Resource Planning Act (R

Assessment, NF plans, multi-forest pl

project planning—could facilitate a cohe

identification of opportunities and barr

(institutional, ecological, social). Plann

at regional or national scales may inv

acceptance of different levels of uncerta

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 60 hapter 3_Forests.indd 60 
management activities at finer scales.

3.5.2.2 Reframe the Role of Uncertainty 

in Land Management: Manage for Change

Current ecological conditions of NFs are 

projected to change under a changing climate, 

along with social and economic changes. The 

challenge for the USFS will be to determine 

which ecosystem services and which attributes 

and components of biodiversity can be sustained 

or achieved through management under a 

changing climate. There will be a need to 

anticipate and plan for surprise and threshold 

effects that are at once difficult to predict 

with certainty yet certain to result from 

the interaction of climate change and other 

stressors. Rather than targeting a single desired 

future condition, avoiding a range of undesirable 

future conditions may be more effective 

There may also be a need to shift focus 

to managing for change, setting a goal of 

desired future function (processes, ecosystem 

services), and managing current and future 

conditions (structure, outputs), which may be 

quite dynamic because of a changing climate. 

Rapid changes that are expected in physical 

conditions and ecological responses suggest that 

management goals and approaches will be most 

successful when they emphasize ecological 

processes rather than focus on structure and 

composition. Under a changing climate, 

embracing uncertainty will necessitate a careful 

examination of various underlying assumptions 

about climate, climate change, ecological 

processes, and disturbances. Specifically, the 

USFS will need to re-evaluate (1) the dynamics 

of ecosystems under disturbances influenced 

by climate; (2) current management options 

as influenced by climate; and (3) important 

assumptions and premises about the nature 

and varying climates and environments of the 

future.

3.5.2.3 Nurture and Cultivate Human 

Capital within the Agency

The USFS has a long tradition of attracting 

and retaining highly qualified employees. 

The capacity of the agency to address climate 

change may require the staff within NFs 

to have a more technical understanding 

of climate change, as well as building the 

adaptive capacity of the social and economic 

environments in which they work. Specifically, 

the USFS could provide opportunities to 

develop a better technical understanding of 

climate and its ecological and socioeconomic 

impacts, as well as options for adaptation and 

mitigation in NFs through the many training 

opportunities that currently exist within the 

USFS, including the silvicultural certification 

program, regional integrated resource training 

workshops, and regional training sessions for 

resource staff. New opportunities to share 

training of resource managers with other natural 

resource agencies could also enhance the ability 

of the USFS to address climate change in 

resource management. Additionally, increased 

awareness and knowledge of climate change 

could be transferred through the development of 

managers’ guides, climate primers, management 

toolkits, a Web clearinghouse, and video 

presentations. Opportunities for managers to 

share information on the success or failure 

of different adaptation approaches will be 

critical.

The skill set necessary to address the challenge 

of managing natural resources under a changing 

climate may need to be examined. Staffing 

in areas such as silviculture, forest genetics 

and tree breeding, entomology (including 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 61 hapter 3_Forests.indd 61 
62

learning environment, where novel approaches 

to addressing climate change impacts and 

ecosystem adaptation are supported by the 

agency, will support USFS employees as they 

attempt to achieve management goals in the face 

of climate uncertainty and change. Scientists and 

managers will sometimes be called upon to sift 

through apparently conflicting approaches to 

understanding climate impacts on ecosystems. 

What may appear as “mistakes” are, in fact, 

opportunities to learn the technical issues 

and conditions for assessing and using such 

approaches. 

It may be that NF staff will not be able to keep 

up with the rapidly changing science. Thus, 

it is critical to build ongoing relationships 

between researchers (within and outside the 

USFS) and the NF staff. An example of such a 

partnership is the Regional Integrated Sciences 

and Assessments (RISA) program, which 

supports research that addresses complex 

climate-sensitive issues of concern to decisionmakers and policy planners at a regional level. 

The RISA research team members are primarily 

based at universities, though some of the team 

members are based at government research 

facilities, non-profit organizations, or private 

sector entities. Traditionally the research has 

focused on the fisheries, water, wildfire, and 

agriculture sectors.

3.5.2.4 Develop Partnerships to Enhance 

Natural Resource Management under a 

Changing Climate

There is an urgent need for policy makers, 

managers, scientists, stakeholders, and the 

broader public to share the specific evidence 

of global climate change and its projected 

consequences on ecosystems, as well as 

their understanding of the choices, future 

communication, will involve diverse su

of educational media, including informa

delivery on multiple and evolving platfor

There will also be a need to educate landow

in the WUI about the potential for incre

dist u rbances or changing pat ter ns 

disturbances in these areas, as well as 

challenges of land ownership and protectio

valued resources within this environment.

3.5.2.5 Increase Effective Collaboratio

Across Federally Managed Landscapes 

Where federally managed land encompa

large landscapes, increasing collabora

will facilitate the accomplishment of com

goals (e.g., the conservation of threatened 

endangered species), as well as adaptation 

mitigation, that can only be attained on la

connected (or contiguous) landscapes. Com

goals might include protection of threate

and endangered species habitats, integr

treatment of fuels or insect and dise

conditions that place adjacent ownersh

at risk, and developing effective strate

to minimize loss of life and property at 

WUI.

While collaboration logically makes sense, 

seems conceptually like the only way to man

complex ownerships, large landscapes, 

across multiple jurisdictions, there are m

challenges to such an approach. Attemptin

collaborate multi-institutionally across l

landscape scales can bring into focus unexpe

institutional barriers and focus unanticip

societal responses. For example, large m

forest landscapes have high investment stake

with resulting political pressure from m

different directions. Further, if collabora

is taken to mean equal participation and 

each collaborator has an effective voice, 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 62 hapter 3_Forests.indd 62 
3.5.2.6 Establish Priorities for Addressing 

Potential Changes in Populations, Species, 

and Community Abundances, Structures, 

Compositions, and Ranges, Including 

Potential Species Extirpation and 

Extinction under Climate Change 

A primary premise for adaptive approaches 

is that change, novelty, uncertainty, and 

uniqueness of individual situations are expected 

to define the planning backdrop of the future. 

Management goals for species and ecosystems 

across the spectrum of NFs also vary for 

many reasons. As a result, proactive climate 

planning will reflect a range of management 

intensities. Some species and ecosystems 

(already affected in the near-term) may require 

aggressive treatment to maintain viability or 

resilience; others may require reduction of 

current stressors, and others less intensive 

management, at least in the near future. While 

evaluating priorities has always been important 

in resource management, the magnitude and 

scope of anticipated needs, combined with 

diminishing availability of human resources, 

dictate that priorities may need to be evaluated 

swiftly, strictly, and definitively. Consideration 

of methods to establish these priorities before 

the crisis appears would facilitate decisionmaking. The medical metaphor of triage is 

appropriate here. Other approaches include 

developing strategies that establish options that 

are “win-win” or “no regrets,” or those that 

gradually add options as resources and the need 

for change become apparent. These approaches 

are best developed jointly by neighboring land 

resource managers and private land owners, 

or regionally, to guide the management of 

currently rare or threatened and endangered 

species as well as of populations, species, 

communities, and ecosystems that expand 

climate change with other major stressors, may 

render NFs increasingly prone to more frequent, 

extensive, and severe disturbances, especially 

drought, insect and disease outbreaks, invasive 

species, and wildfire. Increased flooding is a 

likely possibility. Air pollution can negatively 

affect the health and productivity of NFs, 

and the fragmented landscape in which 

many NFs are situated impedes important 

ecosystem processes, including migration. 

Efforts to address the existing stressors would 

address current management needs, allow an 

incremental approach that begins to incorporate 

climate into management and planning, and 

potentially reduce the future interactions of 

these stressors with climate change.

3.5.2.8 Develop Early Detection and 

Rapid Response Systems for PostDisturbance Management 

Early detection and rapid response systems are 

a component in the current invasive species 

strategy of the USFS. Such an approach may 

have value for a broader suite of climate-induced 

stressors, for example using the current network 

of experimental forests and sites in an early 

detection and response system. Consideration 

of post-disturbance management for short-term 

restoration and for long-term restoration under 

climate change prior to the disturbance (fire, 

invasives, flooding, hurricanes, ice storms) 

may identify opportunities and barriers. 

Large system-resetting disturbances offer the 

opportunity to influence the future structure 

and function of ecosystems through carefully 

designed management experiments in adapting 

to climatic change. Current limitations (barriers) 

may need to be revisited so that restricted 

management practices are permitted.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 63 hapter 3_Forests.indd 63 
64

g

ecosystem services under a changing climate. 

These research-management partnerships could 

identify research studies on how forest planning 

can better adapt to climate change in the longterm, as well as in near-term project-level 

analyses. Further adaptation approaches could 

be tested, including improved communication 

of knowledge and research. 

Climate change will interact with current 

stressors—air quality, native insects and 

d i s e a s e s , non - n at ive i nva sive s , a nd 

fragmentation—in potentially surprising 

ways. Greater understanding of the potential 

interactions of multiple stressors and climate 

change is needed through field experiments, 

modeling exercises, and data mining and 

analysis of past forest history or even recent 

geological records. Such approaches could 

promote syntheses of disciplinary research 

related to climate and other stressors, and 

integrate the efforts of the research communities 

at universities, non-governmental organizations, 

state agencies, tribal organizations, and other 

federal agencies.

Climate change may also challenge current 

theories on ecosystem restoration. Current 

protocols about restoration may need further 

experimentation to determine the role and 

assumptions of climate in the current techniques, 

and how a changing climate might alter the 

application of these techniques.

Determining the baseline for monitoring, 

determining what to monitor, and evaluating 

whether current monitoring approaches will be 

adequate under a changing climate are critical 

research needs. These needs may be approached 

collaboratively with research institutions and 

other federal land management agencies.

studying past responses to historic clim

change. A paleo approach places manager

the stream of change. Thus: what is a basel

What are native species range distributio

What is natural? 

The adaptive capacity of NFs and 

surrounding social and economic systems i

well-understood. There is great need for so

scientific research into the factors and proce

that enhance NFs’ adaptive capacity, as we

into the barriers and limits to potentially hi

effective and efficient adaptation. In addit

socioeconomic research and monitoring 

needed on how social and economic varia

and systems are changing, and are likel

change further, as climate change influe

the opportunities and impacts within 

surrounding NFs. The expansion of the u

and suburban environment into remote a

will likely be influenced by climate chang

potentially shifting this expansion to hig

elevations or to more northerly regions w

winters may historically not have bee

severe. Recreational choices are also likely t

influenced by climate changes, shifting out

activities across a spectrum of options f

land-based to water-based, from lower/war

regions to higher/cooler regions. 

The need currently exists to develop trad

analyses for situations in which managem

actions taken now potentially could alter m

serious impacts later, such as the trade

of planned prescribed fire/air quality ve

unplanned wildfire/smoke/air quality. Ha

restoration for threatened and endange

species under a changing climate might inv

social, economic, and ecological impacts 

opportunities on NF land, adjacent ownersh

or private land. Tradeoffs involve ecolog

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 64 hapter 3_Forests.indd 64 
3.5.3.2 Data Gaps (Monitoring/Mapping)

Information on the status of ecosystem 

services as climate changes will be important 

in ascertaining whether management goals 

are being attained under the changing climate. 

The Forest Inventory and Analysis data have 

informed historical analyses of productivity 

shifts as affected by recent climate variability 

and change at large spatial scales, and contributed 

to national accounting analyses of carbon in 

U.S. forests. Other potential analyses with 

these inventory data could include exploring 

the response of ecosystems to changing fire 

regimes and insect outbreaks. Opportunities 

exist to link the existing inventory networks 

within the USFS (Forest Inventory Analysis) 

with other existing and planned networks, such 

as the National Science Foundation’s Long-term 

Ecological Research networks, the National 

Ecological Observation Network (NEON), 

and other monitoring programs within USGS 

and NASA. Increasingly, data are needed in a 

spatial format. 

The Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators 

for Boreal and Temperate Forests have been 

used to describe sustainability of forests and 

rangelands by managers at several spatial 

scales. The use of Montreal Process Criteria 

and Indicators may also have value in assessing 

the opportunities and impacts on sustainability 

under a changing climate. 

3.5.3.3 Tool Gaps (Models and Decision 

Support Tools)

There is a need to develop techniques, methods, 

and information to assess the consequences 

of climate change and variability on physical, 

biological, and socioeconomic systems at 

varying spatial scales, including regional, 

of climate change on natural resources, as a 

component of land management planning. 

This toolbox would have a suite of sciencebased products that deliver state-of-the-art 

information derived from data, qualitative 

models, and quantitative models in accessible 

formats, including a Web-based portal on 

climate-change science. Technology transfer 

through training packages on climate change 

that can be delivered through workshops and 

online tutorials would be valuable to internal 

staff and potentially to stakeholders. 

Forest-scale decision support applications 

that incorporate the dynamics of climate, 

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 65 hapter 3_Forests.indd 65 
66

based portal on climate change, customized for 

the needs of USFS users, will be an important 

component of the toolbox, providing onestop shopping for scientific information, key 

publications, and climate-smart models. A 

training curriculum and tutorials will ensure 

that Forest Service managers receive current, 

consistent information on climate change 

issues.

It can not be overstated however, that effective 

decision support involves more than providing 

the right information and tools and the right time. 

Importantly, for climate change information 

to meet the needs of NF land managers at 

various scales of decision-making, and for that 

information to be used properly and effectively, 

it is highly advisable that ongoing relationships 

be built between those producing the relevant 

information (researchers) and those eventually 

using it (managers). Thus tools, Web-based 

tutorials, reports, and other written materials 

should always be viewed as decision-support 

products that must be embedded in an ongoing 

decision-support process.

3.5.3.4 Management Adjustments or 

Realignments

The development of management alternatives 

for adapting to and mitigating the effects of 

an uncertain and variable climate, and other 

stressors on natural resource outputs and 

ecosystem services, will require experimentation 

under the changing climate. Many proposed 

management alternatives may need to be 

established as small-scale pilot efforts, to 

determine the efficacy of such proactive 

approaches to adapting to climate change in 

various ecosystems and climates. Protocols 

for “assisted migration” of species need to be 

tested and established before approaches are 

implemented more broadly. 

impacts of active management on ecosystem

such as the effects of reintroducing specie

disturbed ecosystems, or transferring spe

to areas outside of the current distribution 

within areas of compatible climate. The pote

for ex situ gene conservation technique

remedy the impact of global change m

be explored. These techniques (seed ba

common garden studies) conserve gen

diversity outside the environment where it ex

at this time. Putting seed from diverse par

in diverse populations into long term sto

will not prevent existing forest ecosystems f

being disrupted, but it provides an opportu

to reestablish populations in new and m

appropriate locations if needed. Establish

common garden studies with diverse mate

at multiple locations can serve several purpo

Assuming the material planted in these p

survives, it can serve as a source of propag

for establishing new populations. The t

can also provide evidence of what source

plant material are most adapted for the 

conditions.

Research is needed to explore options to red

both the short- and long-term vulnerabilit

ecosystems to disturbance altered by clim

(insects, fire, disease, etc.). Many nat

resource values can be enhanced by allow

fire to play its natural role where private prop

and social values can be protected. Rese

on new opportunities for ecosystem serv

within NFs is needed. Testing and developi

range of science-based management alternat

for adapting to and mitigating the effect

climate change on major resource values (w

vegetation, wildlife, recreation, etc.) 

facilitate the attainment of these goals und

changing climate.

Chapter 3_Forests.indd 66 hapter 3_Forests.indd 66 
Nate Stephenson, U.S. Geological Survey

C

4.1 SUMMARY

Covering about 4% of the United States, the 338,000 km2 of protected areas in the National Park 

System contain representative landscapes of all of the nation’s biomes and ecosystems. The U.S. 

National Park Service Organic Act established the National Park System in 1916 “to conserve 

the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the 

enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for 

the enjoyment of future generations.”1 Approximately 270 national park system areas contain 

significant natural resources. Current National Park Service policy for natural resource parks 

calls for management to preserve fundamental physical and biological processes, as well as 

individual species, features, and plant and animal communities. Parks with managed natural 

resources range from large intact (or nearly intact) ecosystems with a full complement of native 

species—including top predators—to those diminished by disturbances such as within-park or 

surrounding-area legacies of land use, invasive species, pollution, or regional manipulation of 

resources. The significance of national parks as representatives of naturally functioning ecosystems 

and as refugia for natural processes and biodiversity increases as surrounding landscapes become 

increasingly altered by human activities.

Addressing resilience to climate change in activities and planning will increase the ability 

of the National Park Service to meet the mission of the Organic Act. Climate has fundamentally defined national parks. Climate change is redefining these parks and will continue to 

do so. Rather than simply adding and ranking the importance of climate change against a host 

of pressing issues, managers are wise to begin to include climate change considerations into all 

activities and plans. There are a number of short-term approaches that may help to provide resilience over the next few decades. These include reducing habitat fragmentation and loss, invasive 

species, and pollution; protecting important ecosystem and physical features; restoring damaged 

systems and natural processes (recognizing that some restoration may not provide protection 

of dynamic systems); and reducing the risks of catastrophic loss through bet-hedging strategies 

such as establishing refugia, relocating valued species, replicating populations and habitats, and 

maintaining representative examples of populations and species. Short-term adaptation may 

1 16 U.S.C. 1, 2, 3, and 4

KEY FINDINGS

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 1 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 1 
2

capacity to learn from management successes and failures, and examining and respondin

the multiple scales at which species and processes function.

Successful adaptation includes encouraging managers to take reasoned risks without concern 

retribution. “Safe-to-fail” policies reward front-line managers for making decisions to pro

resources under uncertainty. Although not desired, failures provide tremendous opportun

for learning. Learning from mistakes and successes is a critical part of adaptation to clim

change. Learning is further enhanced by providing training opportunities, supporting continu

inquiry, promoting an atmosphere of respect, rewarding personal initiative, and as mentio

above, allowing for unintentional failure.

As climate change continues, thresholds of resilience will be overcome, increasing 

importance of using methods that address uncertainty in planning and managem

Technical or scientific uncertainty can be addressed through scenario-based planning 

adaptive management approaches toward learning. First, scenario-based planning explor

wide set of possible or alternative futures. A finite number of scenarios (e.g., three to five) 

depict a range of possible futures can be extremely useful for helping managers develop 

implement plans, confront and evaluate the inevitable tradeoffs to be made when there 

conflicting management goals, and minimize the anxiety or frustration that comes from ha

to deal with uncertainty. Scenarios that evaluate the feasibility of adaptation against eco

cal, social, or economic returns will be valuable in making difficult decisions, and in conve

results of decisions to the public. Public involvement in scenario building, from individual p

to national policy level, will prepare people for inevitable changes, and may build support 

science-based management.

Second, adaptive environmental assessment and management employs a set of processe

integrate learning with management actions where uncertainty exists about the potential 

logical responses. Adaptive management either establishes experiments to test the effective

of management approaches, or uses understanding gained from past management or scienc

plan and execute management actions. Both require iterative monitoring and interpretatio

gauge the effectiveness of that action in achieving management goals.

Protecting natural resources and processes may continue to be achieved during 

coming decades using science-based principles already familiar to Park Service man

ers. Protecting natural resources and processes in the near term begins with the need to 

identify what is at risk. The next steps are to define the baselines (reference conditions) 

constitute “unimpaired” in a changing world, decide the appropriate scales at which to ma

the processes and resources, and set measurable targets of protection. Finally, monitorin

management results is important for understanding the degree to which management activ

succeed or fail over time, and whether management activities need to be adjusted accordi

In the long term, such science-based management principles will become more impor

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 2 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 2 
communities in parks. Regional partnerships with other land and resource management groups 

can anticipate, and even aid, the establishment of desirable climate-appropriate species that will 

take advantage of favorable conditions. By using species suited to anticipated future climates after 

disturbance or during restoration, protecting corridors or removing impediments to natural 

migration, and aggressively controlling unwanted species that threaten native species or impede 

current ecosystem function, managers may prevent establishment of less desirable species.

Climate change can best be met by engaging all levels of the National Park Service. While 

resource management is implemented at individual parks, planning and support can be provided 

at all management levels, with better integration between planners and resource management 

staff. A revision of the National Park Service Management Policies to incorporate climate change 

considerations would help to codify the importance of the issue. Park General Management Plans 

and resource management plans also could be amended to include the understanding, goals, and 

plans that address climate change issues. Climate change education and coordination efforts 

at the national level will be helpful for offering consistent guidance and access to information. 

Regional- and network-level workshops and planning exercises will be important for addressing 

issues at appropriate scales, as will interagency activities that address climate change impacts 

to physical and natural resources regardless of political boundaries.

4.2 BACKGROUND AND 

HISTORY

The U.S. national parks trace their distinctive 

origins to the early 19th century. The artist 

George Catlin is credited with initiating the 

uniquely American idea of protected national 

parks. While traveling through the Dakota 

territories in 1832, he expressed concern 

over the impact of westward expansion on 

wildlife, wilderness, and Indian civilization; 

he suggested they might be preserved “by some 

great protecting policy of government...in a 

magnificent park...A nation’s park, containing 

man and beast, in all the wild and freshness of 

their nature’s beauty” (Pitcaithley, 2001). In 

1872, the U.S. Congress created the world’s 

first national park, Yellowstone, in Wyoming 

and Montana territories “as a public park or 

pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment 

of the people.”2 Other spectacular natural areas 

soon followed as Congress designated Sequoia, 

Yosemite, Mount Rainier, Crater Lake, and 

Glacier as national parks in an idealistic impulse 

to preserve nature (Baron, 2004).

The U.S. National Park System today includes 

a diverse set of ecological landscapes that form 

an ecological and cultural bridge between the 

past and the future. Covering about 4% of the 

United States, the 338,000 km2 of protected 

areas in the park system contain representative 

landscapes of many of the world’s biomes and 

2 H.R. 764

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 3 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 3 
4

species of plants and animals are likely to 

across the American landscape, independe

the borders of protected areas. National p

that have special places in the American psy

will remain parks, but their look and feel 

change dramatically. For example, the glac

in Glacier National Park are expected to 

by 2030 (Hall and Fagre, 2003). Therefore

time is ripe for the NPS, the Department o

Interior, and the American public to revisit 

collective vision of the purpose of parks.

3 Cole, K.L., K. Larsen, P. Duffy, and S. Aru

2005: Transient dynamics of vegetation respon

past and future major climatic changes in the S

western United States. Proceedings of the Work

on Climate Science in Support of Decision Ma

Online poster report, http://www.climatescie

gov/workshop2005/posters/P-EC4.2_Cole.pdf

Figure 4.1. Looking up from the Colorado River at the Grand Canyon. 

Photo courtesy of Jeffrey Lovich, USGS.

Figure 4.2. Everglades National Park. Photo by Rodney Camm

courtesy of National Park Service.

end of the geologic spectrum are “new” park 

ecosystems such as the Everglades, which is 

less than 10,000 years old. Seasonal patterns 

of water coursing through the sloughs in the 

Everglades, as in the Grand Canyon, produced 

an ecosystem with plants and animals that 

requires the ebb and flow of water to persist 

(Fig. 4.2).

As g reen hou se ga ses 

continue to accumulate 

in the atmosphere, the 

effects of climate change 

on the environment will 

only increase. Ecological 

c h a n g e s w i l l r a n g e 

from the emergence of 

new ecosystems to the 

disappearance of others. 

Few natural ecosystems 

remain in the United States; 

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 4 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 4 
Figure 4.3. A Joshua Tree in Joshua Tree National 

Park. Photo courtesy of National Park Service.

Now is also the time to evaluate what can 

and should be done to minimize the effects 

of climate change on park resources, and to 

maximize opportunities for wildlife, vegetation, 

valued physical features, and the processes that 

support them to survive in the face of climate 

change. National parks increasingly are isolated 

by developed lands, and climate change is 

inseparable from the many other phenomena 

that degrade natural resources in national 

parks. Where national parks share boundaries 

with other federally or tribally managed lands, 

climate change can serve as a strong incentive 

to develop and implement regional efforts to 

manage ecosystems with a shared vision. Using 

climate change scenarios, we can realistically 

reevaluate current management efforts to 

reduce habitat fragmentation, remove or 

manage invasive species, maintain or restore 

natural disturbance regimes, and maximize 

air and water quality. Positive and negative 

feedbacks between contemporary changes in 

climate and resource management priorities 

must be carefully considered. 

This chapter is directed specifically at the 

270 national park areas with natural resource 

responsibilities, although many of the approaches 

we suggest are applicable to a diversity of 

resources and sites, including cultural and 

failures, and examining and responding to the 

multiple scales at which species and processes 

function. Strategies also include catalyzing 

ecoregional coordination among federal, state, 

and private entities, valuing human resources, 

and understanding what climate change means 

for interpreting the language of the NPS 

Organic Act. By modifying and expanding its 

current monitoring systems, NPS can expand its 

capacity to document and understand ecological 

responses to climate change and management 

interventions. By minimizing the negative 

effects from other current stressors, NPS may 

be able to increase the possibility that natural 

adjustments in habitats and processes can ease 

the transition to new climate regimes.

There are three critical messages this chapter 

is meant to convey:

1. We know climate has fundamentally defined 

our national parks. Their diversity and their 

stunning coastlines, caves, mountains and 

deserts are all the product of the interaction 

of temperature and precipitation, acting 

on the scale of days and seasons to eons. 

Climate change is redefining these parks, 

and will continue to do so. As such it 

cannot be considered merely as “one 

more stressor” to be considered and dealt 

with. Changing climate will undermine, 

or possibly enhance, efforts to reduce the 

damage done by other unnatural types of 

disturbances such as pollution, invasive 

species, or habitat fragmentation. Starting 

now, the influence of changing climate must 

therefore be considered in conjunction 

with every resource management activity 

planned and executed in national parks. 

2. The adaptation approaches suggested in this 

chapter are meant to increase resilience, 

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 5 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 5 
6

3. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, 

the onset and continuance of climate 

change over the next century requires 

NPS managers to think differently about 

park ecosystems than they have in the 

past. Preparing for and adapting to 

climate change is as much a cultural and 

intellectual challenge as it is an ecological 

one.

includes more than 390 natural and cult

units, and has been emulated worldwide. 

National Park System has the warm suppo

the American people, and parks are often 

embodiment of widespread public sentimen

conservation and protection of the environm

(Winks, 1997).

5 16 U.S.C. l 2 3, and 4

Yellowstone 

National Park 

Act established 

Yellowstone NP 

“as a public park 

or pleasuringground for the 

benefi t and 

enjoyment of the 

people” under 

control of the 

Secretary of the 

Interior.

The Organic Act 

established the 

NPS and placed 

all the existing 

parks under its 

management.

Two executive orders 

transferred the War 

Department’s parks 

and monuments and 

the Forest Service’s 

monuments to the 

NPS.

The Antiquities 

Act enabled the 

President to 

proclaim national 

monuments on 

lands already 

under federal 

jurisdiction.

The Wilderness 

Act established a 

National Wilderness 

Preservation System 

that would be 

administered in a 

way that would leave 

them unimpaired 

for the use and 

enjoyment. 

Mission 66, a 10-year 

program, upgraded 

facilities, staffi ng, and 

resource management 

throughout the System.

The Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act 

established a fund for 

acquiring new recreation 

lands either within or 

adjacent to park units. 

The Alaska 

National 

Interest Lands 

Conservation Act 

added more than 

47 million acres to 

the National Park 

System.

The Vail Agenda addressed the 

status and needs of the national 

parks in the 21st Century and 

made an urgent call for park 

management grounded in 

scientifi c research. 

The National 

Trails System Act 

provided for the 

establishment 

of national trails 

and designated 

two national 

scenic trails.

Redwood National 

Park Expansion 

Act encouraged the 

protection of national 

parks from external 

threats. The National 

Parks and Recreation 

Act authorized the 

additional of 15 units to 

the National Park System

The Clean Air 

Act Amendments 

include special 

provisions to 

protect air quality 

in national parks, 

including the 

responsibility to 

participate in the 

decision making 

that determines the 

quality of the air 

affecting parks. National Park 

Omnibus 

Management 

Act provided 

for improved 

management of 

resources of the 

national park system 

and increased 

accountability 

for certain NPS 

programs. 

The National Park 

Service’s Action Plan 

for Preserving Natural 

Resources, the Natural 

Resource Challenge, 

establishes a strong 

resource management 

program based on the 

inventory, monitoring, and 

scientifi c assessment of 

NPS natural resources. 

There are 

nearly 400 

National 

Parks.

The General Authorities Act redefi nes the 

NPS to include all areas managed for park, 

monument, historic, parkway, recreational, or 

other purposes. The National Environmental 

Protection Act establishes national 

environmental policy and goals.

1872 1906 1916 1933 1964 1956-66 1965 1968 1970 1978 1980 1990 1992 1998 1999 2007

4 Adapted from National Park Service, 2007: History. National Park Service, http://www.nps.gov/abo

history.htm, accessed on 4-10-2007.

Figure 4.4. Historical timeline of the National Park Service.4

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 6 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 6 
an unacceptable impact. Enabling legislation 

and park strategic and general management 

plans are used to guide decisions about whether 

specific activities will cause impairment 

(National Park Service, 2006).

Other acts passed by Congress have extended 

the roles and responsibilities of national parks. 

National parks are included in the Wilderness 

Act of 1964 (for parks that include wilderness 

or proposed wilderness), the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act of 1968, the Clean Water Act of 

1972, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

and the Clean Air Act of 1990. These acts, 

along with the Organic Act, are translated into 

management guidelines and policies in the 2006 

Management Policies guide. Historian Robin 

Winks identified three additional acts that help 

to define the role of NPS in natural resource 

protection: the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1972, the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976, and the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (Winks, 

1997). 

Although its overarching mission has remained 

mostly unchanged, the NPS has undergone 

substantial evolution in management philosophy 

since 1916, and there are many examples 

that illustrate unconventional approaches to 

problems. For instance, national park status 

is not necessarily conferred in perpetuity. 

Twenty-four units of the National Park System 

were either deauthorized or transferred to other 

management custody for a number of reasons, 

demonstrating that designation of national 

park status is not necessarily permanent. 

While fifteen areas were transferred to other 

agencies because their national significance was 

marginal, others were deauthorized because 

their location was inaccessible to the public, and 

the management of five reservoirs was handed 

included culling some species and providing 

supplemental food to others), and spraying 

with pesticides to prevent irruptions of native 

insects. Development of ski slopes and golf 

courses within park boundaries was congruent 

with visitor enjoyment. During the 1960s, the 

Leopold Report on Wildlife Management in 

National Parks, the 1964 Wilderness Act, and the 

growth of the environmental movement ushered 

in a different management philosophy (Leopold, 

1963). Managers began to consider natural 

controls on the size of wildlife populations. 

Some park managers decided skiing and golf 

were not congruent with their mission, and 

closed ski lifts and golf courses. The Wilderness 

Act of 1964 restricted mechanized and many 

other activities in designated or proposed 

wilderness areas within parks. Throughout 

its history, NPS has changed its priorities 

and management strategies in response to 

increased scientific understanding of ecological 

systems, public opinion, and new laws and 

administrative directives. Today, confronted 

not only with climate change but with many 

other threats to natural resources from within 

and outside park boundaries, the Park Service 

again has the opportunity to revisit resource 

management practices and policies. 

4.2.2 Interpretation of Goals

The aggregate federal laws described above 

strongly suggest that the intent of Congress 

is not only to “conserve unimpaired” but also 

to minimize human-caused disturbances, 

and to restore and maintain the ecological 

integrity of the national parks. The NPS mission 

6 National Park Service, 2003: National Park Service history: former National Park System units: an 

analysis. National Park Service, http://www.nps.gov/

history/history/hisnps/NPSHistory/formerparks.

htm, accessed on 7-13-2007.

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 7 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 7 
8

remains much as it was in 1916 (Box 4.1). 

In general, the Secretary of the Interior, and 

by extension, the Director of the NPS, have 

been given broad discretion in management 

and regulation provided that the fundamental 

purpose of conservation of park resources 

and values is met. Although individual parkenabling legislation may differ somewhat 

from park to park, all parks are bound by 

the NPS Organic Act, the Redwood National 

Park Expansion Act, and other legislation 

described above. The enabling language 

of the Organic Act creates a dilemma that 

the 20th century. The definition of “unimpai

is central to how well NPS confronts and ad

its resources to climate change.

To accomplish its mission, NPS employs m

than 14,000 permanent personnel and s

4,000 temporary seasonal employees (Fig. 

Parks receive more than 270 million visi

each year. Operations and management occ

three levels of organization: national, regio

and individual park. Service-wide policy i

7 “Impair” 2003: In: The American Heritage® 

tionary of the English Language, 4th ed. New Y

Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.

National Park Service (NPS) headquarters provides national level 

leadership and advocacy, policy and regulatory formulation and 

direction, program guidance, budget formulation, legislative support, 

accountability for all programs and activities, and management for 

Servicewide programs. This includes oversight of the 32 Inventory 

and Monitoring Network Offi ces. National Program Centers within 

the headquarters offi ce provide professional and technical support 

services to regions and park units.

The seven regions in the NPS are each headed by a regional 

director (who reports to a Deputy Director at the NPS 

Headquarters). NPS regional directors for each of the seven NPS 

regions are responsible for strategic planning and direction, policy 

oversight, and assistance in public involvement, media relations, 

and strategies for parks and programs within the region. Regional 

directors are also responsible for program coordination, budget 

formulation, and fi nancial management.

Each National Park is headed by a superintendent or park manager 

who manages all park operations to achieve program goals and 

also directs and controls all program activities. The nearly 400 

National Parks include: national parks, national preserves, national 

monuments, national memorials, national historic sites, national 

seashores, and national battlefi elds.

Level of Organization Jurisdiction

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park 

Service

Regional Offi ce

National Parks

Figure 4.5. Organizational chart of National Park Service.8

8 Adapted from National Park Service, 2007: Organization. National Park Service, http://www.nps.gov/abo

organization.htm, accessed on 4-10-2007.

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 8 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 8 
oversight to parks, and serve as conduits 

for information between the Washington 

Office and parks. Two national-level offices, 

the Denver (Colorado) Service Center and 

the Interpretive Design Center at Harpers 

Ferry, West Virginia, provide professional 

architectural and engineering services, and 

media products (e.g., publications, exhibits, 

interactive presentations, and audio-visual 

displays) to individual parks.

many national lakeshores, seashores, recreation 

areas, and preserves because of the legislation 

that established those specific park units.

Approximately 270 National Park System areas 

contain significant natural resources. The 

Natural Resource Challenge, an action plan for 

preserving natural resources in national parks, 

was established in 2000 in the recognition that 

knowledge of the condition and trends of NPS 

Virgin Islands NP

Salt River Bay NHP

and Ecological Preserve

Buck Island Reef NM

Virgin Islands

Coral Reef NM

Christiansted NHS

San Juan NHS SAN JUAN

CHARLOTTE

AMALIE

PUERTO RICO VIRGIN ISLANDS

ATLANTIC OCEAN

CARIBBEAN SEA

 War in the

Pacific NHP Hagåtña

(AGANA)

PHILIPPINE

SEA

PACIFIC OCEAN

GUAM

National Park of 

American Samoa

PAGO PAGO

PACIFIC OCEAN

AMERICAN SAMOA

PACIFIC OCEAN

HAWAII

HAWAI‘I

MAUI

O‘AHU

KAUA‘I NI‘IHAU

MOLOKA‘I

ALASKA

PACIFIC OCEAN

GULF OF ALASKA

BERING SEA

0

0 400 Miles 200

200 400 Kilometers

LAKE ONTARIO

LAKE HURON

LAKE SUPERIOR

LAKE MICHIGAN

LAKE ERIE

GULF OF MEXICO

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

PACIFIC

OCEAN

MAINE

VT.

N.H.

N.J.

MD. DEL.

VIRGINIA

NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTH CAROLINA

KENTUCKY

TENNESSEE

MISSISSIPPI

LOUISIANA TEXAS

OKLAHOMA

KANSAS

NEBRASKA

SOUTH DAKOTA

MONTANA NORTH DAKOTA

WASHINGTON

OREGON

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

ARIZONA

NEW MEXICO

UTAH

IDAHO

WYOMING

COLORADO

ARKANSAS

ALABAMA

GEORGIA

FLORIDA

INDIANA OHIO

ILLINOIS

MICHIGAN

WISCONSIN

IOWA

MISSOURI

MINNESOTA

MASS.

CONN. R.I.

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

0 100

0 100 200 Miles

200 Kilometers

Scale for all areas except Alaska

North

Figure 4.6. Map of the National Park System. Data courtesy of National Park Service, Harpers Ferry Center.9

9 National Park Service, Harpers Ferry Center, 2007: Harpers Ferry Center: NPS maps. National Park Service, 

http://home.nps.gov/applications/hafe/hfc/carto-detail.cfm?Alpha=nps, accessed on 4-10-2007.

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 9 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 9 
10

The Natural Resource Challenge includes the 

Inventory and Monitoring Program (including 

NPS Resource Inventories and Vital Signs 

Monitoring Networks), the Biological Resources 

Management Program, and the Air Quality, 

Water Resources, and Geologic Resources 

Programs. Natural Resource Challenge 

programs mostly provide information, 

management guidance, and expertise to parks, 

as opposed to active management, although an 

exception is the Invasive Plant Management 

Teams. Individual parks set their own resource 

management agendas, which they carry 

out with permanent and seasonal staff and 

money from the park, the Natural Resource 

Preservation Program (a competitive research 

fund), and Park-Oriented Biological Support 

(a joint USGS/NPS program). Many parks also 

encourage or invite researchers to study specific 

issues facilitated by two NPS entities—the 

Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units and the 

Research Learning Centers.

Mountain National Park’s Elk and Vegeta

Management Plan). These natural resou

management plans are increasingly scie

driven. However, despite having guida

and policies for natural resource managem

planning, there are still many parks that h

no planning documents identifying des

future conditions, and many of the Gen

Management Plans are out of date.

Public input, review, and comment 

encouraged, and increasingly required, in 

park planning activities. Increasingly, p

planning activities take place in regio

contexts and in consultation with other fed

state, and private land and natural resou

managers.

4.3 CURRENT STATUS OF 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

4.3.1 Key Ecosystem 

Characteristics on Which Goals 

Depend

National parks are found in every major bi

of the United States. Parks with mana

natural resources range from large in

(or nearly intact) ecosystems with a 

complement of native species—includ

top predators, (e.g., some Alaskan pa

Yellowstone, Glacier; Stanford and E

2002)—to those diminished by disturban

such as within-park or surrounding-a

legacies of land use, invasive species, pollu

or regional manipulation of resources (

hydrologic flow regimes).

Current NPS policy calls for managemen

preserve fundamental physical and biolog

processes, as well as individual spec

features, and plant and animal commun

(National Park Service, 2006). “The Ser

BOX 4.2. Natural Resource Action Plan Goals.

• National parks are preserved so that this generation 

and future generations can enjoy, benefit, and learn 

from them.

• Management of the national parks is improved 

through a greater reliance on scientific knowledge.

• Techniques are developed and employed that protect 

the inherent qualities of national parks and restore 

natural systems that have been degraded; collaboration with the public and private sectors minimizes 

degrading influences.

• Knowledge gained in national parks through scientific 

research is promulgated broadly by the National Park 

Service and others for the benefit of society.

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 10 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 10 
yp

cave formation, and wildland fire; 

• Biological resources such as native plants, 

animals, and communities;

• Biological processes such as photosynthesis, 

succession, and evolution;

• Ecosystems; and

• Highly valued associated characteristics 

such as scenic views.

4.3.2 Stressors of Concern

Despite mandates to manage national parks to 

maintain their unimpaired condition, there are 

many contemporary human-caused disturbances 

(as opposed to natural disturbances) that 

create obstacles for restoring, maintaining, 

or approximating the natural conditions of 

ecosystems. The current condition of park 

resources can be a legacy of past human 

activities or can be caused by activities that 

take place outside park boundaries. We grouped 

the most widespread and influential of the 

disturbances that affect park condition into 

four broad classes: altered disturbance regimes, 

habitat fragmentation and loss, invasive species, 

and pollution. 

These four classes of stressors interact. For 

example, alteration of the nitrogen cycle via 

atmospheric nitrogen deposition can facilitate 

invasion of non-native grasses. In terrestrial 

systems, invasion of non-native grasses 

can alter fire regimes, ultimately leading to 

vegetation-type conversions and effective loss 

or fragmentation of wildlife habitat (Brooks, 

1999; Brooks et al., 2004). Climate change 

is expected to interact with these pressures, 

exacerbating their effects. Climate change is 

already contributing to increasing frequency 

and intensity of wildfires in the western 

United States, potentially accelerating the 

rate of vegetation-type conversions that are 

not just in the western park areas, but across the United 

(Dale et al., 2001). Such increases would have direct impa

infrastructure and air quality. There would also be shor

long-term consequences for conservation of valued speci

their habitats. McKenzie et al. (2004) presented a conc

model of how interactions between naturally functioning 

systems with some recurrence interval of fire can be pert

under conditions of climate change (see below). Warme

drier summers are likely to produce more frequent and 

extensive fires. Trees and other vegetation are also likely 

stressed by drought and increasing insect attacks, since st

vegetation is predisposed toward other stressors (Paine, T

and Johnson, 1998). Insect-caused mortality can lead to lar

eas with accumulations of woody fuels, enhancing the prob

of large fires. More frequent and more extensive fires w

to greater area burned. Over time this can alter existing 

structure. Depending on the location, homogeneous forest 

can regenerate. Savannahs or grasslands may replace trees in 

areas. Increased erosion on slopes may affect forest fertili

stream or lake water quality. Increased fire frequency—in

any kind of land disturbance—favors opportunistic and w

species. Annual weeds, such as cheatgrass and buffelgrass 

western United States, regenerate rapidly after fire and pr

abundant fuel for future fires. The number of native fire-se

species decreases. Vegetation types that are at risk from eith

or the combination of fire and invasive species put obligat

mammal, and insect species at risk of local or regional exti

(McKenzie et al., 2004).

25-100 yr 100-500 yr

Disturbance

synergy

New fi re regimes

• Move frequent fi re

• More extreme events

• Greater area burned Species responses

• Fire-sensitive species

• Annuals & weedy species

• Specialists with restricted ranges

• Deciduous and sprouting species

Fire

Vegetation

Climate

Climatic 

change

Habitat chang

• Broad-scale homo

• Truncated succes

• Loss of forest cov

• Loss of refugia

• Fire-adapted spec

Disturbance drives 

ecosystem changes

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 11 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 11 
12

4.3.2.1 Altered Disturbance Regimes

Natural disturbance processes such as fire, 

insect outbreaks, floods, avalanches, and forest 

blowdowns are essential drivers of ecosystem 

patterns (e.g., species composition and age 

structure of forests) and processes (e.g., nutrient 

cycling dynamics). Disturbance regimes are 

characterized by the spatial and temporal 

patterns of disturbance processes, such as the 

frequency, severity, and spatial extent of fire. 

Many natural disturbance regimes are strongly 

modulated by climate variability, particularly 

extreme climate events, as well as by human 

land uses. Thus, climate change is expected 

to alter disturbance regimes in ways that will 

profoundly change national park ecosystems. 

Three types of natural disturbances whose 

frequency and magnitude have been altered 

in the past century include fire, beach and soil 

erosion, and natural flow regimes.

Fire

Historic fire exclusion in or around many 

national parks has sometimes increased the 

potential for higher-severity fires and mortality 

of fire-resistant species. Fire-resistant tree 

species that may have had their natural 

frequencies suppressed include giant sequ

(Sequoia giganteum) in Yosemite, Sequ

and Kings Canyon National Parks; ponde

pine (Pinus ponderosa) in Grand Canyon 

other southwestern parks; and southwes

white pine (Pinus strobiformis) in Guada

Mountains National Park. In other ar

such as Yellowstone or the subalpine for

of Rocky Mountain National Park (see C

Study Summary 4.1), fires are driven alm

completely by historically infrequent wea

events and post-fire forest regrowth (Rom

and Despain, 1989). Recent land use or 

suppression have had little effect on 

regimes in the latter parks. 

Coast and Soil Erosion

Coasts are naturally dynamic systems 

respond to changes in sea level, storms, w

patterns, sediment inputs from river syste

and offshore bathymetry. Barrier islands, w

provide protection to coasts, migrate in resp

to storms and currents and are replenishe

winds, waves, currents, and tides. When 

level rise is gradual, ecosystems and landfo

can adjust via accretion of sediments, and 

(Gunderson, 2001). A balance between freshwater inflows and sea levels maintains the salinity gradients necessary for mangrove ecosystems, which are important for mangrove fish populations, wood stork (Mycteria 

americana) and roseate spoonbill (Platelea ajaja) nesting colonies, and estuarine crocodiles. 

Although there are intensive efforts to increase hydrologic flows to and through the Everglades, climate 

change is expected to increase the difficulty of meeting restoration goals. Interactions of fire, atmospheric 

CO2, and hurricanes may favor certain tree species, possibly pushing open Everglades pine savannahs toward 

closed pine forests (Beckage, Gross, and Platt, 2006). Tree islands, which are hotspots of biodiversity, and 

peatlands that make up much of the Everglades landscape, may be additionally stressed by drought and peat 

fires. Animals that rely on these communities may see their habitat decrease (Smith et al., 2003). Mangroves 

may be able to persist and move inland with climate change, but that will depend on the rates of sea leve

rise (Davis et al., 2005). 

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 12 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 12 
 Is staffed with personnel who are already engaged in early stages of adaptation planning. 

• Is a major destination for more than three million visitors per year from Colorado, the United 

States, and abroad, who come to experience the unique high-elevation environment and escape 

summer heat; 

• Is a crucial component of the greater Southern Rockies Ecosystem, and nearly surrounded by 

other public lands, including wilderness. 

Management context 

Located in the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, the 415-square-mile Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) was established in 1915 as a public park for the benefit and enjoyment of 

the people of the United States, with regulations primarily aimed at the freest use of the park 

and the preservation of natural conditions and scenic beauties. A primary management goal is 

to maintain the park in its natural condition. RMNP’s wide elevation gradient—from 8,000 to 

more than 14,000 feet—includes montane forests and grasslands, old-growth subalpine forests, 

and the largest expanse of alpine tundra in the lower 48 states. More than 150 lakes and 450 

miles of streams form the headwaters of the Colorado River to the west and the South Platte 

River to the east. Rich wetlands and riparian areas are regional hotspots of native biodiversity. 

Several small glaciers and rock glaciers persist in east-facing cirque basins along the Continental 

Divide. The park is home to populations of migratory elk, mule deer, and bighorn sheep; alpine 

plant and animal species such as white-tailed ptarmigan, pika, and yellow-bellied marmot; and 

several endangered species such as the boreal toad and the greenback cutthroat trout. 

Key climate change impacts

• Projected biome shifts, fragmentation, and losses as temperatures warm and major habitats 

shift upward in elevation;

• Projected ecosystem disruptions due to increased risks of fire, insect pest outbreaks, invasion 

by non-native species, and population changes in native species (e.g., grazers and browsers);

• Projected reduction of snowpack;

• Projected warming of water bodies with resulting impacts to aquatic life;

• Projected species losses (e.g., white-tailed ptarmigan and other tundra obligates); 

• Projected population increases in organisms that can stress the system (e.g., elk);

• Observed increases in summer temperatures (average increase of 3°C from 1991–2001) as 

well as increases in extreme heat events;

• Observed earlier melting of winter snowpack;

• Observed early emergence of animals from hibernation and early arrival of migratory 

species;

• Observed thinning of nearby Arapahoe Glacier by more than 40 m since 1960.

Opportunities for adaptation 

• RMNP has benefited from long-term research and monitoring projects and climate change 

assessments that will be vital to ongoing adaptation planning. 

• Park managers have been proactive in removing or preventing invasive species, managing fire 

through controlled burns and thinning, reducing regional air pollution through partnerships 

with regulatory agencies, purchasing water rights, restoring streams and lakes to free-flowing 

status, and preparing a plan to reduce elk populations to appropriate numbers. 

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 13 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 13 
14

gppppg pg

of the park and protects an important part of the greater Southern Rockies Ecosystem.

• Managers have recognized the need for learning activities and opportunities for all park 

employees to increase their knowledge of climate change-related natural resource issues 

within RMNP. 

Conclusions

RMNP is home to a wide diversity of valued ecosystems and species. As such, it attracts large 

numbers of visitors. RMNP is also potentially highly vulnerable to climate change. Adaptation 

planning is vital if the health of RMNP biomes and the greater Southern Rockies Ecosystem is 

to be protected, and such planning has already begun. However, much remains to be accomplished. Complex climate change issues require flexible ways of thinking, and enough time and 

systems-level training to approach them with broad, strategic vision. Expanded monitoring 

programs within the park could ensure that early signs of impacts are detected in all biomes. 

Forums for identifying problems and solutions are already being initiated between park managers and regional scientists. Acceleration of these dialogues would speed identification of 

specific and realistic adaptation options for each of the major resources within the park.

keep pace with the changes. Coastal responses 

may be nonlinear in response to abrupt natural 

disturbances; freshwater and salt marshes, 

mangroves, or beach regeneration may take 

years to decades to recover after severe storms, 

and irreversible changes can occur if there is 

salt-water intrusion or a lack of sediment source 

for replenishment (IPCC, 2007). Direct human 

activities have had significant impacts on 

coastlines and coastal zones, and a trend toward 

increasing coastal development is projected to 

occur through the next century (IPCC, 2007). 

Drainage of coastal wetlands, deforestation 

and reclamation, and discharge of pollutants 

of all kinds are examples of direct alterations 

of coasts. Extraction of oil and natural gas can 

lead to subsidence. Structures such as seawalls 

and dams harden the coast, impede natural 

regeneration of sediments, and prevent natural 

inland migration of sand and vegetation after 

disturbances. Channelization of marshes and 

waterways alters freshwater, sediment, 

nutrient delivery patterns (IPCC, 2007). 

Soils provide a critical foundation 

ecosystems, and soil development occur

geologic time. Natural soil erosion can 

occur slowly, over eons, but rapid soil loss 

happen in response to extreme physical 

climatic events. Many of the changes in 

erosion rates in the parks are a legacy of hu

land use. Soil erosion rates are also influen

by interacting stressors, such as fire and clim

change. Historic land uses such as graz

by domestic livestock have accelerated w

and wind erosion in some semiarid nati

parks when overgrazing has occurred. T

erosion has had long-term effects on ecosys

productivity and sustainability (Sydor

Allen, and Jacobs, 2000). In Canyonla

National Park, soils at sites grazed from the 

1800s until the 1970s have lost much of t

vegetative cover. These soils have lower 

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 14 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 14 
wodwde, due to uaappopatoo

freshwater (Gleick, 2006). Few natural area 

national parks have rivers that are unaltered 

or unaffected by upstream manipulations. 

Reservoirs in several national parks have 

flooded valleys where rivers once existed. 

Examples of large impoundments include 

Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National 

Park, Lakes Powell and Mead on the Colorado 

River of Glen Canyon and Lake Mead National 

Recreation Areas, and Lake Fontana in Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park. There 

are many smaller dams and reservoirs in 

other national parks. Parks below dams and 

diversions, such as Big Bend National Park, 

are subject to flow regulation from many miles 

upstream. Irrigation structures, such as the 

Grand Ditch in Rocky Mountain National Park, 

divert annual runoff away from the Colorado 

River headwaters each year.11 Volume, flow 

dynamics, temperature, and water quality are 

often highly altered below dams and diversions 

(Poff et al., 2007). Everglades National Park 

now receives much less water than it did before 

upstream drainage canals and diversions were 

constructed to divert water for agriculture. 

Natural hydrologic cycles have been disrupted, 

and the water that Everglades now receives 

is of lower quality due to agricultural runoff. 

Altered hydrologic regimes promote shifts in 

vegetation; facilitate the invasion of non-native 

species such as tamarisk, Russian olive, and 

watermilfoil; and promote colonization by 

native species such as cattail. 

10 National Park Service, 2006: Redwood National 

and State Parks. National Park Service, http://www.

nps.gov/redw/naturescience/environmentalfactors.

htm, accessed on 5-15-2007. 11 National Park Service, 2007: Rocky Mountain 

National Park - hydrologic activity. National Park 

Service, http://www.us-parks.com/rocky/hydrologic_activity.html, accessed on 4-6-2007.

Caves, such as Jewel Cave National Monument, 

and the processes that maintain them are 

at special risk from groundwater depletion. 

Impacts include drying of cave streams and 

pools, drying of speleothems (stalactites and 

other carbonate formations) so they do not 

continue to grow, and loss of habitat for aquatic 

cave fauna (Ford and Williams, 1989). 

Land use, particularly urbanization, alters 

flow regimes through creation of impervious 

surfaces. Water that previously percolated 

through soils and was assimilated by native 

vegetation runs rapidly off paved surfaces, 

increasing the probability that streams and 

rivers will flood in response to storms. Flooding 

is a management concern in urban parks, such 

as Rock Creek Park in Washington, DC. When 

Rock Creek was established in 1890, it was at 

the edge of the city; its watershed is now wholly 

urbanized.

4.3.2.2 Habitat Alteration: Fragmentation 

and Homogenization

“Wild life” is identified specifically in the NPS 

enabling legislation, and regardless of whether 

the framers of the Organic Act intended the 

words to mean only birds and mammals, or all 

wild living things, large mammals have long 

been a central focus of NPS management and 

public discourse. Many wildlife challenges 

within parks stem from past extirpation of 

predators and overexploitation of game species, 

such as elk, and furbearers, such as beaver and 

wolverine. Restoration of species that were 

extirpated, and control of species that in the 

absence of predators have greatly expanded 

their populations, are important issues in many 

of the 270 natural area parks (Tomback and 

Kendall, 2002). 

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 15 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 15 
16

Moreover, fragmentation can impede dispersal 

of plant seeds or other propagules and migration 

of plant and animal populations that live 

along boundaries of national parks. However, 

fragmentation can also increase the amount 

and quality of habitat for some species, such as 

white-tailed deer, which, while native, are now 

considered a nuisance because of high numbers 

in many parts of the eastern United States. 

Causes of fragmentation include road building 

and resource extraction such as timber 

harvest, mines, oil and gas wells, water wells, 

power lines, and pipelines. Coastal wetland 

ecosystems can be constrained by structures 

that starve them of sediments or prevent 

landward migration. In lands adjacent to 

parks, fragmentation increasingly is driven by 

exurban development—low-density rural home 

development within a landscape still dominated 

by native vegetation. Since 1950, exurban 

development has rapidly outpaced suburban 

and urban development in the conterminous 

United States (Brown et al., 2005).12 The 

effects of fragmentation are highly dependent 

on the spatial scale of disturbance and the 

particular taxonomic group being affected. 

And while there have been many studies on 

the effects of fragmentation on biodiversity, 

results of empirical studies are often difficult 

to interpret because they were conducted at 

patch scales rather than landscape scales, and 

did not distinguish between fragmentation and 

habitat loss (Fahrig, 2003). However, some 

known ecological effects include shifts in the 

distribution and composition of species, altered 

mosaics of land cover, modified disturbance 

12 Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer, and J.R. Hoffman, 

2003: Buying Time: a User’s Manual for Building 

Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in 

Natural Systems. World Wildlife Foundation, Washington, DC.

For example, reductions in the natur

variable rates of freshwater inf lows 

increases in nutrients have converted m

of the vegetation of Florida Bay in Evergl

National Park from sea grasses to algae (Un

1999). Fire exclusion has created large trac

even-aged forest and woodland in many wes

and midwestern parks, reducing heterogen

of land cover and species richness (Kean

al., 2002).

4.3.2.3 Invasive Species 

The deliberate or inadvertent introductio

species with the capability to become nuisa

or invaders is a major challenge to managem

throughout the national park system, an

likely to be exacerbated by climate cha

These types of organisms are defined 

invasive, whether or not they are non-na

Invasive species are those that threaten na

species or impede current ecosystem funct

Invasive plants are present across some 

million acres in the national parks. Inva

animals are present in 243 parks.13 The N

has identified control of invasive specie

one of its most significant land managem

issues, and has established a highly coordin

and aggressive invasive plant managem

program. Efforts to restore native plants 

occur, but at much lower levels than contr

invasive plants.

4.3.2.4 Air and Water Pollution

Air Pollution

Atmospheric processes link park ecosyst

to sources of air and water pollution that 

be hundreds of miles away. These pollut

13 National Park Service, 2004: Invasive spe

management. National Park Service, http://w

nature.nps.gov/biology/invasivespecies/, acce

on 5-15-2007.

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 16 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 16 
times each in Sequoia, Kings Canyon, and 

Rocky Mountain National Parks.14 Ozone 

concentrations are increasing in Congaree 

Swamp and 10 western park units, including 

Canyonlands, North Cascades, and Craters of 

the Moon.15

Acid precipitation is still a concern in many 

eastern parks. While sulfur dioxide emissions 

have decreased significantly in response to 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the 

legacy of soil, lake, and stream acidification 

persists (Driscoll et al., 2001). Acadia, Great 

Smoky Mountains, and Shenandoah National 

Parks have active monitoring programs that 

track stream acidity and biological responses. 

Acidic waters from air pollution in Shenandoah 

are responsible for the loss of native trout 

populations and decline in fish species richness 

(MacAvoy and Bulger, 1995; Bulger, Cosby, and 

Webb, 2000). Warmer future climate conditions, 

economic growth, and increasing populations 

will create more requirements for energy, and 

if the energy is derived from fossil fuels there 

is the potential for increasing acid rain. 

Atmospheric nitrogen deposition, which is 

attributable to motor vehicles, energy production, 

industrial activities, and agriculture, contributes 

to acidification and also to fertilization of 

ecosystems, because nitrogen is an essential 

nutrient whose supply is often limited. Nitrogen 

saturation, or unnaturally high concentrations of 

nitrogen in lakes and streams, is of great concern 

to many national parks. Although nitrogen oxide 

14 National Park Service, 2006: Ozone health advisory 

program yearly summaries. National Park Service, 

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/data/O3AdvisSum.

cfm, accessed on 5-15-2007. 15 National Park Service, 2006: Performance measures. National Park Service, http://www2.nature.

nps.gov/air/who/npsPerfMeasures.cfm, accessed on 

5-15-2007.

forests, and increased algal productivity and 

changes to species assemblages in lakes (Baron

et al., 2000; Bowman et al., 2006).

The heavy metal mercury impairs streams 

and lakes in parks across the United States. 

Mercury is a byproduct of coal-fired energy 

production, incineration, mining, and other 

industrial activities. Mercury concentrations 

in fish are so high that many national parks 

are under fish advisories that limit or prohibit 

fish consumption. Parks in which levels of 

mercury in fish are dangerous to human health 

include Everglades, Big Cypress, Acadia, Isle 

Royale, and Voyageurs. Managers at many 

other parks, including Shenandoah, Great 

Smoky Mountains, and Mammoth Cave, have 

found significant bioaccumulation of mercury 

in taxonomic groups other than fish, including 

amphibians, bats, raptors, and songbirds. In 

Everglades, elevated mercury has been linked 

to mortality of endangered Florida panthers 

(Barron, Duvall, and Barron, 2004). 

Water Pollution

Water quality in national parks is influenced 

not only by air pollution, but also by current or 

past land use activities and pollution sources 

within the watersheds in which national parks 

are located. Currently, agricultural runoff 

that includes nutrients, manure and coliform 

bacteria, pesticides, and herbicides affects 

waters in nearly every park downstream 

from where agriculture or grazing is located. 

Discharges from other non-point sources of 

pollution—such as landfills, septic systems, 

and golf courses—also cause problems for park 

resources, as they have for Cape Cod National 

Seashore, which now has degraded surface and 

groundwater quality. 

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 17 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 17 
18

high levels of bacteria from urban runoff and 

wastewater after heavy rainfall events. 

4.3.2.5 Direct Impacts of Climate Change 

There will be some direct effects of climate 

change on national parks, as well as many 

interactive effects of climate change with the 

other major disruptions of natural processes 

described above. In addition to warming 

trends, climate change will influence the 

timing and rate of precipitation events. Both 

storms and droughts are expected to become 

less predictable and more intense. There will 

be direct effects on glaciers and hydrologic 

processes. Worldwide, glaciers are retreating 

rapidly, and glacier attrition is apparent in 

Glacier and North Cascades National Parks 

(Hall and Fagre, 2003; Granshaw and Fountain, 

2006). The retreating Van Trump glacier on 

Mount Rainier has produced four debris flows 

between 2001-2006, filling the Nisqually River 

with sediment and raising the river bed at least 

six feet. Future high flow events will spread 

farther from the river banks because of the 

raised bed.16 Data already show that climate 

change is modifying hydrologic patterns in 

seasonally snow-dominated systems (Mote, 

2006). Snowmelt now occurs earlier throughout 

much of the United States (Huntington et al., 

2004; Stewart, Cayan, and Dettinger, 2005; 

Hodgkins and Dudley, 2006). Sea level rise has 

great potential to disturb coastal ecosystems, by 

intrusion of saltwater into freshwater marshes 

and by inundating coastal wetlands faster than 

they can compensate. Although coastlines are 

highly dynamic though geologic time, structural 

16 Halmon, S., P. Kennard, S. Beason, E. Beaulieu, and 

L. Mitchell, 2006: River bed elevation changes and 

increasing flood hazards in the Nisqually River at 

Mount Rainier National Park, Washington. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2006.

2003). Subalpine fir is already invading 

Paradise flower fields at Mt. Rainier Nati

Park, taking advantage of mild years to estab

and forming tree islands that buffer indivi

trees against cold and snow. In Tuolum

Meadows, at 2,900 m in Yosemite Nati

Park, lodgepole pine is rapidly establish

and indeed is colonizing other more rem

meadows above 3,000 m.17 Vegetation wi

redistributed along north-south gradients

well as along elevation gradients, facilit

by dieback in southern ranges and poss

expansion to cooler latitudes. Piñon pine for

of the Southwest are illustrative of how se

drought and unusual warmth exceeded spec

specific physiological thresholds, cau

piñon mortality across millions of hectare

recent years (Allen, 2007). Piñon pines are 

dying in their northern range, according to 

Forest Inventory Analysis (Shaw, Steed, 

DeBlander, 2005), and model results sug

that their range could expand in Colorado 

the next 100 years.18 Where vegetation dieb

occurs, it can interact with wildfire activ

and both fires and plant mortality can enha

erosion (Allen, 2007).

Climate change will influence fire regi

throughout the country. Extended fire sea

and increased fire intensity have already b

observed to correlate directly with climat

the western United States, and these effect

17 Yosemite National Park, 2006: Tuolumne Mea

lodgepole pine removal. National Park Ser

www.nps.gov/archive/yose/planning/proj

tmtrees.pdf, accessed on 4-13-2007. 18 Ironside, K., K.L. Cole, N. Cobb, J.D. Shaw

P. Duffy, 2007: Modeling the future redistrib

of pinyon-juniper woodland species. In: Clim

Induced Forest Dieback As an Emergent G

Phenomenon: Patterns, Mechanisms, and Pr

tions. Proceedings of the ESA/SER Joint Mee

5, August 2007.

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 18 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 18 
increased evapotranspiration or increased 

human consumptive uses, will reduce the 

dilution of pollutants in rivers and streams 

(Murdoch, Baron, and Miller, 2000). 

4.3.3 Current Approaches to NPS 

Natural Resource Management

To date, only a few individual parks address 

climate change in their General Management 

Plans, Resource Management Plans, Strategic 

Plans, or Wilderness Plans. Dry Tortugas’ 

General Management Plan lists climate change 

as an external force that is degrading park coral 

reefs and seagrass meadows, but considers 

climate change beyond the scope of park 

management authority. Sequoia and Kings 

Canyon National Park’s Resource Management 

Plan specifically references climate change as a 

restraint to achieving desired future conditions, 

and notes the need for inventory and monitoring 

to enable decision making.

NPS has made significant progress in recent 

years in gathering basic information, developing 

a rigorous structure for monitoring changes, and 

raising natural resource management to the 

highest level of importance. Decisions about the 

extent and degree of management actions that 

are taken to protect or restore park ecosystems 

are increasingly supported by management 

objectives and credible science (National Park 

Service, 2006). NPS management approaches 

to altered disturbance regimes, habitat 

fragmentation, invasive species, and pollution 

are described below. 

Fire management in the NPS, while conducted 

in close coordination with other agencies, is 

driven by five-year prescribed burn plans in 

individual parks and suppression responses 

to fire seasons that have become increasingly 

Grenfell, 2004). 

Erosion is prevented or repaired by necessity 

on a site-by-site basis. Terrestrial ecosystem 

restoration often uses heavy machinery in an 

effort to repair severely damaged wetlands, 

stream banks, and coastal dunes, and to restore 

landforms and connectivity among landscapes 

disturbed by roads. Restoration treatments 

after severe fire can increase herbaceous 

ground cover and thus resistance to accelerated 

runoff and erosion, as exemplified by work at 

Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico 

(Sydoriak, Allen, and Jacobs, 2000). 

There are no national summaries of the 

extent of hydrologic alteration in national 

parks. Technical assistance and research on 

flow regimes are supplied by the NPS Water 

Resource Division and the U.S. Geological 

Survey to individual parks. For downstream 

parks that have extensive upstream watershed 

development, there is no management of altered 

hydrology (e.g., Cuyahoga Valley NRA, Big 

Bend National Park). In other locations, research 

is being conducted on hydrologic alterations and 

management options. For example, at Organ 

Pipe Cactus National Monument, scientists and 

managers are identifying groundwater source 

areas. Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational 

River is quantifying minimum flows necessary 

for protecting endangered dwarf wedgemussels. 

Adaptive management using experimental 

flows in Grand Canyon National Park below 

Glen Canyon Dam is helping to develop 

a f low regime that supports endangered 

fish, sediment, recreation, and hydropower 

generation. Some park units are actively 

removing dams (e.g., Glines Canyon and Elwha 

Dams in Olympic National Park), purchasing 

water rights from previous owners in order to 

protect water flows (e.g., Zion National Park, 

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 19 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 19 
20

1987; Sellars, 1999) and by scientific research 

that has highlighted the role of parks as 

refuges for native wildlife. Individual parks 

manage their wildlife differently on the basis 

of history, current land use adjacent to the park, 

ecological feasibility, public sentiment, and 

legal directives. Large ungulates and carnivores 

attract much management attention, and there 

have been many studies on carrying capacity 

and the feasibility of reintroducing certain 

species in national parks. Reintroduction of 

gray wolves into Yellowstone National Park 

was accomplished in 1995 and 1996 after 

extensive study and environmental assessment. 

The number of packs and reproduction of 

individual wolves has increased substantially 

since the reintroductions. There have been 

remarkable effects on the entire trophic cascade 

and Yellowstone ecosystem as a result of the 

wolves’ hunting tactics and behavioral changes 

among ungulates. Changes have occurred in 

vegetation and habitat for many other species, 

By reintroducing bighorn sheep only to a

with adequate habitat quality and quan

managers have facilitated establishmen

stable reproducing populations. 

Many other examples, from restoring nes

populations of Kemp’s Ridley sea turtles at P

Island National Seashore, to directing more N

funding toward protecting listed species wh

need is most immediate, illustrate spec

specific management activities that oc

within park boundaries (Fig. 4.7). Managem

summaries have been completed for almos

of the 284 threatened and endangered spe

that occur in the national parks. The summa

that relate basic biological informatio

recovery goals for species are posted on a W

site in a form that is accessible to resou

managers.19

19 National Park Service, 2004: Threatened 

endangered species. National Park Service, h

www.nature.nps.gov/biology/endangeredspe

database/search.cfm, accessed on 5-15-2007.

Figure 4.7. Kemp’s Ridley hatchlings heading for the water at a hatchling release. 

Photo courtesy National Park Service, Padre Island National Seashore.

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 20 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 20 
water quality measures, the location and type 

of water bodies, and meteorology. Additional 

inventories of geologic and vegetation maps, 

soils, land cover types, geographic distributions 

and status of vertebrates and vascular plants, 

and location of air quality monitoring stations 

are in progress. 

Efforts to address regional landscape and 

hydrologic alteration occur in some park areas, 

and have been initiated either by individual 

parks or their regional partners. A pilot project 

to understand the role of NPS units in the 

fragmented landscape was conducted from 

2004–2006. NPS and its partners used geospatial 

datasets and regional conservation frameworks 

to develop over 40 partnership proposals. The 

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee 

(Box 4.5), and the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan—which includes Everglades, 

Big Cypress National Preserve, and Biscayne 

National Parks—are two examples of large 

multi-agency efforts targeting landscape 

and hydrologic rehabilitation or protection. 

Some management within park units has 

also attempted to alleviate fragmentation. 

For example, road underpasses have been 

constructed for desert tortoises in Joshua Tree 

National Monument. 

As part of the NPS commitments within the 

National Invasive Species Management Plan, 

17 Exotic Plant Management Teams operating 

under the principles of adaptive management 

serve more than 200 park units (National 

Invasive Species Council, 2001). Exotic Plant 

Management Teams identify, develop, conduct, 

and evaluate invasive species removal projects. 

Modeled after rapid response fire management 

teams, crews aggressively control unwanted 

plants. Mechanical, chemical, and cultural 

management methods and biological control

of whitebark pine and cutthroat trout, threatened and end

species, recreation, and air quality. Shared data, informat

equipment have been effective in coordinating specific a

including acquiring and protecting private lands through de

conservation easements, raising public awareness, provid

such as a vehicle washer, and increasing purchasing powe

activities have helped combat the spread of invasive plants

fish passageways, conserve energy, reduce waste streams, 

the public, and develop a collective capacity for sustainabilit

the federal agencies.

20 Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, 2007: Greater Yello

Administrative boundaries. Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Commi

http://bsi.montana.edu/web/gycc, accessed on 5-21-2007.

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 21 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 21 
22

If invasive insects, either native or alien, 

are considered a threat to structures or the 

survival of valued flora, they may be treated 

aggressively. Direct management interventions 

include use of biocides, biological control, and 

plant removal in “frontcountry” areas where 

safety and visitor perception are paramount. 

Non-native diseases are another major threat 

to native plants and animals. White pine blister 

rust (Cronartium ribicola), for instance, has 

caused die-offs of five-needled pines in western 

and Midwestern parks. 

Several national parks either actively manage 

visitor use or are proposing to do so in order 

to control the spread of invasive species. 

Voyageurs National Park proposes to prohibit 

use of natural bait, privately owned watercraft, 

and float plane landings in all interior waters 

in order to limit the spread of the spiny water 

flea.21 Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

requires all boaters to display a certificate on 

their dashboard stating their boat is free of 

zebra or quagga mussels, or have their boats 

decontaminated.22

Because most sources of pollution are outside 

national park boundaries, NPS air and water 

managers work with state and federal regulatory 

agencies that have the authority to implement 

pollution control by requiring best management 

practices and adhering to air and water quality 

standards. Unlike many resource management 

21 National Park Service, 2007: Voyageurs National 

Park draft spiny water flea spread prevention plan. 

National Park Service, http://www.nps.gov/voya/

parkmgmt/upload/FinalDraft%20SWFT%20

Spread%20Prevention%20Planl%203-28-07%20.

pdf, accessed on 11-20-2007. 22 National Park Service, 2007: Glen Canyon national 

recreation area. National Park Service, http://www.

nps.gov/glca/parknews/advisories.htm, accessed on 

11-21-2007.

example of a successful program to red

nitrogen deposition. A synthesis of publis

research found many environmental chan

in the park caused by increasing atmosph

nitrogen deposition. NPS used the informa

to convince the state of Colorado to t

action, and NPS, Colorado, and EPA now h

a plan in place to reverse deposition trend

the park. The Air Quality Program rece

completed a risk assessment of the effect

increasing ozone concentrations to plants 

all 270 natural resource parks (Kohut, 20

and has planned a similar risk assessmen

the potential for damage from atmosph

nitrogen deposition.

A baseline water quality inventory 

assessment for all natural resource nati

parks is scheduled for completion in 2007, 

235 of 270 park reports were complete

of 2006. Reports are accessible online,23 

electronic data are provided to individual p

for planning purposes. Measurement, evalua

of sources of water pollution, and assessme

biological effects currently are carried ou

individual parks, with support from the N

and USGS Water Resources Divisions. M

routine water quality monitoring is relate

human health considerations.

A number of low-lying coastal areas 

islands are at high risk of inundation as clim

changes. The NPS Geologic Resources Divis

in partnership with the USGS, conduc

assessments of potential future change

sea level. The two agencies used results of 

assessments to create vulnerability map

assist NPS in managing its nearly 7,500 mil

23 National Park Service, 2004: Baseline water 

ity data inventory & analysis reports. National 

Service, http://www.nature.nps.gov/water/hor

cfm, accessed on 4-6-2007.

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 22 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 22 
future by climate change. Efforts to increase 

resilience through thoughtful reduction of 

non-natural disturbances, protection of refugia, 

and relocation of valued species to more 

favorable climates may help NPS meet its 

enabling language conservation goals. Even 

so, management applications that aim to 

increase the resilience of physical and biological 

resources in their current form to climate 

change will likely succeed only for the next 

few decades. As climate change continues, 

thresholds of resilience will be overcome. 

Science-based management principles will be 

even more important as park managers begin 

to manage for change rather than existing 

resources (Parsons, 2004). 

One of the biggest challenges to the national 

parks revolves around protection and restoration 

of native species. The Natural Resource 

Challenge distinguishes between native and 

non-native plants, animals, and other organisms, 

and recommends that non-natives be controlled 

where they jeopardize natural communities 

in parks. However, species distributions will 

change, and indeed are already changing, as 

the climate warms. Changing distributions 

are evident in observations of gradual 

migrations (e.g., northward and higher elevation 

observations of many species; Edwards et 

al., 2005; Parmesan, 2006) and in massive 

diebacks (e.g., piñon mortality in Bandelier 

National Monument; Allen, 2007). A recent 

study suggests that by 2100, between 4% and 

39% of the world’s land areas will experience 

combinations of climate variables that do not 

24 Pendleton, E.A., E.S. Hammar-Klose, E.R. Thieler, 

and S.J. Williams, 2007: Relative coastal vulnerability assessment of Gulf Islands National Seashore 

(GUIS) to sea-level rise. U.S. Geological Survey, 

http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/nps-cvi/

parks/GUIS.htm, accessed on 4-6-2007.

accepts the inevitability of change, it and other 

collaborating agencies can anticipate, and even 

aid, the establishment of desirable climateappropriate species that will take advantage of 

favorable conditions. By using species suited 

to anticipated future climates after disturbance 

or during restoration, for instance, managers 

may prevent establishment of less desirable 

species. 

NPS goals of providing visitor services such 

as interpretation and protection will not be 

directly altered by climate change, although 

programs will need to adapt. National parks 

will remain highly desirable places for people 

to visit, but climate change may cause visitation 

patterns to shift in season or location. Parks 

may consider managing visitor use practices 

or patterns differently in order to prevent 

people from inadvertently contributing to 

climate-change enhanced damage. Climate 

change will alter the length of visitor seasons 

in many parks; coastal and mountain parks 

may see increased visitation, while desert parks 

may see decreased visitation during summer 

months. Extreme heat and heavy precipitation 

events, projected as being very likely by IPCC 

(2007), may strain visitor safety services. 

Interpretation efforts can play an important 

role in educating park visitors about changes 

occurring in national parks and what the park is 

doing to manage or reduce the impacts of those 

changes. Interpretation may also be a good way 

to engage the public in meaningful discussions 

about good environmental stewardship, and 

what climate change means for ecosystems and 

valued species within them.

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 23 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 23 
24

and Webber, 1973; Lee, 1993; Regan, Colyvan, 

and Burgman, 2002). Resource uncertainties 

can be separated into two categories (Lee, 

1993): the first type, technical and scientific

uncertainty, centers on what we do and do not 

know about future climate change effects and 

our ability to ameliorate them. The second type, 

social uncertainty, focuses on our cultural and 

organizational capability to respond.

There is considerable uncertainty in predictions, 

understanding, and interpretation of climate 

change and its effects. Managers must consider 

at least three different categories of climate 

change impacts, each associated with a different 

level of uncertainty: foreseeable or tractable 

changes, imagined or surprising changes, and 

unknown changes. 

Predictions of climate change are generally 

accepted if changes are foreseeable and evidence 

already exists that many of these predictions are 

accurate. For instance, we can predict with high 

confidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide 

concentrations will increase, sea levels will 

rise, snow packs across most of North America 

will shrink, global temperature will increase, 

fire seasons will become longer and more 

severe, and the severity of storms will increase 

(IPCC, 2007). We refer to a given change as 

foreseeable if there is a fairly robust model 

(or models) describing relationships between 

system components and drivers, and sufficient 

theory, data, and understanding to develop 

credible projections over the appropriate scales. 

We cannot project precisely the magnitude of 

foreseeable changes, but we can quantify the 

distribution of probable outcomes. For example, 

a 40-year record shows that snow is melting 

increasingly earlier in the spring in the Sierra 

Nevada, Cascade Range, and New England 

species migrations, replicating population

a bet-hedging strategy to reduce overall r

restoring riparian vegetation to shade r

reaches, or even conducting assisted migrati

As the risk of fire increases, planners m

consider moving infrastructure out of f

prone areas and restricting visitor acces

fire-prone areas during fire seasons for sa

reasons. Planners may also need to cons

how to manage for increased smoke-rel

health alerts and possibly increased respira

emergencies in parks. Many parks, suc

Yosemite, have been managing fuels 

fire ecology for decades, and have exten

prescriptive documents that describe w

and how to manage in specific locati

complete with numbers of acres to treat e

year and a targeted natural fire freque

return interval (National Park Service, 200

Methods that may have been effective in 

past, however, should be regularly revie

for their applicability, since historic range

variability in natural disturbance cycles ma

less appropriate targets in a warmer clima

The second category of climate change an

related effects includes changes that are kn

or imaginable, but difficult to predict with 

certainty. These may include changes w

which we have little or no past experienc

history, or effects of changes in systems 

which there is a great deal of experience. 

example, nonlinear interactions among sys

components and drivers could reduce 

certainty of predictions and generate unexpe

or surprising dynamics. Surprises may pre

crises when the ecological system abru

crosses a threshold into a qualitatively diffe

state. For example, a November 2006 storm 

caused severe flooding and damage in M

Rainier National Park was surprising, becau

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 24 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 24 
Allen, 2007). Planning for these rare but major 

events requires that mechanisms be put in place 

to reduce the damage caused by those events. 

In some instances, minimizing the ecological 

effects of sudden changes in system state might 

require removing infrastructure or maintaining 

corridors for species migration. 

The third category of climate change and 

related effects is unknown or unknowable 

changes. This group includes changes and 

associated effects that have not previously been 

experienced by humans. Perhaps the greatest 

uncertainties in projecting climate change and 

its effects are associated with the interaction of 

climate change and other human activities. The 

synergistic and cumulative interactions among 

multiple system components and stressors, 

such as new barriers or pathways to species 

movement, disruption of nutrient cycles, or 

the emergence of new diseases, may create 

emerging ecosystems unlike any ever seen 

before. 

4.4.2 Approaches to Management 

Given Uncertainty

When confronting a complex issue, it is tempting 

to postpone action until more information or 

understanding is gained. Continuing studies and 

evaluations almost always are warranted, but not 

all actions can or should be deferred until there 

is unequivocal scientific information. Scenario 

planning and knowledge gained from research 

and adaptive management practices can help 

with decision-making, and can point toward 

implementation of actions to manage natural 

resources in the face of substantial uncertainty. 

Ideally, actions should be taken that are robust 

to acknowledged uncertainty. So-called “noregrets” strategies that improve the environment 

increase resilience regardless of climate change, 

few problems can be solved easily, the adoption 

of a systems approach to management and a 

shared environmental protection vision with 

adjacent landowners increases the probability 

of achieving park objectives. The two major 

factors that influence selection of strategies 

for managing complex resource systems are 

the degree (and type) of uncertainty and the 

extent to which key ecological processes can 

be controlled (Fig. 4.8). Uncertainty can be 

qualitatively evaluated on a scale of low to 

high. Ability to control an ecological process 

depends on the process itself, the responsible 

management organization or institution, and 

the available technology. For example, supply 

of surface water can be manipulated upstream 

from some national parks, such as Everglades 

or Grand Canyon.

Figure 4.8. Scenario planning is appropriate for systems 

in which there is a lot of uncertainty that is not controllable. In other cases optimal control, hedging, or adaptive 

management may be appropriate responses. Reprinted 

from Peterson, Cumming, and Carpenter (2003).

Optimal Control and Hedging

The strategic approaches in Fig. 4.8 provide a 

broad set of tools for resource management. 

Each tool is appropriate for certain types of 

CONTROLLABLE UNCONTROLLABLE

LOW

HIGH

Uncertainty

Controllability

Adaptive

Management

Scenario

Planning

Hedging Optimal

Control

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 25 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 25 
26

Fire and wildlife management as currently 

practiced are examples of optimal control. 

Many fire management plans are developed and 

implemented by controlling the timing—and 

hence the probable impact—of fire to achieve 

an optimal set of resource conditions. Control 

of wildlife populations through culling, birth 

control, or reintroduction of top predators is 

based on concepts about limits such as carrying 

capacity. Physical removal of invasive plants 

exemplifies optimal control. Hedging strategies 

involve management that may improve fitness 

or survival of species. For example, placing 

large woody debris in a stream to improve fish 

habitat is essentially a hedging strategy. 

Scenario-Based Planning

Scenario-based planning is a qualitative, or 

sometimes quantitative process that involves 

exploration and articulation of a wide set of 

possible or alternative futures (Carpenter, 2002; 

Peterson, Cumming, and Carpenter, 2003; 

Raskin, 2005). Each of these alternative scenarios 

is developed through a discourse among 

knowledgeable persons, and is informed by data 

and either conceptual or simulation models. 

Scenarios are plausible—yet uncertain—stories 

or narratives about what might happen in the 

future. Scenario development is used routinely 

to assess a variety of environmental resource 

issues (National Research Council, 1999). Park 

Service managers, along with subject-matter 

experts, apply existing knowledge to conduct 

scenario planning related to climate change 

and resources of interest. A finite number of 

scenarios (e.g., three to five) that depict the 

range of possible futures can be extremely 

useful for helping managers develop and 

implement plans, and also minimize the anxiety 

of frustration that comes from having to deal 

with uncertainty. Research into the rate, extent, 

constructed to trigger action if a thresh

is crossed, similar to current air qua

regulations for ozone. Mandatory reduct

in ozone precursor emissions are impo

on ozone-producing regions by EPA w

allowable ozone levels are exceeded. P

could include management “drills” to pre

for low, but real, probabilities of an extr

event (fire drills are an example we are 

familiar with). Scenarios should be built aro

consideration of how climate change will af

current resource management issues. If cur

habitat recovery plans for endangered spe

for instance, do not take future climate cha

into account, recovery goals may not be m

Scenarios provide the opportunity to exp

and attempt to resolve the inevitable probl

that will arise when management for one 

conflicts with laws or other management go

Tradeoffs between air quality and the us

fire for ecosystem restoration and maintena

already need to be made, for instance. 

prudent decision-maker will conduct plann

exercises to identify where potential collis

may occur under various climate cha

and management scenarios, and address 

balance between short-term costs and long-t

benefits. Management responses to scena

should consider the degree of uncerta

attached to impacts, the probable magni

and character of impact, the resources availa

and legal mandates as well as social 

economic consequences. 

Triage is an extreme form of tradeoff. 

resource- and staff-limited world, there 

be a need to prioritize. Scenarios that eval

the feasibility of adaptation against ecolog

social, or economic returns will be valuab

making difficult decisions, and importa

in conveying results of these decisions to 

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 26 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 26 
p() p

ecological dynamics operate and (2) how human 

interventions may affect the ecosystem. Adaptive 

environmental assessment is substantially 

different from environmental assessments 

routinely conducted within frameworks such as 

NEPA. The NEPA process presumes certainty 

of impacts and outcomes, and generally 

minimizes or ignores uncertainties. Adaptive 

environmental assessment and management, 

by contrast, highlights uncertainty. Managers 

design actions that specifically test uncertainties 

about ecosystem dynamics and outcomes of 

proposed interventions. The objectives of 

management actions explicitly include learning 

(hence reduction of uncertainty). Adaptive 

management views policies as hypotheses and 

management actions as treatments that are 

structured to “test” desired outcomes. 

Adaptive management can be either active 

or passive. Active adaptive management 

involves direct manipulation of key ecological 

processes to test understanding of relationships 

among system components and drivers and to 

examine the effects of policies or decisions, 

such as the flood release experiments of 1996 

and 2004 in the Grand Canyon (Walters et 

al., 2000). Passive adaptive management, 

instead of direct hypothesis-testing, relies on 

historical information to construct a “best 

guess” conceptual model of how a system 

works and how it will respond to changing 

conditions. Management choices are made on 

the assumption that the ecosystem will respond 

according to the model (National Research 

Council, 2003). Whether active or passive, 

information gathered throughout the iterative 

adaptive management cycle is used to increase 

ecological understanding, and adjust and refine 

management (Walters and Holling, 1990). 

for implementing management actions that 

are designed to meet learning and other social 

objectives. 

Safe-to-Fail Strategies

Because the uncertainties associated with 

predictions of climate change and its effects 

are substantial, expected outcomes or targets 

of agency policies and actions have some 

probability of being incorrect. Accordingly, 

NPS could take the robust approach of 

designing actions that are “safe to fail.” That 

is, even though managers intend to implement 

a “correct” action, they and their supervisors 

recognize that failure may occur. 

Safe-to-fail policies apply to both natural 

resources and to human resources. For natural 

resource management, a safe-to-fail experiment 

or action is undertaken only where there is 

confidence the system can recover without 

irreversible damage to the targeted resource. 

This type of approach is employed in other 

fields, such as engineering systems (e.g., air 

traffic control, or electric power distribution) 

where uncertainty is actively managed through 

f lexible designs that adjust to changing 

conditions (Neufville, 2003). One low-tech 

example of where safe-to-fail strategies are 

already used in NPS resource management is 

in attempting to control invasive feral hogs. 

Feral hogs are common to many parks in 

the southeastern United States, California, 

the Virgin Islands, and Hawaii. The hogs 

are opportunistic omnivores whose rooting 

profoundly disrupts natural communities 

and individual populations, and facilitates 

establishment of invasive plants. Hogs compete 

directly with native wildlife for mast, prey on 

nests of ground-nesting birds and sea turtles, 

and serve as reservoirs for a variety of serious 

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 27 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 27 
28

to take reasoned management risks without 

concern for retribution. Although not desired, 

failures provide tremendous opportunities 

for learning. Learning from mistakes and 

successes is a critical part of adaptation to 

climate change. As climate changes, even the 

most well-reasoned actions have some potential 

to go awry. The wisdom, experience, and 

empirical data of front line managers, resource 

management personnel, and scientific staff need 

to be protected, preserved, and expanded. Public 

education about the complexity of resource 

management, transparency in the decisionmaking process, frequent public updates on 

progress or setbacks, and internal agency efforts 

that promote trust and respect for professionals 

within the agency are all important methods 

for promoting more nuanced and potentially 

unsuccessful management efforts. 

Acceptance of a gradient between success 

and failure might foster greater creativity in 

resource management and remove the need to 

assign blame. Shifting attitudes about failure 

increases institutional capacity to capture and 

it is prudent to begin to implement adapta

strategies as soon as possible. Note that 

kinds of management actions that incre

resilience will be most effective in the 

term, but will need to be re-evaluated as 

climate, and environmental response, move 

realms for which there is no historical ana

Clearly, methods manuals and handbo

of adaptation strategies should be used w

caution and reviewed regularly to determi

they are still appropriate, since analogs from 

past may not be effective for managing fu

environments. 

The importance of action in national p

extends well beyond the parks themselves. 

value of national parks as minimally distu

refugia for natural processes and biodiver

becomes more important with increa

alteration of other lands and waters. M

parks have received international recogni

as Biosphere Reserves or World Herit

sites because of their transcendent v

worldwide. If protection of natural resou

and processes is to be achieved during 

BOX 4.6. Process for Adaptations of Parks and the Park Service to Climate Change.

• Identify resources and processes at risk from climate change. 

– Characterize potential future climate changes, including inherent uncertainty and possible ranges.

– Identify which resources are susceptible to change under future climates.

• Develop monitoring and assessment programs for resources and processes at risk from climate change

• Define baselines or reference conditions for protection or restoration.

• Develop and implement management strategies for adaptation.

– Consider whether current management practices will be effective under future climates.

– Diversify the portfolio of management approaches.

– Accelerate the capacity for learning.

– Assess, plan, and manage at multiple scales. 

• Let the issues define appropriate scales of time and space.

• Form partnerships with other resource management entities.

– Reduce other human-caused stressors to park ecosystems. 

– Nurture and cultivate human and natural capital.

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 28 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 28 
coming decades of climate change, NPS 

managers need to first identify what is at risk; 

define the baselines, or reference conditions, 

that constitute “unimpaired” in a changing 

world; monitor and evaluate changes over 

time; decide the appropriate scales at which to 

manage the processes and resources of national 

parks; and finally set measurable targets of 

protection by which to measure success or 

failure over time (Box 4.6). All of these actions 

require intimate and iterative connections 

among scientists, resource managers, other 

resource management partners, and the public. 

Dialog on management goals and resources 

at risk should include members of the public, 

adjacent land and resource managers, and 

state and local authorities. Moreover, efforts 

should be made to engage the full diversity 

of public opinion, rather than a selected set of 

public interests. Continuous dialog between 

scientists, managers, and the interested public 

will build the greatest possible understanding of 

the threats, consequences, and possible actions 

related to climate change (Box 4.7). Climate 

change literacy at all levels is a worthy goal, 

and one that is currently actively pursued by 

NPS. Climate change literacy will become 

even more important in the future in order to 

manage public expectations, since even the 

best management practices will not be able to 

prevent change. 

While resource management is implemented at 

individual parks, planning and support can and 

should be provided at all management levels, 

with better integration between planners and 

resource management staff. A revision of NPS 

Management Policies to incorporate climate 

change considerations would help to codify 

the importance of the issue. Park General 

reduce risk of anomalously severe fires.

• Minimize alteration of natural disturbance regimes, for example through protection of 

natural flow regimes in rivers or removal of infrastructure that prohibits the allowance 

of wildland fire

• Minimize soil loss after fire or vegetation dieback with native vegetation and debris.

• Aggressively prevent establishment of invasive non-native species where they are 

documented to threaten native species or current ecosystem function.

• Allow the establishment of species that are non-native locally, but maintain native 

biodiversity or enhance ecosystem function in the overall region.

• Actively plant or introduce desired species after disturbances or in anticipation of the 

loss of some species.

• Manage Park Service and visitor use practices to prevent people from inadvertently 

contributing to climate change.

• Practice bet-hedging by replicating populations and gene pools of desired species.

• Restore vegetation where it confers biophysical protection to increase resilience, 

including riparian areas that shade streams and coastal wetland vegetation that buffers 

shorelines.

• Create or protect refugia for valued aquatic species at risk to the effects of early 

snowmelt on river flow.

• Assist in species migrations.

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 29 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 29 
30

dety esouces ad ocesses at so

Climate Change

The first activity is to identify the important 

park processes and resources that are likely 

to change as a result of climate change and 

from the interactions of climate change with 

existing causes of stress. This should take 

place within each park, but the exercise 

should occur at the network, regional, and 

national scales as well, in order to prioritize 

which resources will respond most rapidly, 

thus warranting immediate attention. The 

process begins with characterizing potential 

future climate changes and systematically 

considering resources, as well as their current 

stressors, susceptible to change under future 

climates. This can be accomplished through 

summaries of the literature, guided research, 

gatherings of experts, and workshops where 

scientists and managers engage in discussing 

risks to resources. Some of these activities may 

have already been done during the process of 

identifying vital signs for the Inventory and 

Monitoring Program. Park managers may wish 

to rank resources and processes according to 

how susceptible they are to changes in climate, 

based on the rapidity of expected response, 

the potential for adaptation opportunities (or 

conversely, the threat of endangerment), the 

“keystone” effect (i.e., species or processes 

that have disproportionate effects on other 

resources), and the importance of the species 

or resources to meeting the park’s management 

goals. The direct and indirect influence of 

climate change itself on specific resources 

will vary in comparison with other resource 

management issues, but this exercise will 

ensure the potential effects are not ignored. 

should be augmented with new technolo

and remote sensing. NPS maintains 64 

as part of the Global Fiducial Program, w

collects high-resolution geospatial data 

predetermined sites over a period of y

to decades.25 Global Fiducial is an exam

of an important, and underutilized, typ

information that has much to offer to nati

parks. Collaborations with universities 

other agencies can accelerate the ability of N

to obtain useful data that can be incorpor

into adaptive management. Collaborations 

other information gathering and assessm

programs—such as programs of the US

and National Science Foundation, includ

the National Ecological Observatory Netw

(NEON) and the Long-Term Ecolog

Research (LTER) networks—present ben

to all partners by developing broad integr

analyses.

Assessment involves tracking the vital s

and their major drivers of change to eval

the presence of trends or thresholds. Whi

is important to look at the data that show w

happened in the past, it is critically impor

to use monitored information to antici

potential future trends or events. Projection

possible futures allow management interven

in advance of some undesired change, 

can be conducted with simple extrapolat

of monitored data. Simulation and statis

models are invaluable tools for projec

future events, but they need to be parameter

with physical and biological information, 

validated against existing records. The 

requirements for models, therefore, need t

25 National Park Service, 2007: OCIO factsh

Global Fiducial Program. National Park Ser

http://www.nps.gov/gis/factsheets/fiducial.h

accessed on 5-16-2007.

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 30 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 30 
gg

goals should be used to establish baselines for 

species, communities, or processes. Much can 

be learned from surveys of the literature on 

past conditions (including the geologic past as 

determined by paleoenvironmental records; 

Willis and Birks, 2006). Historic or prehistoric 

baselines may be unattainable, however, if the 

climates that produced them will not occur 

again, so caution needs to be employed in 

extrapolating from a past baseline condition to 

a management goal. Shifting baselines, or the 

circumstance by which a reference condition 

changes according to the perspective of the 

manager, can lead to acceptance of degraded 

conditions and loss of resource integrity (Pauly, 

1995). Careful monitoring and clear resource 

protection goals are necessary for incorporating 

climate change into management. 

Philosophical discussions will need to take place 

regarding the legitimacy of novel ecosystems 

made up of previously unrepresented species 

(Hobbs et al., 2006). Natural migrations of plants 

and animals from outside park boundaries will 

occur, indeed will need to occur, as individual 

species seek favorable climatic conditions. 

Because of this, the definition of invasive 

may need to be relaxed so that natural species 

assemblages can develop in response to new 

climates. National park boundaries are porous, 

and corridors for naturally migrating species, 

either in or out of a national park, should be 

protected or restored. The dispersal of species 

does not only occur through migration to 

adjacent lands or waters, of course, and there 

are many dispersal mechanisms that species 

will employ to locate favorable new habitats. A 

more nuanced understanding of the constraints 

and selective pressures on dispersal will be 

important for deciding which new residents 

are unwelcome (Kokko and López-Sepulcre, 

2006). 

protection of refugia for vulnerable species, or 

actively translocating them to new favorable 

habitats, may enable some highly vulnerable 

species to persist. Ramifications are economic 

as well as ecological. With limited resources, 

NPS will have hard decisions in the coming 

years over how to manage most effectively. 

Develop and Implement Management Strategies 

for Adaptation

Developing and implementing strategies for 

adaptation to climate change will require 

NPS managers to adopt a broad array of tools 

well beyond control and hedging strategies. 

Current management practices may not be 

effective under future climates. Some strategies 

include:

• Diversify the portfolio of management approaches. Because climate change is complex and predictions often have high levels of 

uncertainty, diverse management strategies 

and actions will be needed. It is important to 

think broadly about potential environmental 

changes and management responses and not 

be constrained by history, existing policies 

and their interpretation, current practices, 

and traditions. Initial assessments of effective approaches in general or specific environmental circumstances can be informed 

by the degree of uncertainty in management outcomes and the potential for control 

through human intervention. Managers can 

hedge bets and optimize practices in situations where system dynamics and responses 

are fairly certain. In situations with greater 

uncertainty, adaptive management can be 

undertaken if key ecosystem processes can 

be manipulated. In all situations, capacity to 

project changes and manage adaptively will 

be enhanced by scenario development, planning, and clear goals. Scenario development 

can rely primarily on qualitative conceptual 

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 31 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 31 
32

p

tirpated (Box 4.8). Potential responses may 

include aggressive efforts to prevent invasion 

of non-native species in specific locations at 

which they currently are absent and where 

future conditions may remain favorable for 

native species. Managers might relocate 

individuals or populations, or even consider 

conceding the loss of the species. 

Although in many cases restoration and 

maintenance of historic communities 

may become impossible, useful efforts 

might be directed toward maintenance 

of ecosystem function. The protection of 

ecosystem services that supply food and 

habitat for wildlife, preserve beaches or 

soil, and regulate hydrologic processes is 

26 Lovejoy, T.E., 2007: Testimony to congressional 

hearing on climate change and wildlife. United 

States Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works.

integration of ongoing research, monitor

and management in a framework of tes

and evaluation—will facilitate that learn

Scenario planning exercises are effec

ways of synthesizing much informa

for learning. Bringing together exper

issue-specific workshops can rapidly b

understanding. Application of safe-to

approaches also will increase capacity 

learning and effective management.

• Assess, plan, and manage at multiple sca

Complex ecological systems in natio

parks operate and change at multiple sp

and temporal scales. As climate change

will be important to match the managem

or intervention effort with the appropr

scale where environmental changes oc

The scales at which ecological proce

operate often will dictate the scales at w

management institutions must be develo

Migratory bird management, for insta

requires international collaboration; l

ungulates and carnivores require regi

collaboration; marine preserves require 

operation among many stakeholders; al

examples of cases in which park mana

cannot be effective working solely wi

park boundaries. Similarly, preparation 

rapid events such as floods will be mana

very differently than responses to clim

impacts that occur over decades. Spe

may be able to move to favorable clim

and habitats over time if there is appropr

habitat and connectivity. There are sev

examples of management of park resou

within larger regional or ecosystem conte

The Greater Yellowstone Coordinating C

mittee, and the Southern Appalachian M

and the Biosphere (SAMAB) Program 

building relationships across jurisdicti

boundaries that will allow effective p

ning for species and processes to adap

climate change. Olympic, Channel Isla

BOX 4.8. Examples of Invasive Species Impacts.

Buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare), an African bunchgrass, is spreading rapidly across the Sonoran 

Desert in southern and central Arizona. The Mojave 

Desert and Great Basin counterparts to buffelgrass, 

the brome grasses (Bromus spp.) and Arabian Schismus (Schismus spp.), cover millions of acres. Brome 

and Schismus grasses are highly flammable and 

spread rapidly after fires; their invasion into deserts 

that evolved with infrequent, low-intensity fires is 

hastening loss of native species. Among the many 

charismatic species at risk are saguaro cactuses, 

Joshua trees, and desert tortoises. Buffelgrass and 

the Mediterranean annual grasses thrive under most 

temperature regimes so they are likely to continue 

expanding (Weiss and Overpeck, 2005).

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 32 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 32 
American Samoa, Everglades, Point Reyes, 

and other coastal parks cooperate with many 

other state and federal agencies in advising 

and managing national marine sanctuaries. 

These ecoregional consortia should serve as 

models for other park areas as they begin to 

address the multiple challenges that emanate 

from outside park boundaries (Box 4.9).

• Reduce other human-caused stressors to 

park ecosystems. In addition to the direct 

consequences of climate change to park resources, we know that interactions of climate 

with other stressors will have major influ27 Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere,

2007: SAMAB home page. Southern Appalachian 

Man and the Biosphere Website, http://samab.org/, 

accessed on 5-21-2007.

ences on national park resources (McKenzie

et al., 2006). Therefore, one of the most basic 

actions park managers can take to slow or 

mitigate some effects of climatic change is to 

reduce the magnitude of other disturbances 

to park ecosystems.28 Minimizing sources of 

pollution, competition between non-native 

and native species, spread of disease, and 

alteration of natural disturbance regimes 

should increase ecosystem resilience to 

28 E.g., Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer, and J.R. Hoffman, 

2003: Buying Time: a User’s Manual for Building 

Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in 

Natural Systems. World Wildlife Foundation, Washington, DC. and

 Welch, D., 2005: What should protected areas managers do in the face of climate change? The George 

Wright Forum, 22(1), 75-93.

Its “zone of cooperation” covers the Appalachian parts of six states: Tennessee, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Virginia, and includes Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park. 

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 33 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 33 
34

gppp(

et al., 2005). Once an ecosystem shifts from 

one state to another, it may be difficult, if not 

impossible, to return it to its prior desirable 

state (Gunderson and Holling, 2002). While 

it may be tempting to promote a return to 

some range of natural variability, this option 

must be considered very carefully. Ecosystems change in many ways as a result of 

management, and unexpected results may 

occur if management is focused on restoring 

only one kind of process. A historic flow and 

temperature regime for the Colorado River 

below Glen Canyon Dam, for instance, will 

allow non-native warm water fishes that are 

now established to move upstream to compete with endangered fishes (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2005).

p y 

twice a year to take in broad strategic vi

of national park resources, their stress

and management approaches.

Use Parks to Demonstrate Responses to Clim

Change

The goodwill of Americans toward nati

parks means that they can be used as exam

for appropriate behavior, including mitiga

strategies, education, and adaptive nat

resource management. The NPS is well awa

its ability to serve as an example, and is rap

becoming a “green” leader through its Clim

Friendly Parks program, a partnership betw

NPS and EPA (Box 4.10). There is an in

cost to change operations in response to clim

change, but the tradeoff between that cost 

BOX 4.10. Climate Friendly Parks.

With support from EPA, the National Park Service began the Climate Friendly Parks initiative 

in 2002.29 The Climate Friendly Parks program provides tools for parks to mitigate their 

own contributions to climate change and increase energy efficiency. The program also aims 

to provide park visitors with examples of environmental excellence and leadership that can 

be emulated in communities, organizations, and corporations across the country. Parks begin 

with a baseline inventory of their own greenhouse gas emissions, using inventories and models developed by EPA. The baseline assessment is used to set management goals, prioritize 

activities, and demonstrate how to reduce emissions, both at the level of individual parks and 

service-wide. Solid waste reduction, environmental purchasing, management of transportation 

demands (e.g., increasing vehicle efficiency, reducing motorized vehicle use and total miles traveled), and alternative energy and energy conservation measures are considered in developing 

action plans for emissions reductions by individual parks. In addition, the NPS will extend these 

efforts to air pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act, including hydrocarbons, carbon 

monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter. Education and outreach 

are strong components of the Climate Friendly Parks program.

29 National Park Service, 2007: Climate Friendly Parks. National Park Service, http://www.nps.gov/climatefrie

parks/, accessed on 7-12-2007.

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 34 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 34 
program is visionary in its efforts to inventory 

greenhouse gas emissions from parks, provide 

park-specific suggestions to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions, and help parks set realistic 

emissions reduction goals. Education and 

outreach are addressed in the Climate Friendly 

Parks program with materials for educating 

staff and visitors about climate change. NPS’s 

Pacific West Regional Office has been proactive 

in educating western park managers on issues 

related to climate change, as well as promoting 

messages for communication to the public and 

actions for addressing the challenge of climate 

change. Expansion of this type of proactive 

leadership is needed.

4.5 CONCLUSIONS

The National Park System contains some of the 

least degraded ecosystems in the United States. 

Protecting national parks for their naturally 

functioning ecosystems becomes increasingly 

important as these systems become more rare 

(Baron, 2004). However, all ecosystems are 

changing due to climate change and other 

human-caused disturbances, including those 

in national parks. Climate changes that have 

already been documented, and coupled with 

existing threats to national parks—including 

invasive species, habitat fragmentation, 

pollution, and alteration of natural disturbance 

regimes—constitute true global change. 

Climate change will overlay and influence all 

current resources and how they are managed. 

Rather than simply adding and ranking the 

importance of climate change against a host 

of pressing issues, managers need to begin 

to include climate change considerations 

into all activities. Natural resource managers 

are challenged to evaluate the possible 

term ecosystem and environmental responses 

of continued climate change.

Within NPS, adaptation may involve prioritizing 

which resources, and possibly which parks, 

should receive immediate attention, while 

recognizing that the physical and biological 

changes that will accompany warming trends 

and increasing occurrences of extreme events 

will affect every one of the 270 natural national 

parks in the coming century. NPS can be 

a catalyst for regional collaboration with 

other land and resource management entities. 

Regional partnerships together can evaluate 

alternative scenarios of change and plausible 

collective responses. Uncertainties about 

how ecosystems will change, as well as the 

organizational responses to climate change, 

will need to be confronted, acknowledged, and 

incorporated into decision-making processes. 

Adaptation will be facilitated by the use of 

adaptive management, where management 

actions generate data that are used to evaluate 

the effects of alternative, feasible, management 

interventions. Flexibility, and institutionalizing 

trust in resource managers that can, and must, 

take some risks, will need to become more 

common than traditional management methods 

that emphasize control over nature. 

This chapter has addressed how climate 

change challenges both the natural resources 

within parks and the social system linked to 

those parks. Effective adaptations require 

that agencies, scientists, and the public think 

differently about how to manage natural 

resources. There are many strategies available 

to confront the uncertainties and complexities 

of climate change, but with climate change upon 

us, there is precious little time to wait. 

Chapter 4_National Parks.indd 35 hapter 4_National Parks.indd 35 
U.S. Geological Survey; Anna Pidgorna, University of Idaho

C

5.1 SUMMARY

The U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is the largest system of protected areas in 

the world. It encompasses more than 93 million acres (37.6 M ha) and is composed of 584 refuge 

units plus 37 wetland management districts that include waterfowl production areas in 193 

counties. Compared with other federal conservation areas, the units are relatively small, typically 

embedded in a matrix of developed lands, and situated at low elevations on productive soils. The 

key mandate of the NWRS Improvement Act of 1997 is to maintain the integrity, diversity, and 

health of trust species and populations of wildlife, fish and plants. This species mandate provides 

the system with substantial legal latitude to respond to conservation challenges. The system has 

emerged and evolved in response to crises that have included market hunting at the beginning 

of the 20th century, dust-bowl drought during the 1930s, and recognition of dramatic reductions 

in biodiversity in the 1970s. Ongoing conservation challenges include habitat conversion and 

fragmentation, invasive species, pollution, and competition for water. The most recent pervasive 

and complex conservation challenge is climate change.

KEY FINDINGS

Climate change will have NWRS-wide effects on species and their habitats. Mean global 

temperature has risen rapidly during the past 50 years and is projected to continue increasing throughout the 21st century. Changes in precipitation, diurnal temperature extremes, and 

cloudiness—as well as sea level rise—are some of the factors that are projected to accompany 

the warming. A coherent pattern of poleward and upward (elevation) shifts in species distributions, advances in phenology of plants, and changes in the timing of arrival of migrants on seasonal 

ranges in concert with recent climate warming has been well documented and is expected to 

have NWRS-wide effects. 

The effects of most concern are those that may occur on NWRS trust species that have 

limited dispersal abilities. Climate related changes in the distribution and timing of resource 

availability may cause species to become decoupled from their resource requirements. For 

example, the projected drying of the Prairie Pothole Region—the single most important duck 

production area in North America—will significantly affect the NWRS’s ability to maintain migratory species in general and waterfowl in particular. Maintaining endangered aquatic species, 

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 1 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 1 
2

Breeding, staging, and wintering habitats are typically dispersed throughout the system an

non-NWRS lands. The superimposition of spatially and temporally variable warming on spat

separated life history events will add substantial complexity to understanding and respon

to ongoing conservation challenges. Climate change will act synergistically with other sys

stressors, and is likely to impose complex non-linear system responses to the “typical” c

lenges. It will be extremely difficult to clearly understand the influence of non-climate stres

on habitats, populations, and management actions without accounting for the effects of clim

change. Local- to national-scale managers will face the dilemma of managing dynamic syst

without fully understanding what, where, or when the climate related changes will occu

how they might best be addressed. The actions suggested below will increase the chance

effectively resolving this dilemma.

Actions taken now may help avoid irreversible losses. Lost opportunities cannot be regai

The system is changing, and delaying action could result in irreversible losses to the integ

diversity, and health of the NWRS. Heterogeneity in climate change effects will require div

and innovative adaptations, increased emphasis on rigorous modeling projections at mul

scales, effective application of the experimental concepts fundamental to adaptive managem

and enhanced collaboration with public and private stakeholders. However, expert opi

will need to be used in the initial response stages, and mistakes will be made while adapta

capabilities are being developed. Waiting for improved climate effect projections before ac

would be inappropriate in view of the pervasive and immediate nature of the problem; deve

ing a culture that rewards risk taking would enhance the speed of adaptation to climate cha

challenges. Expected decadal persistence of climate change effects suggests that a revisio

contemporary planning and budgeting horizons will be necessary. 

Knowing which species will be affected positively and negatively will allow NWRS man

ers to take advantage of positive outcomes and prepare for the management challen

of negative outcomes. If the near-term historical record is an accurate indicator, there 

be substantial spatial heterogeneity in temperature and precipitation trends across the NW

accompanying the system-wide increase in mean temperatures. As a result of this heterogen

in regional- and local-scale climate change effects, some species will be “winners” and ot

will be “losers.” Opportunities to capitalize on positive effects of climate change should be 

ploited. However, the scientific literature primarily documents negative effects. These nega

effects of climate change present the NWRS with the most difficult management challen

Once lost, conservation opportunities are extremely difficult to regain.

Responding to ecological effects may also be improved by projecting the possible fut

of trust species, their NWRS habitats, and management options at all relevant mana

ment scales using the most rigorous scientific modeling tools, climate change scenar

and suite of expected non-climate stressors. This activity would have several compone

(1) clearly identifying conservation targets for the coming decades, and implementing effec

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 2 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 2 
of safe haven for species is no longer viable. Even in special situations, such as the sole remaining habitat for a threatened or endangered species, management for the status quo will not be 

appropriate to the challenge of climate change. Managers and researchers will need to define 

and focus on a dynamic system “state” that provides representative, redundant, and resilient 

populations of trust species that fulfill the key legal mandate to maintain the integrity, diversity, 

and health of NWRS conservation targets. Managing for a dynamic system “state” that provides 

representative, redundant, and resilient populations of trust species provides the best opportunity to fulfill NWRS legal mandates in an environment that allows for evolutionary response 

to the effects of climate change and other selective forces.

The effective conservation footprint of the NWRS may be increased by using all available 

tools and partnerships. Maintaining and enhancing connectivity of system units is critical and 

may be accomplished by increasing the effective conservation footprint of NWRS. Approaches 

for increasing this footprint include new institutional partnerships; management responses that 

transcend traditional political, cultural, and ecological boundaries; greater emphasis on transrefuge and trans-agency management and research; strong political leadership; and re-energized 

collaborations between the NWRS and its research partners at multiple spatial scales. Increasing 

the conservation footprint may bring about greater resilience of the NWRS to the challenge 

of climate change.

Actions that will enable more effective responses to climate change include initiating 

multi-scale communication, education, research, and training programs, and strengthening collaborations between USFWS and all conservation management and research 

partners. Effectively responding to climate-related complexity will be aided by substantial education and training, along with multi-scale, coordinated, and focused efforts by all NWRS partners 

(management, research, and other public and private land managers). Stronger managementresearch collaborations will help identify management- and policy-relevant climate-related 

ecological changes and responses, will keep decision makers informed, and will thus increase the 

likelihood that an effective response to climate change will be made. All levels and jurisdictions 

of management and research need to be integrated and empowered to meet the challenge of 

climate change. Climate change ignores administrative boundaries. Therefore it will be important 

to explore means of facilitating collaboration and communication among government and private 

land managers, such as an inter-agency climate information center that serves as a clearing house 

for documented climate change effects and available management tools.

A clearly elucidated vision of the desired state of the NWRS on the 150 th anniversary of 

the system in 2053 would enhance the development of a framework for adaptation. This 

vision needs to explicitly incorporate the expected challenges of climate change and define the 

management philosophy necessary to meet this challenge. The complexity of expected climate 

effects and necessary management responses offers an opportunity to re-energize a focus on 

the interconnection of spatially separated units of the NWRS and to foster an integrated refugeto-NWRS vision for managing climate change effects on system trust species. 

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 3 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 3 
4

refuge network more resilient and adaptive to a changing environment. 

5.2 BACKGROUND AND 

HISTORY

5.2.1 Introduction

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

(NWRS)—the largest system of protected areas 

in the world established primarily to manage 

and protect wildlife—was born in and has 

evolved in crises. The first crisis was the threat 

to egrets, herons, and other colonial nesting 

waterbirds caused by hunting for feathers and 

plumes for the millinery trade; the second was 

the loss of wildlife habitat, accelerated by the 

Great Depression, drought, and agricultural 

practices in the dust bowl era. The third—still 

ongoing—is species extinction triggered by 

a growing human population and its demand 

on natural resources. The first two crises 

were largely regional in their influence and 

effect. Although the third crisis—extinction—

is international, the response to it is local. 

The influence of the fourth crisis—climate 

change—is global and covers the full breadth 

and depth of the NWRS. It will require national 

to local responses.

In response to the first challenge, President 

Theodore Roosevelt established America’s 

first national wildlife refuge (NWR), Pelican 

Island, Florida. Nearly three decades later, 

in response to depression-era challenges, Ira 

Gabrielson and Ding Darling had a vision 

for a system of refuges that would ensure the 

survival of recreationally viable population

waterfowl for future generations of Americ

Whereas the first response resulted in an ad 

collection of refuges, the second was the b

of the NWRS as the vision of Gabrielson 

Darling, carried forward by three generat

of wildlife biologists and managers. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), w

manages the NWRS, has responded to 

current extinction crisis in a number of w

including the establishment and manageme

61 refuges to recover threatened and endang

species. That response has been insufficie

meet the challenge of biodiversity loss, w

will only progress as it is exacerbated 

climate change.

Now, more than a century after Theod

Roosevelt established Pelican Island NW

584 refuges and nearly 30,000 waterf

production areas encompassing 93 mil

acres and spanning habitats as divers

tundra, tropical rainforests, and coral re

dot the American landscape (Figs. 5.1 

5.2). However, rapidly increasing mean gl

temperature during the past 100 years, w

is predicted to continue throughout the com

century (i.e., climate change, IPCC, 200

challenges not only the existence of spe

and ecosystems on individual refuges, but 

across the entire U.S. landscape—and thus 

diversity, integrity, and health of the NW

itself. If the historical record is an indic

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 4 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 4 
(Figs. 5.3a; 5.3b), there will be substantial 

heterogeneity in future trends for temperature 

and precipitation across the NWRS. These 

refuges—conservation lands—support many 

activities, especially wildlife-dependent outdoor 

recreation, which attracts more than 35 million 

visitors a year (Caudill and Henderson, 2003), 

and other economic activities where compatible 

with refuge purposes.

Direct uses of the NWRS, such as wildlifedependent outdoor recreation and farming, 

are the most readily valued in monetary 

terms. Ecological functions of the refuges 

that provide services to humans include water 

filtration in wetlands and aquifers, buffering 

1 P. L. No. 89-669, 16 U.S.C. ‘668dd

2 FWS Regulations – CFR 50 

Other Named Refuges Waterfowl Production Areas

“...any wetland or pothole area acquired 

pursuant to section 4(c) of the amended 

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act 584 units with 16 types of names

523 – National Wildlife Refuges

37 – Farm Service Administration (FSA)

9 – Wildlife Management Areas

2 – Fish and Wildlife Refuge

1 – Antelope Refuge

1 – Bison range

1 – Conservation Area

1 – Elk Refuge

1 – Game Preserve

1 – International Wildlife Refuge

1 – Key Deer Refuge

1 – Migratory Bird Refuge

1 – Refuge for Columbian White-tail Deer

1 – Research Refuge

1 – Wildlife and Fish Refuge

1 – Wildlife Range

1 – Wildlife Refuge

Over 27,655 individual units consisting of 

waterfowl production areas, wetland 

easements, wildlife management areas, 

and easements from Farm Service 

Administration. The units are grouped 

into counties, which are further grouped 

into wetland management districts.

37 Wetland Management Districts

193 Waterfowl Production Area Counties

21- Wildlife Management Areas

5 – Game Ranges

3 – Elk Winter Pastures

3 – Public Fishing Areas

3 – Waterfowl Management Area

2 – Elk Refuges

2 – Winter Range and Wildlife Re

1 – Deer-Elk Range

1 – Deer Refuge and Winter Pastu

1 – Deer Winter Pasture

1 – Game and Fish Management U

1 – Game Management Area

1 – Migratory Bird Management A

1 – Migratory Waterfowl and gam

Management Area

1 – State Game Range

1 – Waterfowl Project

1 – Wildlife Conservation Area

Figure 5.1. Structure of the NWRS. Adapted from Fischman (2003), Refuge Administration Act,1 and FWS Regulations.2

Figure 5.2. The National Wildlife Refuge System. Adapted from 

Pidgorna (2007).

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 5 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 5 
6

Figure 5.3a. Observed annual trends in temperature, 1901-2006, for the coterminous United States 

Alaska. Data and mapping courtesy of NOAA’s National Climate Data Center.

-3 -2 -1 0123

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 1900

-5 -5 -5

1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

-4 -4 -4

-3 -3 -3

-2 -2 -2

-1 -1 -1

000

111

222

333

444

555

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 1900

-5 -5

1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

-4 -4

-3 -3

-2 -2

-1 -1

0 0

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

Anoma

Year

Temperature change (°F per century):

a

Anomalies are calculated with respect to the 1961-1990 mean. 

b

Time series were smoothed using a 9-point binomial filter.

J. Alaska

1901-2006 trend: +1.69 °F per century 1901-2006 trend: +2.11 °F per century 1901-2006 trend: +1.73 °F per century

1918-2006 trend: +3.25 °F per century 1905-2006 trend: +1.15 °F per century

G. SouthwestI. Northwest

K. Hawaii

H. West

Annual anomaly

Smoothed trendb

Gray interval: -0.1 to 0.1°F

Southeast

Hawaii Alaska

East

North Central

Central

South

West

North Central

Southwest

Northwest

West

Northeast

from hurricanes by coastal wetlands, and 

maintenance of pollinator species that pollinate 

agricultural plants off the NWRS. A recent 

estimate of the value of ecosystem services 

provided by the NWRS was $26.9 billion/

year.3

Refuges were established as fixed protected 

areas, conservation fortresses, set aside to 

conserve fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats. The NWRS design principles 

assumed an environment that varied but did 

not shift. Populations and ecosystems were 

3 Ingraham, M.W., and S.G. Foster, in press: The indirect use value of ecosystem services provided by the 

U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System. Ecological 

Economics.

thought to be in dynamic equilibrium, w

species could move freely among the refu

and challenges could be dealt with thro

local management actions. Much has chan

since then. The population of the Un

States in 1903, when the first refuge 

established, was 76 million, and gross dome

product (GDP) was $300 billion4 with 

interstate highways. On the 100th anniver

of Pelican Island NWR, America’s popula

reached 290 million, its GDP increased 

factor of 36, and more than 46,000 mile

interstate highways both linked and fragme

America’s landscape. The assumptio

plant and animal populations moving fr

4 In 1992 dollars.

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 6 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 6 
-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent an

Year

Northeast

Southeast

Hawaii Alaska

East

North Central

Central

South

West

North Central

Southwest

Northwest

West

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

a

Anomalies and percent change are calculated with respect to the 

1961-1990 mean. 

b

Time series were smoothed using a 9-point binomial filter.

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

J. Alaska

1901-2006 trend: +1.28% per century

1918-2006 trend: +5.92% per century

Annual anomaly

Smoothed trendb

G. SouthwestI. Northwest

K. Hawaii

H. West

1901-2006 trend: 

+9.13% per century

1901-2006 trend: +5.97% per century

1905-2006 trend: -7.16% per century

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 0 714 21 28 35

Change in precipitation (% per century):

Gray interval: -2 to 2%

Figure 5.3b. Observed annual trends in precipitation, 1901-2006, for the coterminous United States and 

Alaska. Data and mapping courtesy of NOAA’s National Climate Data Center.

among refuges could no longer be made. Yet 

with climate change, the need for such free 

movement is greater. It is now apparent that 

species’ ranges are dynamic, varying in space 

and time, but showing a globally coherent 

response to climate change (Parmesan and 

Yohe, 2003). Climate change may exacerbate 

the misfits between the existing NWRS and 

ecological realities. Coastal refuges are likely 

to become inundated, migrations supported 

by refuges may become asynchronous with 

the changing seasons, native and non-native 

invasive species will likely extend their ranges 

into new refuges, and vegetation types may shift 

to plant communities that are inappropriate for 

refuge trust species. 

Today, a system established to respond to local 

challenges is faced with a global challenge, 

but also—as with the first three crises—with 

an opportunity. The NWRS is only beginning 

to consider how to address projected climate 

change effects through management activities; 

however, using enhanced understanding of 

ecological mechanisms and the administrative 

mandates of the NWRS Improvement Act of 

1997, the USFWS is better equipped to take 

on this new crisis. Success will demand new 

tools, new ways of thinking, new institutions, 

new conservation partnerships, and renewed 

commitment for maintaining the biological 

integrity, diversity, and health of America’s 

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 7 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 7 
8

wildlife resources on the world’s largest 

system of dedicated nature reserves. No 

longer can refuges be managed as independent 

conservation units. Decisions require placing 

individual refuges in the context of the NWRS. 

The response must be system-wide as well 

as local to match the scale and effects of the 

challenge. Such a response is unprecedented in 

the history of conservation biology. 

The ability of individual refuges and the entire 

NWRS to respond to the challenge of climate 

change is a function of the system’s distribution, 

unit size, and ecological context. Familiarity 

with the legal, ecological, geographical and 

political nature of the NWRS is necessary 

for understanding both challenges and 

opportunities to adapting to climate change on 

the NWRS. It is equally important to understand 

that existing legal and policy guidelines 

direct refuge managers to manage for a set 

of predetermined conservation targets (trust 

species). Meeting legal and policy guidelines 

for maintaining biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health of the NWRS will 

require careful evaluation of the continuing 

role of individual refuges in the face of climate 

change.

With climate change there is a renewed 

realization that species’ distributions are 

5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manual 601 

FW 1 - FW 6.

In the pages that follow we focus on regi

and national scales, and: (1) describe 

institutional capacity of the NWRS 

respond to the challenge of climate cha

(2) document challenges to integrity, diver

and health of species, refuges, and the NW

(3) describe projected effects of climate cha

on components of the NWRS; (4) iden

research themes and priorities, most vulner

species and regions, and important needs; 

(5) suggest new partnerships for conserva

success. 

5.2.2 Mission, Establishing 

Authorities, and Goals

The NWRS is managed by the USFWS (Fig. 

under two sets of “purposes” (Fischman, 20

The first is the generic (or System) purp

technically called the “mission,” defi

in the NWRS Improvement Act of 19

“The mission of the NWRS is to admin

a national network of lands and waters 

the conservation, management, and wh

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wild

and plant resources and their habitats wi

the United States for the benefit of present 

future generations of Americans.” The 

goes on to define the two most flexible te

of the mission, conservation and managem

as a means “to sustain and, where appropr

restore and enhance, healthy populations

animals and plants using methods associ

with “modern scientific resource program

In 2006, the USFWS interpreted this f

congressional purpose in a policy (601 FW

which lists five goals that derive from 

mission and other objectives stated in sta

(see Box 5.1). The USFWS policy gives 

6 16 USC 668dd P. L. 105–57

7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manual 601 FW 

or underrepresented in existing protection efforts.

4. Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation).

5. Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the 

diversity and interconnectedness of fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats.

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 8 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 8 
priority to the first three goals listed in Box 5.1, 

which focus most directly on the ecological 

concerns that impel adaptation to climate 

change. 

The second set of purposes is individual 

purposes specific to individual refuges or 

specific tracts or units within a refuge that may 

have been acquired under different authorities 

(Fig. 5.1). These are the authorities under which 

the refuge was originally created, as well as 

possibly additional ones under which individual 

later acquisitions may have been made. While it 

is difficult to conceive of a conflict between the 

NWRS mission and individual refuge purposes, 

in such an event the latter, or more specific, 

refuge purpose takes precedence. Furthermore, 

where designated wilderness (or some other 

overlay system, such as a segment of a wild and 

scenic river) occurs within a refuge boundary, 

the purposes of the wilderness (or any other 

applicable overlay statute) are additional 

purposes of that portion of the refuge.

Establishing authorities for a specific refuge 

may derive from one of three categories: 

8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007: America’s 

national wildlife refuge system. FWS Website, http://

www.fws.gov/refuges, accessed on 7-18-2007.

presidential, congressional, and administrative 

(Fischman, 2003). Refuges established by 

presidential proclamation have very specific 

purposes, such as that for the first refuge, 

Pelican Island (a “preserve and breeding ground 

for native birds”). Congressional authorities 

stem from one or more of 15 different statutes 

providing generally for new refuges, such as 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (“for 

use as an inviolate sanctuary or for any other 

management purpose for migratory birds”).9

Or, they may be specific to a single refuge, 

such as the Upper Mississippi River NWR (as 

a refuge for birds, game, fur-bearing animals, 

fish, other aquatic animal life, wildflowers and 

aquatic plants).10 The third source of refuge 

purposes are administrative documents such 

as public land orders, donation documents, and 

administrative memoranda (Fischman, 2003). 

These, however, are less clearly understood and 

documented, and are not addressed further in 

this document. 

5.2.3 Origins of the NWRS

The first significant legislative innovation 

to systematically assemble protected areas 

9 16 U.S.C. 715-715r; 45 Stat. 1222

10 16 USC § 721

Nevada) each of which oversees the National Wildlife Refuges 

in its area. Regional offi ces, led by a director, establish the 

requirements and guidance for National Wildlife Refuge System 

planning, including Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) 

and step-down management plans.

Each National Wildlife Refuge has a manager to administer 

its land and/or water for the conservation, management, and 

restoration of fi sh, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats.

Regional Offi ce

National Wildlife 

Refuge Program

Figure 5.4. Organizational chart.8

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 9 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 9 
10

for purchasing expansions to the NWRS. 

A quick glance at a map of today’s NWRS 

(Fig. 5.2) confirms the legacy of the research 

findings and funding mechanism of the 1930s: 

refuges are concentrated in four corridors. The 

geometry of the NWRS conservation shifted 

from the enclave points on the map to the 

flyway lines across the country (Gabrielson, 

1943; Fischman, 2005; Pidgorna, 2007). 

After the push for protecting habitat of migratory 

waterfowl, the next impetus for NWRS growth 

11 16 U.S.C. 715-715r; 45 Stat. 1222

12 16 U.S.C. § 718-718h

The 1966 statute consolidated the conserva

land holdings of the USFWS: it was 

first statute to refer to this hodgepodg

the “NWRS” and it prohibited all uses 

compatible with the purpose of the refuge. 

compatibility criterion, established by sta

in 1966, but practiced by the USFWS 

decades before that, would become a byw

of international sustainable development in 

13 P. L. No. 89-669, 16 U.S.C. § 668dd

14 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007: Histo

the national wildlife refuge system. U.S. Fish 

Wildlife Service Website, http://www.fws

refuges/history/index.html, accessed on 7-10-2

Congress enacts 

the National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Improvement 

Act endorsing 

an ecological 

conservation mission. 

The USFWS is now 

required to ensure 

that the biological 

integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health 

of the NWRS are 

being maintained. 

Congress enacts 

the National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Administration Act, 

consolidating all of 

the FWS conservation 

lands into a National 

Wildlife Refuge 

System (NWRS) 

and providing the 

fi rst comprehensive 

management mandate 

for the NWRS.

The Refuge Recreation 

Act is signed into law, 

requiring permitted 

recreation to be 

compatible with refuge 

purposes and that funds 

be available to manage 

the activity.

President Franklin Roosevelt 

creates the Fish and Wildlife 

Service by combining the 

Bureaus of Biological Survey 

and Fisheries. 

President Theodore 

Roosevelt reserves 

Florida’s Pelican 

Island as a “preserve 

and breeding ground 

for native birds.” 

Congress enacts the 

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act, authorizing acquisition 

of lands to serve as 

“inviolate sanctuaries” for 

migratory birds. 

The Alaska National 

Interest Lands 

Conservation 

Act dramatically 

increases the size of 

the NWRS.

Congress passes the Land and 

Water Conservation Act, providing 

a source of funding for local, state, 

and Federal acquisition of lands for 

conservation and recreational uses. 

The Wilderness Act establishes the 

National Wilderness Preservation 

System.

Congress enacts the Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

Act, creating a dedicated fund for 

acquiring waterfowl conservation 

refuges from sales of federal stamps 

required on hunting licenses. 

1903 1929 1934 1940 1962 1964 1966 1980 1997

Figure 5.5. Timeline of milestone events of the NWRS.14

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 10 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 10 
Improvement Act

The NWRS Improvement Act (NWRSIA) of 

199716 marked the first comprehensive overhaul 

of the statutory charter for the NWRS since 

1966. It is also the only significant public land 

“organic legislation” since the 1970s (Fischman, 

2003). The term “organic legislation” describes 

a fundamental piece of legislation that either 

signifies the organization of an agency and/

or provides a charter for a network of public 

lands. The key elements of the NWRSIA are 

described below.

The NWRSIA sets a goal of conservation, 

defined in ecological terms (e.g., sustaining, 

restoring, and enhancing populations). The 

1997 statute envisions the NWRS as a national 

network of lands and waters to sustain plants 

and animals. This realigns the geometry of 

refuge conservation from linear flyways to 

a more complex web of relationships. The 

NWRSIA requires each refuge to achieve 

the dual system-wide and individual refuge 

purposes, with the individual establishment 

purpose receiving priority in the event of a 

conflict with the NWRS mission.

5.2.4.1 Designated Uses

The NWRSIA constructs a dominant use 

regime, where most activities must either 

contribute to the NWRS goal or at least avoid 

impairing it. The primary goals that dominate 

the NWRS are individual refuge purposes 

and the conservation mission. The next level 

of the hierarchy are the “priority public uses” 

of wildlife-dependent recreation, which the 

statute defines as “hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, and photography, or environmental 

15 P. L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. § 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884

16 P.L. 105-57, 16 USC § 668dd

out desired future conditions. The NWRSIA 

requires the USFWS to prepare a CCP for each 

non-Alaskan unit within 15 years and to update 

each plan every 15 years, or sooner if conditions 

change significantly. Planning focuses on 

habitat management and visitor services. 

The planning policy models its procedure 

on adaptive management.18 Once approved, 

the CCP becomes a source of management 

requirements that bind the USFWS, though 

judicial enforcement may not be available.19

The majority of refuges are still in the process 

of completing their CCPs. In a review of 100 

completed refuge CCPs available online as of 

February 1, 2007, only 27 CCPs included terms 

such as “climate change,” “climate variability,” 

“global change,” or “global warming.” None of 

these CCPs have identified explicit adaptation 

management strategies that are currently being 

implemented. This suggests that the perception 

of climate variability and change as a challenge 

is just emerging in the refuge management 

community. Much of the information needed 

to implement an effective response to climate 

change is unavailable to refuge managers. 

Furthermore, the system-wide nature of the 

climate change challenge will require systemwide responses. The magnitude of the challenge 

posed by climate change is unprecedented in 

scale and intensity, and the challenges exceed 

the capabilities of individual refuges. National 

coordination and guidance are needed. The 

CCPs provide a vehicle for engaging refuges in 

planning for response to climate change within 

the context of the NWRS. 

17 P.L. 105-57, 16 USC § 668dd

18 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manual 602

19 Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 2004. 

542 U.S. 55.

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 11 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 11 
12

USFWS policy emphasizes state participation 

in most refuge decision-making, especially for 

comprehensive conservation planning and for 

determination of appropriate uses.

5.2.4.4 Substantive Management Criteria

The NWRSIA imposed many substantive 

management criteria, some of which are 

unprecedented in public land law. First, the Act 

expanded the compatibility criterion as a basic 

tool for determining what uses are allowed on 

refuges. The USFWS may not permit uses to 

occur where they are incompatible with either 

the conservation mission or individual refuge 

purposes. The Act defines “compatible use” 

to mean “a wildlife-dependent recreational 

use or any other use of a refuge that, in the 

sound professional judgment of the Director, 

will not materially interfere with or detract 

from the fulfillment of the mission of the 

NWRS or the purposes of the refuge.”21 The 

USFWS compatibility policy promises to assure 

that “densities of endangered or otherwise 

rare species are sufficient for maintaining 

viable populations.”22 The USFWS interprets 

its policy to prohibit uses that reasonably 

may be anticipated to fragment habitats.23

Second, the NWRSIA requires that the USFWS 

maintain “biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health” on the refuges.24 This 

element of the 1997 Act, discussed in more 

detail directly below, is the closest Congress 

has ever come to requiring a land system to 

20 North Dakota v. United States, 1983. 460 U.S. 300. 

and State of Wyoming v. United States, 2002. D.C. 

No. 98-CV-37-B, 61 F. Supp. 2d 1209-1225. 21 16 USC § 668dd

22 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manual 601 FW 1 - 

FW 6. 23 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manual 603, 65 

Federal Register 62486 24 16 USC § 668dd

USFWS policy correspondingly focuse

the three distinct yet largely overlapp

concepts of biological integrity, diversity, 

environmental health. The core idea of 

policy is maintaining composition and func

of ecosystems (Fischman, 2004). Tho

climate change may make that impossible wi

the boundary of some refuges, it remain

appropriate guiding principle for the system 

a whole. The policy’s guidance on the biolog

integrity, diversity, and environmental he

mandate is the single most important l

foundation for leadership in shifting NW

management toward needed adaptations. T

are other path-breaking criteria especi

relevant to adaptation, but the USFWS has y

implement them through new policies or o

major initiatives. However, as climate cha

increases in importance to the public 

refuge managers, the USFWS will find i

increasingly challenged by its 1997 duty to

acquire water rights needed for refuge purpo

(2) engage in biological monitoring; and 

implement its stewardship responsibilit

While the 2001 policy provides a basis 

ecological sustainability, climate cha

presents new challenges at unprecedented sc

for maintaining biological integrity, diver

and environmental health of refuges and 

refuge system. Explicit performance goals 

objectives tied to biological integrity, diver

and environmental health of refuges and 

services conservation targets will be neede

assess the degree and effectiveness of NW

response to the challenges of climate chan

Rather than compare refuge conditions w

existing reference sites, the USFWS po

encourages managers to use “historic conditi

25 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manual 601 FW 

26 16 USC § 668dd

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 12 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 12 
With climate change, the future species 

composition of the community may be quite 

different from that of the time when the refuge 

was established. However, the opportunity 

to manage biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of refuges and the NWRS, 

regardless of changes in species composition, 

remains. The policy on biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health does 

not insist on a return to conditions no longer 

climatically appropriate. Instead, it views 

historical conditions as a frame of reference 

from which to understand the successional shifts 

that occur within ecological communities as a 

result of climate change. The policy also implies 

that we can use the knowledge and insights 

gained from such analysis to develop viable 

site-specific management targets for biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health 

despite the changing climate.

In addition to addressing ecosystems or 

ecological communities, the policy also governs 

target fauna and flora, stressing that native 

populations in historic sex and age ratios are 

generally preferable over artificial ones, and 

that invasive or non-indigenous species or 

genotypes are discouraged. In general, except 

for species deemed beneficial (e.g., pheasants), 

managers would consistently work to remove 

or suppress invasive and exotic species of both 

plants and animals. The policy directs special 

attention to target densities on refuges for rare 

species (viable densities) and migratory birds 

(higher-than-natural densities to accommodate 

loss of surrounding habitat). These targets, 

where extended to a broader spatial scale, 

provide good starting points for NWRS 

adaptation to climate change.

Meeting the NWRS’s statutory and policy 

mandates will require an approach and 

One of the primary goals of the NWRS—to 

conserve the diversity of fish, wildlife, plants, 

and their habitats—is reflected in the design 

of the NWRS, which is the largest system 

of protected areas in the world primarily 

designated to manage and protect wildlife 

(Curtin, 1993). The NWRS includes 584 refuge 

units and nearly 30,000 waterfowl production 

areas27 (Fig. 5.1) that encompass an area of over 

93 million acres, distributed across the United 

States (Fischman, 2003; Scott et al., 2004). The 

NWRS contains a diverse array of wildlife, 

with more than 220 species of mammals, 250 

species of amphibians and reptiles, more than 

700 species of birds, and 200 species of fish 

reported. 

Another important goal of the NWRS is 

to maintain its trust species, which include 

threatened and endangered species, marine 

mammals, anadromous and interjurisdictional 

fish, and migratory birds. Of these, the latter 

remain the NWRS’s largest beneficiary, 

with over 200 refuges established for the 

conservation of migratory birds (Gergely, Scott, 

and Goble, 2000). Shorebirds and waterfowl are 

better represented on refuges compared with 

landbirds and waterbirds (Pidgorna, 2007). 

Twenty percent of refuges were established in 

the decade immediately following the enactment 

of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1930–1940). 

The NWRS captures the distribution of 43 

waterfowl species in the continental United 

States at a variety of geographic, ecological, and 

temporal scales (Pidgorna, 2007).

The fact that many refuges were established 

in areas important to migratory birds, and 

especially waterfowl, can account for the 

27 Grouped into 37 wetland management districts.

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 13 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 13 
14

NWRS and average sizes more than two orders 

of magnitude greater than the average size of 

refuges found in the lower 48 states. Nearly 20% 

of the refuges are less than 1,000 acres in size, 

and effectively even smaller because more than 

half of the refuges in the system consist of two 

or more parcels. Median refuge area is 5,550 

acres and the mean area is 20,186 acres (Scott

et al., 2004). In contrast, the median area of 

Alaskan refuges is 2.7 million acres.

Approximately one sixth of the nation’s 

threatened and endangered species are found on 

refuges. More than 50% of all listed mammals, 

birds, and reptiles are found on refuges (Davison

et al., 2006), while the percentage of listed 

invertebrates and plants is much lower. These, 

and the 10% of the threatened and endangered 

species for which refuges have been established, 

realize a conservation advantage over species 

not found on refuges (Blades, 2007). The NWRS 

plays an important role in the conservation of 

threatened and endangered species, providing 

core habitat, protection, and management. 

However, as most refuges are small, fragmented, 

and surrounded by anthropogenic habitats 

(Scott et al. 2004 and Pidgorna 2007), it may 

prove difficult for the NWRS to support and 

restore a diverse range of taxonomic groups and 

to maintain viable populations of some larger 

threatened and endangered species (Czech, 

2005; Blades, 2007). 

The distribution of refuges in geographical 

and geophysical space has given Americans 

a network of protected areas that function 

differently from other protected areas in the 

United States. In a nutshell, most refuges, with 

the exception of those in Alaska, are small 

islands of habitat located in a predominantly 

and increasingly anthropogenic landscape. 

Refuges contain lower-elevation habitat types 

provides them with an opportunity to serv

educational centers for the public to learn m

about the diversity of fish, wildlife, plants, 

their habitats, as well as ecological proce

and the effects of climate change. They 

provide sites for researchers to develop 

understanding of the ecology and managem

of conservation landscapes.

However, the ability of individual refuge

meet the first three of the USFWS goals

well as the biological integrity, diversity, 

environmental health clause of the NWRS

will depend upon the ability of refuge mana

to increase habitat viability through restora

and through reduction of non-climate stress

Other tools include integrating inholdings 

refuge holdings, strategically increasing re

habitat through CCPs, increased incen

programs, establishment of conserva

easements with surrounding landowners, 

when desired by all parties, fee-title acquisit

of adjacent lands. These actions would in 

provide species with increased opportuniti

adapt to a changing environment. 

At the level of the NWRS, the integratio

the USFWS’s five goals and the biolog

integrity, diversity, and environmental he

of species, ecosystems, and plant and ani

communities may be achieved thro

increased representation and redunda

of target species and populations on ref

lands through strategic growth of the NW

The need for any such strategic growth 

to be carefully evaluated in the contex

maintaining the biological integrity, diver

and environmental health of the NWRS t

species today and the uncertain effect

climate change. A national plan should 

developed to assess the projected shift

biomes and develop optimal placemen

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 14 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 14 
the USFWS’s five goals and the mandate of the 

NWSRIA necessitates strategic growth of the 

effective conservation footprint of the NWRS 

to increase the biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health of threatened and 

endangered species and at-risk ecosystems and 

plant communities.

5.3.2 Challenges to the NWRS

5.3.2.1 2002 Survey of Challenges to 

NWRS

In an effort to quantify challenges to the 

refuges, the NWRS surveyed all refuges and 

wetland management districts in 2002 with 

an extensive questionnaire. The result was a 

large database of challenges and management 

conflicts experienced by the NWRS. It contains 

2,844 records, each representing a different 

challenge to a refuge or a conflict with its 

operations.

The most common challenges to refuges that 

could be exacerbated by climate change are 

ranked by frequency of reporting in Table 5.1. 

Each record covers a specific challenge, so 

a single refuge could have reported multiple 

records for the same category (e.g., invasive 

species or wildlife disease), which are grouped 

for discussion purposes. The responses from the 

survey regarding challenges generally fall into 

four themes: off-refuge activities, on-refuge 

activities, flora and fauna imbalances, and 

uncontrollable natural events.

Off-refuge activities such as mining, timber 

harvest, industrial manufacturing, urban 

development, and farming often produce 

products or altered ecological processes 

that influence numbers and health of refuge 

species. The off-refuge activities often result 

in a range of environmental damage that 

of mineral rights not owned by the USFWS; 

commercial boat traffic in navigable waters 

not controlled by USFWS; off-road vehicles; 

some recreational activities beyond USFWS 

jurisdiction; illegal activities such as poaching, 

trespassing, dumping, illegal immigration, and 

drug trafficking; and other concerns.

Imbalances in flora and fauna on and around 

the refuge also challenge refuges and the 

NWRS. Such concerns take the form of invasive 

non-native species, disease vectors such as 

mosquitoes, or unnaturally high populations 

of larger animals, usually mammals. The 

latter group includes small predators that take 

waterfowl or endangered species, beaver and 

muskrat that damage impoundments, and 

white-tailed deer that reduce forest understory 

(Garrott, White, and White, 1993; Russell, 

Zippin, and Fowler, 2001). Invasive plant 

species are far and away of the most concern, 

both within this category and within the NWRS 

overall (Table 5.1).

28 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002: USFWS 

unpublished data.

Challenge Number of Records 

Invasive, exotic, and native pest species 902 

Urbanization 213 

Agricultural conflicts 170 

Natural disasters 165 

Rights-of-way 153 

Industrial/commercial interface 145 

Predator-prey imbalances 93 

Wildlife disease 93 

Table 5.1. The most common challenges to national wildlife refuge

could be exacerbated by climate change.28

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 15 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 15 
16

isolation of refuges and the species that reside on 

them decreases the ability of refuge managers 

to respond to effects of climate change and 

other stressors. However, tools and strategies 

used to respond to past stressors and challenges 

are many of the same tools that can be used 

to mitigate projected effects of global climate 

change.

5.3.2.2 Interactions of Climate Change 

with Other Stressors of Concern

Over the last 100 years, average annual 

temperatures in the United States have risen 

0.8°C, with even greater increases in Alaska 

over the same period (2–4°C) (Houghton et 

al., 2001). Global average surface temperatures 

are projected to rise an additional 1.1–6.4°C by 

2100 (IPCC, 2007b). Most areas in the United 

States are projected to experience greater-thanaverage warming, with exceptional warming 

projected for Alaska (Houghton et al., 2001). 

Coastal areas have experienced sea level rise 

as global average sea level has risen by 10–25 

cm over the last 100 years (Watson, Zinyowera, 

and Moss, 1996). Global average sea level is 

projected to increase by 18–59 cm by 2100 

(IPCC, 2007b). Due to thermal expansion of the 

oceans, even if greenhouse gas emissions were 

stabilized at year-2000 levels, the committed 

sea level rise would still likely be 6–10 cm by 

2100, and sea level would continue to rise for 

four more centuries (Meehl et al., 2005).

Other effects of climate change include 

altered hydrological systems and processes, 

affecting the inland hydrology of streams, lakes, 

and wetlands (Frederick and Gleick, 1999; 

Poff, Brinson, and Day, Jr., 2002). Warmer 

temperatures will mean reduced snowpack 

and earlier spring melts (Barnett, Adam, and 

Lettenmaier, 2005; Milly, Dunne, and Vecchia, 

physiologies.

Climate change is likely to magnify 

influences of other challenges—includ

habitat loss and fragmentation, changes in w

quality and quantity, increased transporta

corridors, etc.—on the NWRS. Climate cha

will also introduce new challenges or variat

on existing ones, primarily by accelera

a convergence of issues (e.g., water scar

non-native invasive species, off-refuge l

use change, and energy development)

creating such convergences where none exi

before. Current and projected challenges h

the potential to undermine the mission of 

NWRS and the achievement of its goals. 

The following pages of this section summa

the main challenges to the NWRS that c

be exacerbated by climate change (see 

Section 5.8, the Appendix). There is, howe

a great deal of uncertainty associated with t

projections, making it possible to show 

overall trend but not the specific effect o

individual refuge. For example, IPCC (20

projects future increases in wind speed

tropical cyclones, but does not yet offer deta

spatial data on projected terrestrial surface w

patterns. Changes in wind patterns may af

long-distance migration of species depen

on tailwinds.

Invasive Non-Native Species

Invasive non-native species are currently 

of the most common challenges to the NW

and could become even more serious w

climate changes (Table 5.1) (Sutherst, 20

Since species are projected to experie

range shifts as a result of climate change 

naturally expand and contract their hist

ranges, it is important to distinguish betw

non-native species and native species. T

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 16 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 16 
An increase in the number and spread of 

non-native invasive species could undermine 

the NWRS’s goal of maintaining wildlife 

diversity and preserving rare ecosystems 

and plant communities. By replacing native 

organisms, non-native invasive species often 

alter the ecological structure of natural systems 

by modifying predator-prey, parasite, and 

competitive relationships of species. Shifting 

distribution of native species in response to 

climate change will further increase the rate of 

change in species’ composition, structure, and 

function on refuges.

Range shifts that result in range contractions 

and range expansions are the best-studied 

effects of climate change on invasive non-native 

species. Range expansions refer to the expansion 

of established invasive non-native species into 

previously unoccupied habitats. A rise in 

temperatures could allow invasive non-native 

species to expand their ranges into habitats 

that previously were inaccessible to them. For 

example, Westbrooks (2001) describes the 

expansion of the balsam wooly aphid (Adelges 

piceae) into stands of subalpine fir (Abies 

amabilis). Currently the aphid is restricted to 

areas of low and middle elevation because of its 

temperature requirements; however, an increase 

of 2.5oC would allow the aphid to expand its 

range to higher elevations where it would affect 

native subalpine fir. Species that are considered 

tropical today may also expand their ranges into 

more northern latitudes if the climate grows 

warmer. When temperatures become suitable, 

non-native invasive species could spread into 

new habitats and compete with stressed native 

species (Westbrooks, 2001). 

29 P.L. 101-646, 104 Stat. 4761; 16 U.S.C. 4701; and P.L. 

104-332, 16 USC 4701.

Disease

Climate change has the potential to affect 

the prevalence and intensity of both plant 

and animal diseases in several ways. First, 

changes in temperature and moisture may 

shift the distribution of disease vectors and of 

the pathogens themselves (Harvell et al., 2002; 

Logan, Regniere, and Powell, 2003; Pounds et 

al., 2006). For example, Hakalau Forest NWR, 

now largely free of avian malaria, harbors 

one of the few remaining population centers 

of endangered Hawaiian forest birds. Climate 

change may eliminate this and other such 

refugia by changing conditions to favor avian 

malaria (LaPointe, Benning, and Atkinson, 

2005). Second, climate-induced changes in 

hydrology can alter the spread and intensity of 

diseases in two key ways. First, in wetlands or 

other water bodies with reduced water levels 

and higher water temperatures, diseases may 

be able to spread much more quickly and 

effectively within a population. Increased 

temperatures have been demonstrated to speed 

pathogen and/or vector development (Rueda et 

al., 1990). Second, increases in precipitation 

may result in increased connectivity among 

aquatic systems in some areas, potentially 

facilitating the spread of diseases among 

populations. Finally, climate change may also 

indirectly increase the prevalence and the 

magnitude of disease effects by affecting host 

susceptibility. Many organisms that are stressed 

due to changes in temperature or hydrology will 

be more susceptible to diseases. Corals are an 

excellent example of increased temperatures 

leading to increased disease susceptibility 

(Harvell et al., 2001).

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 17 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 17 
18

wildlife populations on refuges will prevent 

many species from successfully shifting their 

distributions in response to climate change. 

Urbanization has the potential to interact with 

climate change in two additional ways. First, 

increased urbanization creates more impervious 

surfaces, increasing runoff and potentially 

confounding the effects of climate-altered 

hydrological regimes. Second, urbanization has 

the potential to affect local climatic conditions 

by creating heat islands, further exacerbating 

the increases in temperature and increased 

evaporation.

Refuges are highly susceptible to the effects 

of management activities on surrounding 

landscapes. More pressure will likely be put on 

the U.S. economy with rising energy demands, 

which will result in a push for increased oil and 

gas development in the western states. This will 

also increase habitat loss and fragmentation 

on lands surrounding refuges and could 

result in extraction activities within refuges 

themselves. Economic and social pressure 

for alternative energy sources may increase 

efforts to establish wind plants near refuges, or 

promote agricultural expansion or conversions 

to produce bio-fuels, including nearby biofuel 

production and transport facilities. 

Although habitat loss and fragmentation will 

likely have a negative effect on the NWRS’s 

biodiversity conservation goals, it could 

provide additional recreational and educational 

opportunities for people who will become 

attracted to the NWRS as open space becomes 

scarce. This could increase the number of 

visitors to the NWRS, which would raise public 

visibility of the refuges. Management of visitors 

and their activities to minimize effect on refuges 

and refuge species will be a challenge.

water flows. 

While climate change models vary in projec

changes to precipitation to any given geograph

area, at least some parts of the United State

projected to experience reduced precipita

(e.g., Milly, Dunne, and Vecchia, 2005). P

of the country where current water supplie

barely meeting demand—in particular, port

of the western United States—are especi

vulnerable to any reduction in the amoun

change in timing, of precipitation. In 1

central and southern California and wes

Washington experienced some of the lar

water-withdrawal deficits in the United St

(Roy et al., 2005). Future projected incre

in deficits are not just limited to the wes

United States, but are spread across muc

the eastern part of the country as well (

et al., 2005). Less precipitation would m

less water available for ecosystem and wild

management, even at refuges with senior w

rights. Refuges possessing junior water ri

would be particularly susceptible to losing 

of water as demand exceeds supply. 

The other major consequence of climate cha

to water resources is a seasonal shift in 

availability of water. Mountain snowpa

act as natural reservoirs, accumulating 

amounts of snow in the winter and relea

this stored precipitation in the spring as h

flows in streams. Many wildlife life histo

and agricultural economies are closely tie

this predictable high volume of water. War

temperatures would result in earlier snowme

higher elevations as well as more precipita

falling in the form of rain rather than sno

these areas. The result would be both high 

low flows occurring earlier in the year, an

insufficient amount of water when it is nee

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 18 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 18 
within the active soil layer. This has reduced the 

amount of dissolved organic carbon reaching 

estuaries, lowering productivity (Striegl et al., 

2005).

Climate change will offer a challenge for the 

NWRS to maintain adequate supplies of water 

to achieve wildlife management objectives. 

Although it is not currently possible to project 

precisely where the greatest effects to water 

resources will occur, refuges in areas where 

demand already exceeds supply—as well as 

those in areas highly dependent upon seasonal 

flows from snowmelt—appear to be especially 

vulnerable. 

Waterfowl occurring on refuges in areas such 

as the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR), for which 

warmer and drier conditions are projected 

(Poiani and Johnson, 1991; Sorenson et al., 

1998), may be expected to face more stressful 

conditions than those in areas that are projected 

to be warmer and wetter, such as the Northeast. 

The projected drying of the PPR—the single 

most important duck production area in North 

America—will significantly affect the NWRS’s 

ability to maintain migratory species in general 

and waterfowl in particular. Maintaining 

endangered aquatic species, such as the desert 

hole pupfish, which occurs naturally in a single 

location in Ash Meadows NWR in Nevada, will 

present even more challenges because, unlike 

waterfowl that can shift their breeding range 

northward, most threatened and endangered 

species have limited dispersal abilities and 

opportunities. 

Sea Level Rise

The NWRS includes 161 coastal refuges. 

Approximately 1 million acres of coastal 

wetlands occur on refuges in the lower 48 states. 

Sea level rise is the result of several factors, 

including land subsidence, thermal expansion 

levels have risen. However, wetland migration 

may not keep pace with accelerating rates of sea 

level rise because of upstream impoundments 

and bulkheaded boundaries. Also, in many 

cases topography or the structures and 

infrastructure of economically developed 

areas (essentially bulkheaded refuges) impede 

migration (Titus and Richman, 2001). In both 

scenarios, coastal wetlands will be lost, along 

with the habitat features that make them 

valuable to species the NWRS is intended to 

conserve, e.g., waterfowl.

Along the mid-Atlantic coast, the highest 

rate of wetland loss is in the middle of the 

Chesapeake Bay region of Maryland. One 

example is Blackwater NWR, part of the 

Chesapeake Marshlands NWR Complex. This 

refuge has been affected by sea level rise for 

the past 60 years. Models project that in 50 

years, continued sea level rise in conjunction 

with climate change will completely inundate 

existing marshes (Fig. 5.6) (Larsen et al., 2004b; 

see also U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 

2007). Along the Gulf Coast, substantial 

wetland loss is also occurring. For example, 

in Louisiana, the combination of sea level rise, 

high rates of subsidence, economic growth, 

and hurricanes has contributed to an annual 

loss of nearly 25,000 acres of wetlands, even 

prior to Hurricane Katrina (2005) (Erwin, 

Sanders, and Prosser, 2004). Sea level rise 

challenges a lesser extent of NWRS wetlands 

along the Pacific coast because few refuges 

there have extensive coastal wetlands, in 

part due to steep topography. Conversely, 

a higher proportion of these wetlands have 

limited potential for migration for the same 

topographical reasons. Additionally, upelevation movements of plant and animal 

species among these refuges are prevented by 

presence of highways, industrial and urban 

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 19 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 19 
20

areas, and other products of development. They 

are, in effect, “bulkheaded.” Alaskan refuge 

wetlands appear to be least at risk of sea level 

rise effects because of countervailing forces, 

most notably isostatic uplift (Larsen et al., 

2005), which has accelerated as a function of 

climate change and melting of glaciers (Larsen

et al., 2004a). In Alaska, permafrost thawing 

and resulting drainage of many of the lakes is a 

greater challenge to wetlands, both coastal and 

non-coastal. In Florida, Pelican Island NWR, 

the system’s first refuge, is among the 161 

coastal refuges challenged by sea level rise.

Recent studies have attempted to quantitatively 

project the potential effect of sea level rise on 

NWRS wetlands. For example, the Sea Level 

Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) was used 

to project coastal wetland losses for four refuges 

in Florida: Ding Darling (Fig. 5.7), Egmont Key, 

Pine Island, and Pelican Island. Significant 

wetland losses are projected at each refuge, 

but the types and extent of changes to wetlands 

may vary considerably. SLAMM was also used 

to model sea level rise at San Francisco Bay 

NWR (Galbraith et al., 2002). The projections 

suggested that the refuge will be inundated in 

and precipitation patterns will cause s

existing wetlands to dry out and cha

the geomorphology and sedimentatio

wetlands.

Extreme Weather Events

Increased frequency of extreme weather eve

such as hurricanes, floods, or unusually h

tides, could significantly alter coastal and o

habitats. Observed and projected effects inc

loss of barrier islands and coastal mars

damage or loss of storm- and tide-dampen

mechanisms and other refuge equipment 

infrastructure; and pollution of refuge hab

from storm-borne pollutants from nearby u

centers and industrial sites, increasing the st

on tight budgets. The loss of equipment 

property damage could hinder both recreati

and educational activities on refuges, 

affecting the ability of the NWRS to fulfi

relevant mandates as well as cutting indivi

refuges’ income.

The potential effects of hurricanes and o

extreme weather events on the NWR

conservation target species and their hab

are complex and difficult to prevent 

mitigate. Threatened and endangered spe

are likely to be the most affected. Docume

negative effects of extreme weather event

threatened and endangered species and t

habitats include the loss of 95% of breed

habitat of the red-cockaded woodpecker, 

of habitat for five red wolves in South Caro

and diminished food supply for the Pu

Rican parrot as a result of hurricane Hugo (

Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989).

The effects of storms and hurricanes 

not limited to terrestrial species. Aqu

species managed by the USFWS on the NW

could also be affected by some of the 

Figure 5.6. Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, Chesapeake Bay, 

Maryland. Current land areas and potential inundation due to climate change 

(Larsen et al., 2004b).

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 20 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 20 
effects of storms and hurricanes, such as 

oxygen depletion, changes in salinity, mud 

suffocation, and turbulence (Tabb and Jones, 

1962). Such effects could also severely damage 

recreational fishing opportunities on affected 

refuges. Projected effects of tropical storms 

on southeastern wetlands (Michener et al., 

1997) could pose additional challenges to other 

NWRS trust species, such as migratory birds, 

that use those wetlands. Hurricane Hugo caused 

soil erosion on Sandy Point NWR, which had 

an adverse affect on nesting leatherback turtles 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989).

5.3.2.3 Regime Shifts

Much of the NWRS lies in areas that could 

experience vegetation shifts by 2100 (Gonzalez, 

Neilson, and Drapek, 2005). Species may 

respond to climate change in several ways: 

ecologically (by shifting distributions), 

evolutionarily/genetically, behaviorally, and/

or demographically. One of the more profound 

effects of climate change is total “regime 

shift,” where entire ecological communities are 

transformed from their “historical” conditions. 

Such shifts are even now being witnessed in 

the black spruce forests of southern Alaska 

30 McMahon, S., Undated: USFWS unpublished 

data.

due to northern expansion of the spruce bark 

beetle, and the coastal shrublands of central and 

southern California, due to increased frequency 

of wildfires. Similar changes, though difficult 

to project, will likely occur with changing 

rainfall patterns. Increased moisture may 

create wetlands where none existed before, 

whereas declining rainfall may eliminate 

prairie potholes or other significant wetlands, 

especially in marginally wet habitats such as 

vernal pools and near-deserts. 

Where such regime shifts occur, even on 

smaller scales, it may become impossible to 

meet specific refuge purposes. For example, 

the habitats of a highly specialized refuge (such 

as one established for an endangered species) 

might shift away from the habitat occupied by 

the species for which the refuge was established; 

e.g., Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management 

Area (Botkin, 1990). Likewise, shifts in 

migratory bird habitats in the prairie potholes 

of the Midwest might diminish available 

breeding habitat for waterfowl (Sorenson et 

al., 1998; Johnson et al., 2005). Less obviously, 

increasing competition for water in areas such 

as California’s Central Valley, southern New 

Mexico, or Arizona may restrict a refuge’s 

access to that critical resource, thus making 

attainment of its purposes virtually impossible. 

Figure 5.7. Results of the Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) for Ding Darling National 

Wildlife Refuge. Source: USFWS unpublished data.30 Photo: Susan White.

Marsh

Mangrove 1,282 hectares 2, 238 hectaresIncrease of 

75%

27%

Estuarine Open Water 863 hectares 1,891 hectares Increase of 

119%

18%

Inland Open Water 35 hectares 5 hectares 86% 1%

Open Ocean 0 hectares 2 hectares ? 0%

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 21 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 21 
22

uses that habitat.

The prospect of regime shifts makes it more 

crucial that the USFWS train and educate 

refuge managers in methods of ascertaining 

how specific refuges can assess changing 

climate and their role in support of the systemwide response. Without such guidance it will 

be increasingly challenging to define what a 

refuge should “conserve and manage,” and 

impossible in most cases to “restore” a habitat 

in an ecological milieu that no longer supports 

key species. This raises the question of what 

almost half of all refuges (Scott et al., 20

Over all the ecoregions, Alaskan ecoreg

dominate; however, the Southern Flo

Coastal Plain ecoregion has the largest 

representation within the NWRS in the lo

48 states: 3.7%. 

This section describes some of the implicat

of climate change on an ecoregion-by-ecore

basis, based on a hierarchical agglomeratio

the 84 ecoregions mentioned above (Omer

1987; level 1 ecoregions) (Fig. 5.8).

Figure 5.8. Ecoregions of North America (Level 1).31

31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007: Ecoregions of North America. Environmental Protection A

cy Website, http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/na_eco.htm#Level%20I, accessed on 7-12-2007.

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 22 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 22 
Arctic region, including Alaska, and has been 

concentrated in the winter and spring (Serreze

et al., 2000). This warming has resulted in a 

decrease in permafrost (IPCC, 2001). Melting 

permafrost has implications for vegetation, 

hydrology, and ecosystem functioning. The 

thawing permafrost also releases carbon, 

which results in a positive feedback loop 

generating further warming (Zimov, Schuur, 

and Chapin, III, 2006). Furthermore, the 

melting of permafrost may connect shallow 

lakes and wetlands to groundwater, resulting 

in draining and the loss of many shallow-water 

systems (Marsh and Neumann, 2001).

Due to the rugged coast and lack of low-lying 

coastal areas, sea level rise is not projected to 

strongly affect Alaska except where sea ice 

affects the shoreline. The extent of Arctic sea 

ice has been decreasing at a rate of 2.7 % per 

decade from 1980 to 2005 (Lemke et al., 2007). 

Loss of Arctic ice in areas near NWRs will 

decrease and eliminate foraging opportunities 

for those seabirds and mammals that congregate 

at the sea-ice interface.

Climate change will likely have large effects 

on the composition of ecological communities 

on many refuges in the northern ecoregions. 

As temperatures increase, many species will 

continue to shift their ranges to the north. 

For example, the boreal forest is projected to 

expand significantly into the tundra (Payette, 

Fortin, and Gamache, 2001). In the tundra 

itself, mosses and lichens will likely be replaced 

by denser vascular vegetation, resulting in 

increased transpiration and further altering 

hydrology (Rouse et al., 1997). There will 

also be changes in animal communities as 

range shifts introduce new species. Some 

native species will likely be affected by new 

predators and new competitors. For example, 

For example, recent warming has already led 

to a shortening of the lifecycle of a specific 

nematode parasite, resulting in decreased 

fecundity and survival in musk oxen (Kutz et 

al., 2005). Higher temperatures will potentially 

increase the role that fire plays in northern 

ecoregions and increase the frequency of 

ignition by dry lightning. Fires in the boreal 

forest are, for example, projected to increase 

in frequency with further warming (Rupp, 

Chapin, and Starfield, 2000). Finally, the 

combination of warming and acidification of 

streams and lakes in the boreal forest will have 

combined negative effects on freshwater fauna 

(Schindler, 1998).

Because the refuges of the northernmost 

ecoregions cover more than 80% of the area 

of the NWRS, and because the high latitudes 

are expected to undergo some of the most 

dramatic changes in climate, climate-driven 

effects to these refuges will greatly affect 

the ability of the NWRS to meet many of its 

mandated goals to maintain existing species 

assemblages. As a result of range shifts, 

recreational and conservation targets may 

change. This yet again raises the question of 

where conservation and management activities 

should be directed—at species, ecosystem, or 

conservation landscape scales.

5.3.3.2 Northern Forests and Eastern 

Temperate Forests (207 NWRs) 

These two ecoregions cover almost all of 

the eastern United States (Fig. 5.8). In the 

northeastern United States, recent documented 

seasonal warming patterns, extended growing 

seasons, high spring stream flow, and decreases 

in snow depth are projected to continue; new 

trends such as increased drought frequency, 

decreased snow cover, and extended periods of 

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 23 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 23 
24

result in shifts in forest composition and 

structure (Iverson and Prasad, 1998). In 

addition, global vegetation models project the 

conversion of many southeastern forests to 

grasslands and open woodlands in response 

to changes in atmospheric CO2 and climate 

(Bachelet et al., 2001). Shifts of this magnitude 

will greatly change the availability of habitat 

for many species on national wildlife refuges. 

Shifts in the dominant vegetation type or even 

small changes in the understory composition 

may result in significant changes in animal 

communities. In addition, climatic changes in 

these regions will have implications for both 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem functioning 

(Allan, Palmer, and Poff, 2005) which, in turn, 

will affect wildlife. For example, increases in 

temperature will affect dissolved oxygen levels 

in the many lakes of this region, resulting in 

changes in lake biota (Magnuson et al., 1997). 

Urbanization continues across much of the 

eastern United States, and most significantly 

across the East Coast states. Urbanization and 

residential development have the potential to 

further isolate refuges and reduce the ability 

of organisms to move from one protected area 

to another. Concurrent warming, reduced 

stream f low, and increased urbanization 

may lead to increased bioaccumulation and 

potentially biomagnifications of organic and 

inorganic contaminants from agriculture, 

industry, and urban areas (Moore et al., 1997). 

Finally, climate change will likely accelerate 

the spread of some exotic invasive species and 

shift the ranges of others (Alward, Detling, and 

Milchunas, 1999).

to a little over 3 million in 1990, and then 

again to roughly 7 million by 1997. Mal

duck numbers tracked this trend, dropp

from roughly 5 million in 1975 to a l

under 3 million in 1990 and rising to rou

6 million in 1997.32 Hydrological models h

been used to accurately simulate the effec

changing climate on wetland stage (John

et al., 2005). The projected continued ris

temperatures will likely cause severe dro

in the central part of the PPR and a signifi

drop in waterfowl population numbers (John

et al., 2005). Increased temperatures 

result in increased evaporation, and lea

decreased soil moisture and the likely shrink

and drying of many wetlands in the reg

(Sorenson et al., 1998). More specifically, t

changes have been projected to result in fe

wetlands (Larson, 1995), along with chan

in hydroperiod, water temperature, salin

dissolved oxygen levels, and aquatic food w

(Poiani and Johnson, 1991; Inkley et al., 20

The likely cascading effects on waterfow

refuges across the region include reduced cl

sizes, fewer renesting attempts, and lo

brood survival (Inkley et al., 2004). Ea

projections of potential population decline

waterfowl have ranged from 9–69% by 2

(Sorenson et al., 1998). In addition, stre

from agricultural lands surrounding refuge

the Great Plains will likely be exacerbate

future climatic changes. In particular, decre

in precipitation and increases in evapora

have the potential to increase demands for w

for agriculture and for refuges. In contr

increases in precipitation have the potenti

increase agricultural runoff. 

32 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007: Migr

Bird Data Center. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se

Website, http://mbdcapps.fws.gov/, accesse

11-20-2007.

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 24 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 24 
Together, these two ecoregions account for 

most of the mountainous areas in the western 

United States (Fig. 5.8). The Marine West Coast 

Forest ecoregion is generally relatively wet, 

with temperate ocean-influenced climates. The 

Northwestern Forest Mountains ecoregion is 

generally drier. Future projections for the region 

are for intermediate temperature increases and 

increased precipitation.

Some of the largest effects to this region are 

likely to come from changes in hydrological 

regimes resulting from reduced snowpack and 

earlier snowmelt. The resulting changes in 

stream flow and temperature will negatively 

affect salmon and other coldwater fish (Mote

et al., 2003). In addition, competition among 

different users for scarce summer water 

supplies will be intensified as snowpack is 

reduced and spring melts come earlier (Mote

et al., 2003). Water-use conflicts are already 

a major issue (National Research Council, 

2007) in dry summers following winters with 

minimal snowpack (e.g., Klamath Basin NWR 

Complex). 

Climate change is also likely to affect fire 

regimes in the mountains of the western United 

States (Westerling et al., 2006). Larger and more 

intense fires have implications for refuges at 

lower elevations that receive much of their water 

from the forested mountains. These fires will 

alter stream flows and sediment loads, changing 

the hydrology and vegetation in downstream 

wetlands. Changes in wetland habitats in the 

western mountains, whether driven by changing 

hydrology, fire regimes, or shifting vegetation 

patterns, have the potential to affect the ability 

of the NWRS to protect habitat and provide 

viable populations of species on refuges.

SRES B1 greenhouse gas emissions scenario, 

the Sierra Mountains will experience 30–70% 

less snowpack. Under the higher SRES A1FI 

emissions scenario, the Sierras are projected 

to have 73–90% less snowpack (Hayhoe et 

al., 2004). The snow-fed streams draining the 

Sierras into the Central Valley of California will 

have lower summer flows and earlier spring 

flows, significantly changing the hydrology of 

the valley. Reduced stream flows and higher 

temperatures may result in increased salinity in 

bays and estuaries such as San Francisco Bay, 

significantly affecting the biological integrity, 

diversity, and health of species and populations 

in the San Francisco Bay NWR Complex. 

Sea level rise will compound these effects for 

refuges in low-lying estuaries and bays along 

the California coast.

5.3.3.6 North American Deserts and 

Southern Semiarid Highlands (53 NWRs)

Like most of the rest of the United States, the 

arid Southwest has been warming over the last 

century. Parts of southern Utah and Arizona 

have had greater than average increases in 

temperature (e.g., 2–3°C) (Figure 5.3a). The 

southwestern United States has experienced the 

smallest increase in precipitation in the last 100 

years of any region in the coterminous United 

States (Figure 5.3b). 

Climate models project drying and continued 

warming in the arid ecoregions of the United 

States, which could have significant effects on 

many refuges. These projected climate trends 

could lead to changes in hydrology that, in turn, 

may have large effects on wetlands and other 

shallow water bodies. Although precipitationfed systems are most at risk, groundwater-fed 

systems in which aquifer recharge is largely 

driven by snowmelt may also be heavily 

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 25 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 25 
26

United States are already in high demand. 

Decreases in available water will exacerbate 

the competition for water for agriculture, 

urban centers, and wildlife (Hurd et al., 1999). 

Competition for water already challenges the 

Moapa dace on the Desert NWR Complex in 

the Moapa Valley of Nevada and the wildlife of 

the Sonny Bono Salton Sea NWR in southern 

California.

Dams and other small water diversions, 

combined with the prevalence of east-west 

flowing rivers, will hinder migration of aquatic 

species to cooler waters (Allan, Palmer, and 

Poff, 2005). In addition, many endemic fish 

in arid ecoregions are highly adapted to local 

conditions and quite limited in distribution. 

Many of these species are projected to go 

extinct in response to temperature increases of 

just a few degrees (Matthews and Zimmerman, 

1990). Reduced water levels and increased 

water temperatures may also lead to increases 

in disease outbreaks. 

Grazing by cattle on refuges in the arid 

ecoregions will likely exacerbate the effects 

of drought stress and aid in the spread of nonnative species. Furthermore, refuges may be 

sources of scarce water resources in the future, 

making them even more attractive to cattle. 

Grazing will also likely interact with climatedriven vegetation changes to further alter plant 

communities and wildlife habitat on refuges in 

arid regions (Donahue, 1999).

Although reduced precipitation and increased 

temperatures may reduce productivity in 

some arid regions, global vegetation models 

have projected an expansion of grasslands, 

shrublands, and woodlands into arid regions in 

response to increased water-use efficiency driven 

Ecosystems (7 NWRs)

In the continental United States, the trop

wet forest ecoregion occurs only in south

Florida. The largest climate-driven challe

to the refuges in this ecoregion is sea level 

With its extensive low-lying coastal areas, m

of this region will be underwater or inund

with salt water in the coming century. 

several refuges in the Florida Keys, Flo

Panther NWR, and Key Deer NWR are 

particularly at risk.

Invasive native and non-native species 

also a major challenge in this ecoregion

temperatures rise, South Florida will likel

the entry point of many new tropical spe

into the United States. Five new specie

tropical dragonfly had established themse

in the country by 2000—each suspecte

be the result of a northward range shift f

populations in the Caribbean. Loss of l

due to sea level rise in southern Florida 

increase development pressure inland an

the north, potentially accelerating urbaniza

and exacerbating the isolating and fragmen

effects of development.

5.3.3.8 Coastal and Marine Systems: 

Marine Protected Areas (161 NWRs)

Low-lying coastal refuges face several clim

driven challenges. Sea level rise will likely b

largest challenge to refuges in the southeas

United States (Daniels, White, and Chapm

1993; Ross, O’Brien, and Sternberg, 1994). L

33 Brooks, M.L. and D.A. Pyke, 2002: Invasive p

and fire in the deserts of North America. In: 

ceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: the 

of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Sp

[Gallery, K.E.M. and T.P. Wilson (eds.)]. Proceed

of the Fire Conference 2000: The First National 

gress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Managem

Tall Timbers Research Station, pp. 1-14.

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 26 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 26 
Florida are coastal and susceptible 

to sea level rise (Daniels, White, and 

Chapman, 1993; Titus and Richman, 

2001). For many of these refuges, 

sea level rise will dramatically 

alter habitats by inundating estuaries and 

marshes and converting forests to marshes. 

Beach-nesting birds such as the piping plover, 

migratory birds using the refuges as stopovers, 

and species using low-lying habitats such as the 

red wolf and Florida panther will likely lose 

habitat to sea level rise.34 In addition, sea level 

rise may eliminate coastal stopover sites used 

by birds migrating up and down the East Coast 

(Galbraith et al., 2002; Huntley et al., 2006).

Warming ocean temperatures also challenge 

coastal and marine refuges. In fact, warming 

ocean temperatures are already having 

significant effects on many marine organisms. 

For example, increased water temperatures 

have resulted in increases in the frequency of 

toxic algal blooms (Harvell et al., 1999), and 

future climate changes are projected to result 

in more intense tropical storms, resulting 

in increased disturbance for many coastal 

refuges (IPCC, 2007b). Coral bleaching is 

another effect of increased ocean temperatures, 

and has had profound effects on reefs in the 

Caribbean. Increased ocean acidity (from 

the accumulation of carbonic acid in the 

water—a direct result of more CO2 entering 

the ocean from the atmosphere and combining 

with water) will dissolve calcium-rich shells, 

dramatically changing the species composition 

of zooplankton and having cascading effects 

34 Schlyer, K., 2006: Refuges at Risk: the Threat 

of Global Warming and America’s Ten Most Endangered National Wildlife Refuges. Defenders of 

Wildlife, Washington, DC.

on entire marine ecosystems (Guinotte et 

al., 2006). 

Over-fishing, eutrophication, and increasing 

temperatures may lead to toxic algal and jellyfish 

blooms (Jackson et al., 2001). Temperaturestressed corals will be more susceptible to 

disease. Invasive species are likely to expand 

their ranges as water temperatures rise. And 

finally, pathogens and disease vectors may 

move with climate change. An example of this 

latter challenge is given by the expansion of 

an oyster parasite, Perkinsus marinus, up the 

East Coast of the United States in response to 

warmer waters (Ford, 1996).

5.4 ADAPTING TO CLIMATE 

CHANGE

Adaptation measures aim to increase the 

resilience of species, communities, and 

ecosystems to climate change (Turner, II et al., 

2003; Tompkins and Adger, 2004). The law 

governing management of the NWRS affords 

the USFWS great latitude in deciding what 

is best for the system. Especially in dealing 

with the scientific uncertainty associated with 

the effects of climate change, the USFWS 

can act assertively within the broad power 

Congress delegated to make judgments about 

how best to achieve the system’s objectives. 

Maintaining biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health, and sustaining 

healthy populations of species, two of the 

chief goals for the NWRS, provide ample 

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 27 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 27 
28

area of extent (Anderson et al., 1987; Nichols, 

Johnson, and Williams, 1995; Johnson, Kendall, 

and Dubovsky, 2002).

National wildlife ref uges are not yet 

implementing adaptation strategies to 

explicitly address climate change. However, 

various management approaches (e.g., riparian 

reforestation, assisted dispersal) currently 

used to address other stresses could also be 

used to address climate change stresses within 

individual refuges. More importantly, beyond 

the scale of individual refuges, climate change 

warrants system-wide adaptive management. 

Representation, redundancy, and resilience 

are key conservation principles that could 

be used to strengthen the NWRS in the 

face of climate change, both within and 

beyond existing refuge boundaries (Shaffer 

and Stein, 2000). The resilience/viability of 

populations and ecosystems on an individual 

refuge level may be increased through habitat 

augmentation, restoration, reduction/elimination 

of environmental stressors, acquisition of 

inholdings, and by enhancing the surrounding 

matrix through conservation partnerships, 

conservation easements, fee-title acquisitions, 

etc. At the NWRS scale, opportunities for 

refuge species to respond and adapt to climate 

change effects can be enhanced by capturing the 

full geographical, geophysical, and ecological 

ranges of a species on as many refuges as 

possible. The goal of these management 

responses is not to create artificial habitats 

for species, but to restore and increase habitat 

availability and reduce stressors to provide 

species maximum opportunity to respond and 

adapt to climate change.

35 16 USC § 668dd

be addressed at the refuge level, while NW

planning is the most appropriate level 

addressing systemic challenges to the syst

Adaptive management lends itself well to 

adaptation of natural resource managem

actions to climate change. Adaptive managem

is an iterative approach that seeks to imp

natural resource management by tes

management hypotheses and learning from 

results (Holling, 1978; Walters, 1986; Salaf

Margoluis, and Redford, 2001). A managem

action can have the desired effect on 

distribution and abundance of the target spe

However, depending on the type of managem

action, there can also be a number of uninten

consequences. Adaptive management prov

a research/management tool to asses 

frequency and intensity of unintended effec

is an approach that is useful in situations w

uncertainty about ecological responses is h

such as climate change. 

Adaptive management proceeds gener

through seven steps: (1) Establish a clear 

common purpose; (2) Design an explicit m

of the system; (3) Develop a management 

that maximizes results and learning; (4) Dev

a monitoring plan to test the assumptions

Implement management and monitoring pl

(6) Analyze data and communicate results; 

(7) Iteratively use results to adapt and le

(Salafsky, Margoluis, and Redford, 20

Public participation, scientific monitoring, 

management actions based on field results f

the core principles of adaptive managemen

Adaptive management also incorporat

research agenda into plans and actions, so 

they may yield useful information for fu

decision-making. For instance, the plann

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 28 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 28 
monitoring, is affirmatively required by the 

NWRSIA of 1997.37 The only legal hurdle 

for adaptive management is the need for final 

agency action in adopting CCPs and making 

certain kinds of decisions involving findings 

of no significant effect under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Although the USFWS policy implementing 

its planning mandate makes a strong effort 

to employ adaptive management through 

modeling, experimentation, and monitoring, 

legal hurdles remain for the insertion of 

truly adaptive strategies into CCPs. These 

hurdles are acknowledged in DOI policy on 

adaptive management (Williams, Szaro, and 

Shapiro, 2007). Not only do the Administrative 

Procedure Act, NEPA, and the NWRSIA all 

emphasize finality in approval of a document, 

but the relative formality of the development of 

an administrative record, the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement for proposals 

significantly affecting the environment, and the 

need to prepare initial plans for all refuges by 

the statutory deadline of 2012 all tend to frontload resources in planning. Once the USFWS 

adopts an initial CCP for a refuge, adaptive 

management would call for much of the hard 

work to come in subsequent implementation. 

However, from a legal, budgetary, and 

performance-monitoring standpoint, few 

resources are available to support post-adoption 

implementation, including monitoring, 

experimentation, and iterative revisions. Despite 

these drawbacks, adaptive management remains 

the most promising management strategy for 

the NWRS in the face of climate change. The 

research and management objectives described 

below are thought out within the framework of 

adaptive management.

36 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manual 602

37 16 USC § 668dd

listed species under the ESA, occasionally limit 

this latitude. Generally, intensive management 

occurs within the boundaries of an existing 

refuge, but ambitious adaptation projects 

may highlight certain locations as high 

priority targets for acquisition, easement, or 

partnerships. Also, programs such as animal 

translocations will require cooperation with all 

the involved parties within the organism’s range 

(McLachlan, Hellmann, and Schwartz, 2007). 

The chief legal limitation in using intensive 

management to adapt to climate change is the 

limited jurisdiction of many refuges over their 

water. Both the timing of water flows as well 

as the quantity of water flowing through the 

refuge are often subject to state permitting 

and control by other federal agencies, as 

discussed above. But, in general, the USFWS 

has ample proprietary authority to engage in 

transplantation-relocation, habitat engineering 

(including irrigation-hydrologic management), 

and captive breeding.

Because government agencies and private 

organizations already protect a network of 

remarkable landscapes across the United 

States, resource managers will need to develop 

specific land management actions that will 

help species adapt to changes associated with 

sea level rise, changes in water availability, 

increased air and water temperatures, etc. These 

measures may provide time for populations to 

adapt and evolve, as observed in select plant 

and animal species in the past few decades 

of increasing temperatures (Berteaux et al., 

2004; Davis, Shaw, and Etterson, 2005; Jump 

and Peñuelas, 2005). Strategic growth of the 

NWRS to capture the full ecological, genetic, 

geographical, behavioral, and morphological 

variation in species will increase the ability 

of refuge managers and the NWRS to meet 

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 29 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 29 
30

etc. Critically, however, the NWRS needs to 

regroup and reassess in a collective way the 

value of these tools—as well as where and 

how to apply them—in the context of the 

current dynamic environmental conditions. For 

example, 2007 has presented a dramatic shift 

in historic wildfire patterns in the contiguous 

United States, as the “fire season” and fire 

risk areas have expanded to the East Coast in 

addition to the traditionally notorious West. As 

of June, 2007, the Big Turnaround Complex Fire 

burning on and around Okefenokee NWR in 

southeastern Georgia had surpassed 600,000 

acres, and was the largest wildfire in history 

within the lower 48 states. This suggests that 

the application of fire to habitat management 

fuel reduction on refuges throughout the eastern 

United States may need reconsideration. Some 

potential climate adaptation measures that 

could be used by the NWRS include:

• Prescribed burning to reduce risk of catastrophic wildfire. Climate change is already 

increasing fire frequency and extent by 

altering the key factors that control fire, 

temperature, precipitation, wind, biomass, 

vegetation species composition and structure, and soil moisture (IPCC, 2001; IPCC, 

2007a). In the western United States, increasing spring and summer temperatures of 1oC 

since 1970 have been correlated to increased 

fire frequency of 400% and burned area of 

650% (Westerling et al., 2006). Analyses 

project that climate change may increase 

future fire frequencies in North America 

(Flannigan et al., 2005). Wildfires may also 

create a positive feedback for climate change 

through significant emissions of greenhouse 

gases (Randerson et al., 2006). Prescribed 

burns could prevent catastrophic effects of 

stand-replacement fires in ecosystems characterized by less intense fire regimes. Fire 

p

of functional ecosystems. Neverthel

high genetic diversity of species at the 

latitude edge of their range may req

special protection in those areas (Hampe 

Petit, 2005). Additional research is nee

to better understand the long-term eff

that such regeneration might have on nat

communities.

• Assisted dispersal. Endemic species 

occur in a limited area challenged w

complete conversion by climate cha

may face extinction. Assisted dispers

the deliberate long-distance transpor

people of plants or animals in their his

cally occupied range and introduction 

new geographic areas. Assisted dispe

offers an extreme measure to save such 

cies (Hulme, 2005; McLachlan, Hellm

and Schwartz, 2007). It risks, howe

the release of non-native species into 

areas and may not be as effective in alt

environments. It also raises social and e

cal issues, and should be viewed only 

last resort and considered on a case-by-

basis.

• Interim food propagation for mistimed 

grants. The decline of long-distance mi

tory birds in Europe and the United St

may originate in mistiming of breeding 

food abundance due to differences in ph

logical shifts in response to climate cha

(Sauer, Pendleton, and Peterjohn, 1996; B

et al., 2006). To compensate for the resou

it may become necessary to propagate f

sources in the interim. The USFWS 

provided food for waterfowl wintering 

various refuges. For example, at Whe

NWR, water levels are regulated in ord

promote additional vegetation growth on 

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 30 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 30 
pp 

temperatures from warming excessively 

during summer months, while providing 

dispersal corridors for many species. This 

will create thermal refugia for fish and other 

aquatic species while also providing habitat 

for many terrestrial species. This adaptation strategy will only be sustainable if the 

riparian species are tolerant to the effects of 

climate change.

• Propagation and transplantation of heat-resistant coral. Climate change has increased 

sea surface temperatures that, in turn, have 

caused bleaching and death of coral reefs. 

The Nature Conservancy leads a consortium 

of 11 government and private organizations 

in the Florida Reef Resilience Program, a 

program to survey coral bleaching and test 

adaptation measures in the Florida Keys, 

an area that includes four refuges. The 

program has identified heat-resistant reefs 

and established nurseries to propagate live 

coral from those reefs. The program plans to 

transplant the heat-resistant coral to bleached 

and dead reefs.

On many refuges, external challenges are 

controlled principally by federal agencies other 

than the USFWS. Water flows may be dependent 

on decisions of sister federal agencies, such as 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(for hydropower dams), the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (for navigational and impoundment 

operations), and the Bureau of Reclamation 

(dam and water supply projects). Adaptation 

to climate change will require increased 

cooperation of these agencies with the USFWS 

if refuge goals are to be met.

Other possible management actions that could 

be applied to address climate change effects 

include building predator-free nest boxes, 

predator control programs, nest parasite control 

Adaptation to climate change requires the 

USFWS to consider lands and waters outside 

of refuge boundaries. In some instances 

acquisition of property for refuge expansion 

will best serve the conservation mission of the 

NWRS. In most cases, however, coordination 

with other land managers and governmental 

agencies (e.g., voluntary land exchanges and 

conservation easements) will be more practical 

than acquisition. Coordination, like acquisition, 

can both reduce an external challenge generated 

by a particular land or water use and increase the 

effective conservation area through cooperative 

habitat management. Though the NWRSIA 

does little to compel neighbors to work with 

the USFWS on conservation matters external 

to the NWRS boundary, there are some 

regulatory hooks that USFWS managers can 

leverage. There are also several partnership 

incentive programs that could be used to create 

collaborative conservation partnerships (such as 

the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program,38

Refuge Partnership Programs,39 Safe Harbor 

agreements,40 Habitat Conservation Plans,41

Candidate Conservation Agreements,42 Natural

38 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007: Partners for 

fish and wildlife program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Website, http://ecos.fws.gov/partners, accessed on 6-7-2007. 39 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007: Refuge partnership programs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Website, http://www.fws.gov/refuges/generalInterest/partnerships.html, accessed on 6-7-2007. 40 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007: Safe harbor 

agreements. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Website, 

http://www.fws.gov/ncsandhills/safeharbor.htm, accessed on 6-7-2007. 41 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007: Endangered 

species habitat conservation planning. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Website, http://www.fws.gov/

Endangered/hcp/, accessed on 6-7-2007. 42 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002: Candidate 

conservation agreements with assurances for nonfederal property owners. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Website, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/listing/cca.pdf, 

accessed on 6-7-2007.

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 31 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 31 
32

state administrative and regulatory agencies, 

if voluntary or collaborative attempts to 

forge solutions do not work.44 In 2004, 

USFWS officials helped stop development 

of a 19,250-seat concert amphitheater on a 

tract of land adjacent to the Minnesota Valley 

NWR by testifying before the local county 

commissioners in opposition to a permit 

application. NWRS leaders may take such actions 

to achieve conservation as climate changes.

Abating External Challenges through the 

Regulatory Process. In addition to land use 

planning, other state legal procedures can 

offer refuge managers opportunities to address 

external challenges. The Clean Water Act 

requires states to revise water quality standards 

every three years.45 The USFWS participation 

in this process could work to ensure that water 

43 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007: Natural 

resources conservation service. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Website, U.S. Department of Agriculture, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/, accessed on 

6-7-2007. 44 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manual 601 FW 1

45 33 U.S.C. § 1251-1376

The ESA regulates private activities that 

harm listed species and may be an impor

tool, particularly for listed species on refu

that suffer from external challenges.48 O

the past 15 years, the ESA prohibitions h

induced private cooperation to enha

conservation of species through tools s

as habitat conservation plans and safe ha

agreements. The USFWS can encour

incorporation of adaptation terms into th

tools.

5.4.3.1 Building Buffers, Corridors, and 

Improving the Matrix 

Resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem 

tolerate disturbance without changing 

a different state controlled by a differen

of processes (Holling, 1973). Fundame

ecosystem functions, including nutrient cyc

natural fire processes, maintenance of f

webs, and the provision of habitat for ani

species, often require land areas of thousa

of square kilometers (Soulé, 1987; Millenn

Ecosystem Assessment, 2006). Conseque

the relatively small size of most refuges 

other conservation areas in the United Sta

their location in landscapes often altered 

human activity; incomplete representatio

imperiled species across the full range of t

geographical, ecological, and geophys

range; and incomplete life history suppor

those refuges where it occurs; raise fundame

obstacles to achieving resilience on indivi

refuges and the NWRS (Grumbine, 19

Indeed, the existing NWRS cannot f

support even genetically viable populat

for a majority of threatened and endang

species (Czech, 2005). For those threate

46 40 C.F.R. § 131.12, Parts 87-135

47 16 USC § 668dd

48 16 U.S.C. § 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 32 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 32 
be maintained. For example, the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health 

of the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii) could 

be enhanced through restoration of riparian 

habitats on those refuges where it is found. 

Conservation partnerships with adjacent land 

managers and owners to increase the area 

and quality of least Bell’s vireo habitat would 

include conservation easement and fee simple 

acquisition, where appropriate, and strategic 

acquisition of new refuges within the least Bell’s 

vireo habitat range. The potential applications 

of these approaches to facilitate ecosystem 

adaptation to climate change concentrate on 

the optimum size and configuration of new 

and existing conservation areas at a landscape 

scale. State Wildlife Action Plans also provide 

an opportunity to create more favorable 

environment adjacent to refuges through which 

species disperse, by identifying strategic habitat 

parcels within the range of the least Bell’s 

vireo.

The USFWS already engages in planning 

to prioritize land acquisition (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 1996). Acquisition of 

easements often represents an attractive option 

for building a support network around refuges 

to facilitate adaptation. The USFWS has great 

flexibility in crafting easements to address the 

particular dynamic circumstances of climate 

uncertainty. Federal courts have consistently 

upheld federal easements, even in the face of 

state laws that imposed term limitations or 

contravened negotiated property restrictions.49

However, given the projected increases in 

the American population and its demands 

on natural resources, options for easements 

may be fewer and pressure to remove existing 

49 See North Dakota v. United States, 1983. 460 U.S. 

300.

processes may be achieved through conservation 

partnerships, incentive programs, conservation 

easements, and fee simple acquisitions with 

willing sellers on refuge inholdings and 

adjacent properties. The USFWS already 

plays a leadership role in these best practices 

for conserving wildlife within watersheds and 

regions. The aspirational goals of refuge law 

along with the expertise of USFWS personnel 

are consistent with these outreach efforts, which 

may be informal or memorialized in memoranda 

or agreement among local landowners and 

jurisdictions surrounding refuges.

The alteration of habitat from climate change 

vegetation shifts produces one of the most 

significant challenges to conservation, 

because it reduces the viability of existing 

conservation areas. The targeted acquisition 

of new conservation areas, together with a 

structured configuration of the network of 

new and existing conservation areas across 

the landscape, offers an important approach to 

facilitating ecosystem adaptation. Landscapescale adaptation strategies and tools—drawn 

from the literature and expert opinion—could 

include:

• Establish and maintain wildlife corridors. 

Connectivity among habitat patches is 

a fundamental component of ecosystem 

management and refuge design (Harris, 

1984; Noss, 1987). Corridors provide connectivity and improve habitat viability in 

the face of conventional challenges such as 

deforestation, urbanization, fragmentation 

from roads, and invasive species. Because 

dispersal and migration become critical 

as vegetation shifts in response to climate 

changes, corridors offer a key adaptation 

tool (e.g., highway over- and underpasses, 

Yellowstone to Yukon corridor) and help 

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 33 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 33 
34

gg, gy 

require less-intense management interventions to maintain viable habitat, and should 

cost less to manage than vulnerable areas 

outside refugia. Acquisition of new land in 

potential climate change refugia will likely 

change past priorities for new conservation 

areas. This will require integration of climate change data from tools identified below 

into the USFWS Land Acquisition Priority 

System. Currently, The Nature Conservancy 

is analyzing effects of climate change in the 

seven ecoregions that cross the State of New 

Mexico in order to identify climate change 

refugia and to guide the development of new 

conservation areas under ecoregional plans 

developed in collaboration with government and private partners. Identification 

of refugia requires field surveys of refugia 

from past climate change events, or spatial 

analytical tools that include dynamic global 

vegetation models (DGVMs), bioclimatic 

models of individual species, and sea level 

rise models; each of these are described in 

more detail below.

• Eliminate dispersal barriers and create 

dispersal bridges. This topic was addressed 

to some extent previously, but additional 

opportunities exist, including removal of 

dispersal barriers in and near refuges, establishing dispersal bridges by eliminating 

hanging culverts, building highway underand overpasses, modification of land use 

practices on adjacent lands through incentive 

programs, habitat restoration, enhancement, 

and conservation partnerships with other 

public land managers. 

• Improve compatibility of matrix lands. Strict 

preservation of a core reserve, and multipleuse management reflecting decreasing 

degrees of preservation in concentric buffer 

gg

building on open land in exchange for lo

taxes for the landowner. It offers a me

nism for habitat conservation without 

great expense and governmental proce

required to purchase additional land 

federal agencies through fee title acqu

tions. As climate change shifts vegeta

and animal ranges, conservation easem

offer an adaptation tool to provide r

for dispersal of species and maintena

of ecosystem function. If the ecosyste

maintained within a core conserva

area and on lands adjacent to it is resil

then—even if climate changes cause a 

in species composition—that core conse

tion area will remain an important part 

conservation network because new spe

will be able to expand their ranges into 

• Restore existing and establish new ma

land vegetation as sea level rise inund

coastal land. The Nature Conservancy 

USFWS are collaborating on a project in 

ligator River NWR and on adjacent pri

land on the Albemarle Peninsula, N

Carolina, to establish saltwater tidal m

as the ocean inundates coastal land. 

Nature Conservancy also plans to estab

dune shrub vegetation in upland area

coastal dunes move inland. In the Bl

water NWR in Chesapeake Bay, Maryl

the USFWS may be restoring marshland 

oceans have recently inundated, by u

clean dredging material from ship chan

to recreate land areas.

• Establish other marshland vegetation w

freshwater lake levels fall. Decreasing s

mer precipitation and increasing evapotr

piration may decrease water levels in 

Great Lakes by 0.2–1.5 m (Chao, 1999). 

pending on the slope of shoreline areas

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 34 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 34 
ggg 

as climate change alters fish behavior. For 

example, a half-day earlier migration of adult 

Atlantic salmon over the course of 23 years 

was associated with climate change (Juanes, 

Gephard, and Beland, 2004).

• Install levees and other engineering works. 

Levees, dikes, and other engineering works 

have been used widely to alter water availability and flows to the benefit of refuge 

species. Their use to hold back the changes 

brought by sea level rise and increases in 

storm intensity remains largely untested.

5.4.3.2 Reducing the Rate of Change

In addition to the adaptation options described 

in this chapter, there are a number of actions 

that could be taken to mitigate climate change. 

These actions are primarily about reducing 

greenhouse gases. Refuges can participate by: 

being educational centers for solutions to climate 

change; developing and showcasing energysaving practices on refuges, such as using 

fuel-efficient vehicles (Eastern Neck NWR) or 

electrical vehicles; using solar energy (Imperial 

NWR, Mississquoi NWR), wind energy 

(Eastern Neck NWR, Mississquoi NWR), and 

geothermal heating and cooling (The John 

Heinz NWR at Tinicum, Chincoteague NWR); 

and, sequestering carbon through reforestation 

actions when consistent with refuge objectives, 

although this strategy needs to be further 

researched. 

5.4.3.3 Managing to Accommodate 

Change

Rather than managing in order to retain species 

currently on refuges, refuges could manage 

to provide trust species the opportunity to 

 Creating artificial water bodies;

• Gaining access to new water rights;

• Reducing or eliminating stressors on 

conservation targets, e.g., predator control, 

nest parasite control, control of non-native 

competitors;

• Introducing temperature-tolerant individuals, 

e.g., resistant corals (see previous discussion) 

(Urban, Cole, and Overpeck, 2000);

• Eliminating barriers to dispersal;

• Building bridges for dispersal; and

• Increasing food availability.

Additional measures to help mitigate the effect 

of climate change on refuges could include 

expanding access to water and enhancing 

the quality of existing terrestrial and aquatic 

habitats, creating habitat islands near seaice foraging sites for seabirds, adding drip 

irrigation to increase humidity and moisture 

levels in amphibian microhabitats, etc. The 

possible unintended effects and side effects of 

these and other management actions need to be 

further studied. 

Management/conservation partnerships with 

adjacent landowners to establish more refugecompatible land are another useful tool for 

dealing with the effects of climate change 

on the NWRS. For example, refuges could 

enter into partnerships with organizations 

such as the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service in the USDA,50 which offers an 

extensive list of programs and opportunities 

to manage and improve the landscape and 

to better meet challenges of climate change. 

Also, refuges could use existing general 

50 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007: NRCS 

conservation programs. U.S. Department of Agriculture Website, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Programs/, accessed on 

6-7-2007.

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 35 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 35 
36

Mammals Act, etc.).

It is probable that the stress from climate 

change will continue to increase over time, 

forcing national wildlife refuge managers 

and scientists to communicate, collaborate, 

manage, and plan together with managers and 

scientists from adjacent lands. One possible 

mechanism that the Department of the Interior 

could consider to enhance such collaboration is 

establishing national coordination entities for 

both management and informational aspects 

of responding to climate change. The National 

Interagency Fire Center, in Boise, Idaho,51 is a 

potential model to consider. Establishing entities 

such as a national interagency climate change 

council and a national interagency climate 

change information network could help ensure 

that refuges are managed as a system, which will 

be a key element in climate change adaptation, 

as the scale of climate change effects are such 

that refuges must be managed in concert with 

all public lands, not in isolation. A cabinetlevel interagency committee on climate change 

science and technology integration has already 

been created by the current administration.52

This committee, co-chaired by the secretaries 

of commerce and energy, oversees subcabinet 

interagency climate change programs.

A coordinated information network could 

assemble information on successful and 

unsuccessful management actions and 

adaptations, and provide extensive literature 

51 National Interagency Fire Center, 2007: Welcome, 

National Interagency Fire Center. National Interagency Fire Center Website, National Interagency 

Fire Center, Boise, Idaho, www.nifc.gov, accessed 

on 6-7-2007. 52 The White House, 2007: Addressing global climate 

change. The White House Website, http://www.

whitehouse.gov/ceq/global-change.html, accessed 

on 6-7-2007.

between USGS and the USFWS, agencies c

convene a national research and managem

conference bringing together managers 

researchers to identify research priorities 

are management-relevant and conducte

scales that are ecologically relevant (Box 

The biannual Colorado Plateau Resea

conference provides a model to emulate 

Riper, III and Mattson, 2005). 

The relatively small size and disju

distribution of refuges presents a challeng

maintaining biological integrity, diversity, 

environmental health. Yet, the NWRS h

great deal of experience with land- and w

intensive management, habitat restoration, 

working across jurisdictional boundarie

achieve population objectives. These skills 

critical to effective climate change adaptat

External challenges to refuge goals have fo

refuge managers to deal with transbound

issues more than most other land manag

Also, because refuge land managemen

often similar to private land management 

surrounding ecoregion, refuges can demons

practices that private landowners might a

in responding to climate change. 

BOX 5.2. Research Priorities for 

NWRS.

1. Identify 

• Conservation targets; 

• Vulnerable species.

2. Monitor and predict responses.

3. Select best management 

strategies.

4. Game alternative climate change 

scenarios.

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 36 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 36 
scientists to flesh out the dimensions of 

the challenge, using this report and those 

prepared for other public land managers. 

Further collaboration could be facilitated 

by a national conference of managers 

and researchers on challenges of climate 

change to conservation areas. A central 

piece of the conference would be the use of 

alternative refuge scenarios, documenting 

the past and current characteristics of 

the refuge (including their ecological 

content and context) and what they might 

become, under three alternative climate 

change scenarios and perhaps two to 

three different management scenarios. 

The fundamental questions throughout 

this conference would be: what are we 

managing toward? What do we expect 

the NWRS to be 100 years from now? 

Which will be the target species and where 

will they be? What will be the optimal 

configuration of refuges under such a 

climate shift and large scale changes in 

vegetation? This national conference 

could be followed by regional conferences 

hosted by each of the USFWS regions. 

A manager/researcher conference would 

need to include thematic breakout sessions 

to frame management-relevant questions, 

identify possible funding sources, and 

develop collaborative relationships. 

Ultimately these conferences would be 

focused on building bridges between 

research and management. To be 

successful, they would be convened every 

two years. The highly successful manager/

researcher partnership on the Colorado 

Plateau (van Riper, III and Mattson, 2005) 

and the recent (February 2007) joint 

USGS-USFWS Alaska Climate Change 

Forum offer models for such efforts.

BOX 5.3. National Wildlife Refuges: 

Adaptation Options for Resource Managers.

• Manage risk of catastrophic fires through prescribed 

burns.

• Reduce or eliminate stressors on conservation target 

species.

• Improve the matrix surrounding the refuge by partnering 

with adjacent owners to improve existing habitats or build 

new habitats.

• Install levees and other engineering works to alter water 

flows to benefit refuge species.

• Remove dispersal barriers and establish dispersal bridges 

for species.

• Use conservation easements around the refuge to provide 

room for species dispersal and maintenance of ecosystem 

function.

• Facilitate migration through the establishment and 

maintenance of wildlife corridors.

• Reduce human water withdrawals to restore natural 

hydrologic regimes.

• Reforest riparian areas with native species to create shaded 

thermal refugia for fish species in rivers and streams.

• Identify climate change refugia and acquire necessary 

land.

• Facilitate long-distance transport of threatened and 

endangered endemic species.

• Strategically expand the boundaries of NWRs to 

increase ecological, genetic, geographical, behavioral, and 

morphological variation in species.

• Facilitate the growth of plant species more adapted to 

future climate conditions.

• Provide redundant refuge types to reduce risk to trust 

species.

• Restore and increase habitat availability, and reduce 

stressors, in order to capture the full geographical, 

geophysical, and ecological ranges of species on as many 

refuges as possible.

• Facilitate interim propagation and sheltering or feeding 

of mistimed migrants, holding them until suitable habitat 

becomes available.

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 37 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 37 
38

where appropriate, restore and enhance, 

healthy populations of fish, wildlife, and 

plants utilizing ... methods and procedures 

associated with modern scientific resource 

programs. Such methods and procedures 

include, ... research, census, ... habitat 

management, propagation, live trapping 

and transplantation, and regulated taking.53

This definition provides ample authority 

and encouragement for modeling and 

experimentation.

Inventorying and Monitoring

The NWRS is unique among federal public 

lands in having a legislative mandate for 

monitoring. Congress requires the USFWS to 

“monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, 

and plants in each refuge.”54 However, as 

with other federal land management agencies, 

budgets have not prioritized the implementation 

of monitoring. Enlisting outside researchers 

can leverage resources and help achieve 

mutual goals for monitoring, but this cannot 

substitute for a systematic effort to monitor key 

indicators identified in unit plans and consistent 

with a national (or international) system of 

data collection. The USFWS policy guiding 

comprehensive refuge planning is rife with 

monitoring mandates, including exhortations to 

establish objectives that can be measured,55 to 

create monitoring strategies (ibid. at 3.4C(4)(e)), 

and to perform the monitoring (ibid. at 3.4C(7)). 

The National Park Service has developed an 

extensive survey monitoring program as well as 

one suitable for adaptive management (Oakley, 

Thomas, and Fancy, 2003). Information from 

53 16 USC § 668dd

54 16 USC § 668dd

55 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manual 601 FW 1 - 

FW 6

ppp

ways. Therefore, it will become increasi

important to support adaptive managem

efforts with greater understanding of 

relationships between habitat and focal spe

or groups of focal species. By modeling t

relationships at management-relevant scales

work to protect and restore additional hab

promote connectivity, and manipulate ha

through intensive management can be evalu

against population objectives.

There will be winners and losers am

the species currently found on the NW

The challenge is to project possible sh

in species distributions, phenologies, 

interspecific relationships, and shift

ecological and hydrological regimes, and 

to manage toward these new assemblages 

distributions. Essential to that process 

be a comprehensive review of the literat

The NWRS is operating in a data-def

environment. It does not have an all-t

survey of refuges; while 80% of refuges h

presence/absence information for birds, m

of those have no information on abundanc

seasonal occurrence (Pidgorna, 2007). It is 

rare refuge that has even presence/absence 

for lesser-known vertebrates. Checklists 

plants and invertebrates are almost unkno

The initial survey effort should be dire

at refuges in which the greatest chang

anticipated, and at those species that 

identified as most vulnerable to the effec

climate change, e.g., species occurring 

refuge that is at the southernmost extrem

a species’ range. More explicitly, the NW

could carry out the following tasks to ta

adaptation efforts:

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 38 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 38 
cifi c locations, e.g., the NWRS. Refuge employees could also be engaged in providing 

species occurrence information for refuges, 

and this database could later be expanded to 

include other taxonomic groups.

• Task: Develop detailed inventory of species, 

communities, and unique ecological features. Few, if any, detailed inventories of the 

species, communities, and unique ecological 

features on refuges have been conducted. 

The exceptions, e.g., waterfowl numbers 

and reproductive success, provide valuable 

information by which refuge managers may 

measure the effects of climate change on 

this group of species. Without these data it 

will be impossible to monitor changes and 

to determine how to allocate resources to 

protect the biota of the different refuges. 

Tools: Traditional inventory and monitoring 

methods (Anderson et al., 1987; Nichols, 

Johnson, and Williams, 1995) could be 

used to develop information (in a database) 

on sensitivity of all management targets to 

climate change. These sensitivities are described in the previous section. Additional 

information may be derived from literature 

searches and existing digital databases. The 

species monitoring program used by the 

National Park Service and the eBird database (described above) could also be used 

to facilitate this effort. This will also help 

fulfill the USFWS mandate to determine 

the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the NWRS, another 

important research priority.

56 National Audubon Society and Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology, 2007: North America’s destination for 

birding on the web. eBird Website, www.eBird.org, 

accessed on 10-20-2006.

y y 

cm by 2100 (IPCC, 2007a). As a first approximation, reserve managers can use topographic maps and local surveys of high tide 

levels and add 18–59 cm to estimate areas 

subject to inundation from climate change.

Tools: Coastal geomorphology and other factors determine local patterns of sea level rise. 

The U.S. Geological Survey has analyzed 

sea level rise projections, geomorphology, 

shoreline erosion and accretion, coastal 

slope, mean tidal range, and mean wave 

height to generate a coastal vulnerability index for the entire coast of the lower 48 states 

(Thieler and Hammar-Klose, 1999; 2000a; 

2000b). The GIS data are available online.57

Because local topography determines actual 

inundation patterns, only detailed elevation 

surveys can identify exact areas subject to 

flooding from climate change. USGS has 

flown light detection and ranging (LIDAR) 

surveys and produced a topographic data 

layer with a 30 cm contour interval for 

the Blackwater NWR on Chesapeake Bay, 

Maryland, which lies entirely below 1 meter 

above sea level and has lost land area since 

at least 1938 (Larsen et al., 2004b). The 

Blackwater inundation model identifies the 

land areas that may be submerged by 2100 

(Fig. 5.6), providing USFWS staff with the 

information needed to plan potential new fee 

title acquisitions or conservation easements 

in contiguous upland areas and potential 

restoration of inundated wetlands using 

clean dredging material from ship channels.

In order to estimate local effects of subsidence, isostatic adjustment, sedimentation, 

and hydrologic structures on sea level rise 

in the Ding Darling, Egmont Key, Pelican 

57 http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/cvi

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 39 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 39 
40

y 

model concurrence for climate projections.

Tools: This task can be accomplished with 

comprehensive analyses of the variability 

across different climate model projections. 

Specifically, maps of model agreement and 

disagreement can be produced using recently 

derived methods (e.g., Dettinger, 2005; Araújo and New, 2007). Both maps and concise 

summaries of the future projections written 

for managers and field biologists need to be 

made readily available on an easily accessed 

website and easily downloaded for any given 

region.

• Task: Obtain projections of future climate at 

management-relevant scales. Projected trends 

in climate must be summarized and made 

available to refuge managers at scales and in 

forms that are useful to them. The USFWS 

raw climate projections from climate models 

are at a coarse spatial resolution (on the order 

of thousands of km2). Finer resolution projections of future climate for all of the most 

recent model outputs are needed. All downscaled climate data will require peer review 

and validation against actual observations.

Tools: Finer-resolution projections could be 

generated from downscaled climate model 

output using statistical downscaling approaches (e.g., Wilby et al., 1998), but more 

preferably would be generated using regional 

climate models (e.g., Giorgi, 1990) capable of 

running off of boundary conditions generated by one or more global climate models. 

• Task: Project climate-induced shifts in 

vegetation, individual species ranges, and 

ranges of invasive and exotic species and 

summarize data for managers and field biol

pjp(

2001; Shafer, Bartlein, and Thompson, 2

and animals (Price and Glick, 2002) in N

America are now becoming available, 

more projections at management-rele

resolutions are needed. As with the clim

data, these data need to be summar

and made available to managers and f

biologists. In addition to projecting sh

in the distributions of species that are 

rently protected on the refuges, models 

be used to project the expansion of ran

of invasive and exotic species (e.g., Pe

son and Vieglais, 2001; Scott et al., 20

Tools: Dynamic global vegetation mo

(DGVMs) simulate the spatial distribu

of vegetation types, biomass, nutrient flo

and wildfire by iterative analysis of clim

and soil characteristics against obser

characteristics of plant functional types 

of biogeochemical, hydrologic, and fire 

cesses. The LPJ DGVM (Sitch et al., 2

and the MC1 DGVM (Daly et al., 2000

the two most extensively tested and app

DGVMs (Neilson et al., 1998; Bachel

al., 2003; Lenihan et al., 2003; Scholze e

2006). The Nature Conservancy, the US

Forest Service, and Oregon State Univer

are currently engaged in a collabora

research effort to run MC1 globally 

spatial resolution of 0.5 geographic degr

approximately 50 km at the Equator, in o

to estimate spatial probabilities of clim

change vegetation shifts and to iden

climate change refugia (Gonzalez, Neil

and Drapek, 2005). The Nature Conserva

is using these data in order to help set gl

ecoregional priorities for site-based con

vation, based on climate change and o

challenges to habitat (Hoekstra et al., 20

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 40 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 40 
The Nature Conservancy-USDA Forest 

Service-Oregon State University project 

is analyzing potential effects from a set of 

general circulation models of the atmosphere 

and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (2000) greenhouse gas emissions 

scenarios. This analysis is producing four 

spatial indicators of climate change: temperature change, precipitation change, 

estimated probability of vegetation shift 

at the biome level, and refugia, defined as 

areas that all emission scenarios project as 

stable (Fig. 5.9). Many of the refuges in the 

NWRS are projected to experience a biome 

shift and thus be outside refugia by 2100, 

and there is substantial heterogeneity among 

administrative regions. Even vegetation 

changes that do not constitute a biome shift 

may have substantial implications for trust 

species populations as well. 

Several other modeling tools and mapping 

efforts will be required to address the 

challenges posed by climate change. An 

easily applied hydrological model is needed to 

assess the relative vulnerability of all refuges 

to changes in temperature and precipitation. 

Several hydrological models exist and could 

be applied to individual refuges. This would 

be a major, but important, undertaking. It 

will also be critical to assess the current and 

projected future level of connectivity among 

refuges and among all protected lands in 

general. Maps of current land-cover can be 

used to derive estimates of which refuges 

are most isolated from other protected lands, 

and where potential future corridors should 

be located to connect protected lands. These 

maps can be integrated with projections 

of future development to determine where 

additional reductions in connectivity will 

likely occur. Land-cover analyses can also 

be used to identify areas where there will 

likely be increased conflicts over water-use 

for agriculture, residences, and refuges.

Figure 5.9. Potential climate change vegetation shifts across North America. A. Vegetation 1990. B. Projected vegetation 2100, HadCM3 general circulation model, IPCC 

(2000) SRES A2 emissions scenario. C. Projected change as fraction of ecoregion area. 

D. Potential refugia (Gonzalez, Neilson, and Drapek, 2005). 

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 41 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 41 
42

change (Pearson and Dawson, 2003). 

Analysis of climate envelopes for 1,103 plant 

and animal species and the effect of climate 

change on habitat areas defined by speciesarea relationships indicates that climate 

change places 15–37 % of the world’s species 

at risk of extinction (Thomas et al., 2004a).

The USDA Forest Service has analyzed 

climate envelopes and projected potential 

range shifts for 80 North American tree 

species (Iverson, Schwartz, and Prasad, 

2004) and has posted all of the spatial 

data.58 These data are available for anyone 

prof icient in GIS. Natural resource 

managers could use these species-specific 

data to locate refugia or to anticipate 

migration of new species into an area.

Intercomparisons of bioclimatic models for 

animal and plant species (Lawler et al., 2006; 

Elith et al., 2006) show variation among 

models, although MARS-COMM (Elith et 

al., 2006) and random forests estimators 

(Breiman, 2001) have demonstrated abilities 

to correctly simulate current species 

occurrences. Moreover, ensemble forecasting 

of species distributions can reduce the 

uncertainty of future projections (Araújo and 

New, 2007). Nevertheless, research has not 

adequately tested the ability of bioclimatic 

models to simulate the new and unforeseen 

distributions and assemblages of species that 

climate change may generate (Araújo and 

Rahbek, 2006). The computer-intense and 

specialized nature of bioclimatic models has 

restricted them to academic research. 

Documenting species’ responses to climate 

change will be crucial for developing 

models to project responses in abundance, 

58 http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/delaware/atlas

change, biome shifts, and change

species ranges will allow natural reso

managers to appropriately weight the re

of modeling efforts that currently s

moderate skill and will increase in skill 

time. Validation against field observat

will allow objective assessment of clim

biome, and species data.

Pale ocl i mat ic a nd pale obiolog 

information may be used to estimate 

range of historical changes in species 

ecosystem distributions, as well as rate

past change and their possible implicat

for future management. However, 

rates of change, and the conditions 

caused them, may not be indicativ

future conditions or rates of change. 

future will be uncertain. Thus we sug

that, rather than managing for histor

range of variation, or against histor

benchmarks, refuges and the refuge sys

be managed to maintain self-sustain

native populations and ecosystems. Re

managers can increase their option

the refuge level by reducing non-clim

stressors and increasing habitat quality 

quantity. At the systems level, chance

species surviving on the refuge system 

increased by insuring that the full rang

a species’ ecological, geographical, gen

and behavioral variation is found on refu

and that it occurs in more than one ref

For example occurrence of mallard du

on a single refuge in the central fly

would be insufficient to insure the integ

diversity, and health of mallards in the re

system.

• Task: Identify those species and ecosyst

most vulnerable to effects of climate cha

in the context of other pressures on 

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 42 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 42 
y py 

be most vulnerable to climate change, i.e.,

species with poor dispersal capabilities; 

those that occur at the extremes of their 

ecological, geophysical, or geographical 

ranges; narrowly distributed species; species 

with small populations and/or fragmented 

distributions; and species susceptible to 

predation or crowding out by invasive nonnative species.

• Task: Identify those regions and refuges within the NWRS that are most vulnerable to climate change in the context of other pressures on the system(s).

Tools: In considering system-wide responses 

to the challenge of global climate change, 

managers need to think about management 

actions necessary to maintain the integrity, 

diversity, and health of the NWRS as well 

as that of individual refuges. This will 

require identifying those refuges that are 

most vulnerable to climate change through 

a system-wide vulnerability assessment. A 

quick review of work to date suggests that 

the 161 refuges that are characterized as 

Marine Protected Areas, the 16 refuges in 

Alaska that account for 82% of the total area 

in refuges, and the 70 refuges in the Prairie 

Pothole Region—thus nearly 250 refuges 

and perhaps 90% of the area of refuges—

occur in areas subject to significant climate 

changes.

• Task: Use designated wilderness areas to 

track environmental changes that result from 

climate change.

Tools: The larger, more intact wilderness 

tracts would be key elements in our ability to track environmental changes due 

to climate change. The larger wilderness 

establish new conservation partnerships outside refuge lands as future conditions dictate. 

Tools: If and when refuges are managed 

as part of a larger conservation landscape, 

gains and losses will have to be weighed in 

terms of the refuges’ conservation partners’ 

activities (e.g., the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, The Nature 

Conservancy, National Park Service), the 

continental or ecoregion system of public 

and private reserves, as well as land-use 

practices on matrix lands. 

• Task: Develop renewed and enhanced 

management/science partnerships bet ween USF WS, USGS, ot he r st ate 

and federal agencies, and academia.

Tools: Collaborative relationships could be 

fostered through host researcher/manager 

conferences locally, regionally, nationally, 

and internationally that would allow researchers/managers working together to 

frame management-relevant research questions. The answers to such questions would 

increase the ability of refuges and the NWRS 

to meet the legal mandate of maintaining biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health in the face of the change and uncertainty projected to occur with climate change.

Because the ecological needs of many refuge species are more complex than what is 

supported by the current NWRS design, 

their biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health can only be managed 

through partnerships with the National 

Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and other 

public and private managers with stewardship responsibilities for America’s publicly 

held conservation lands. For example, the 

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 43 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 43 
44

• Task: Develop a vision for the NWRS 

on its 150 t h anniversary in 2053.

Tools: What will the conservation targets 

be: those species that currently occur 

on the NWRS, those species for which 

refuges were established, or threatened and 

endangered species for which refuges were 

established? Or, possibly, some subset of 

one of those categories, e.g., waterfowl of 

North America? Threatened and endangered 

species? Invertebrates? Once target species 

are selected, what level of abundance will 

be targeted: minimally viable, ecologically 

viable, evolutionarily viable populations, 

recreationally viable, or something else? 

It is important to also consider species 

that are currently absent from the NWRS, 

but that could expand their ranges into the 

NWRS and become conservation targets 

in the future, e.g., Mexican songbirds and 

hummingbirds. Much of the success of 

the NWRS’s efforts to conserve waterfowl 

species can be attributed to the clearly 

articulated vision of Ira Gabrielson and 

Ding Darling for a system of refuges that 

would provide habitat for recreationally 

viable populations of ducks and geese for 

the enjoyment of the American public.

Due to the uncertainty associated with 

climate change, it is essential that 

conservation targets not be static. Stopgap 

targets eventually will contribute to failure 

of the adaptation process. Ambiguity 

and conflict among targets are potential 

problems. Regulations and statutes may need 

to be assessed and amended in some cases. 

Refuges with broad mission statements, such 

as those created as a result of the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

of certain diseases mediated by change

temperature and moisture? How will a g

disease respond to a change in temperat

How will the geographic ranges of dise

change with climate? 

A second research need is projections of 

the disturbance regimes on refuges will cha

For example, how sensitive to an incre

in temperature is the current fire regim

drought cycle at a given refuge? 

A third priority is to investigate the implicat

of key translocations or “assisted dispers

For species that will likely need to be move

new sites or other refuges, where are these 

sites, and what are the ecological implicat

of introducing the new species? 

Finally, research priorities that incl

developing and enhancing methods 

tools to identify and select the best poss

management actions under alternative clim

change scenarios would provide managers 

badly needed information. The use of rigoro

tested models, and enhanced species occurr

information for assessing the costs and ben

of alternative climate change scenar

would enhance the ability to anticipate 

proactively respond to changes projected u

different climate scenarios at both the re

and NWRS scales. One could also pro

species and ecosystem effects with cur

or alternate management practices, strat

growth of the refuge, strategic growth of 

NWRS, or establishment of coastal barr

Developing these and other research quest

in collaborative workshops of managers 

researchers will likely increase chances 

results of research will be relevant to mana

and increase chances that the information 

be used to make a difference on refuges.

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 44 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 44 
vision of refuges as fixed islands of safe haven 

for species met existing needs at a time when 

the population of the United States was less than 

half its current size and construction of the first 

interstate highway was a decade away. At that 

time, climates and habitats were perceived to 

be in dynamic equilibrium, and species were 

able to move freely among refuges. Today, 

the landscape is highly fragmented, much of 

the wildlife habitat present in the 1930s and 

1940s has been lost, and the dynamic nature 

of ecological systems is well known. While 

Congress’ aspiration for the refuges to serve as 

a national network for the support of biological 

diversity remains sound, the challenge now is 

to make the refuge network more resilient and 

adaptive to a changing environment. Changes 

have already occurred that are consistent with 

those projected under climate change, thus 

increasing confidence that future changes in 

species distribution and behavior will occur 

with increasing frequency. Refuge managers 

are faced with the dilemma of managing for a 

future challenge without fully understanding 

where and when the changes will occur and how 

they might best be addressed. How can USFWS 

fulfill the key legal mandate to maintain the 

integrity, diversity, and health of conservation 

targets in an environment that allows for 

evolutionary response to the effects of climate 

change and other selective forces? 

In this chapter we have identified research 

initiatives, management/research partnerships, 

and efforts that may be used to meet the 

challenges of climate change. Alaskan refuges, 

where effects of climate change are already 

apparent, have been used to illustrate some of 

the challenges facing researchers and managers 

locally, regionally, and nationally (see Case 

Study Summary 5.1). While there is uncertainty 

conservation partnerships if biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of refuge 

populations and systems is to be maintained. 

National wildlife refuges, especially those near 

urban centers, could increase public awareness 

of the challenges facing wildlife by developing 

educational kiosks that provide information on 

the effects of climate change, habitat loss and 

fragmentation on refuge species. 

However, actions on individual refuges will be 

insufficient. NWRS-wide challenges require 

system-wide responses. The USFWS’s response 

to the three previous challenges faced by the 

NWRS (overhunting in the late 1800s, dust bowl 

era effects, and the ongoing loss of biodiversity 

that began in the second half of the 20th century) 

helped shape the current system, which is viewed 

worldwide as a model of what a natural areas 

system can be. Climate change, the fourth crisis 

facing the NWRS, offers us the opportunity 

to build on past successes and to do so with 

a more complete understanding of ecological 

systems. While the scale of climate change 

is unprecedented, so are the opportunities to 

make a difference for the future of wildlife 

and the ecosystems on which they depend. A 

response sufficient to the challenge will require 

new institutional partnerships; management 

responses that transcend traditional political, 

cultural, and ecological boundaries; greater 

emphasis on trans-refuge and trans-agency 

management and research; strong political 

leadership and reenergized collaborations 

between the USFWS and its research partners 

in USGS, other federal, state, tribal, and private 

organizations, and academic institutions. The 

scope and magnitude of expected changes—

inundation of coastal refuges, regime shifts, 

shifts in species distributions and phenologies—

challenges the viability of populations on single 

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 45 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 45 
46

sepaate beeg, gatoy stopove, awteg abtats spesetougout te syste;

• Show strong historical and projected warming in migratory species breeding areas (most of Alaska 

and the Prairie Pothole Region of the Central Flyway);

• Demonstrate heterogeneity in non-climate stressors that creates substantial complexity in both 

documenting and developing an understanding of the potential effects of climate warming on major 

trust species;

• Differ in the expected relative magnitude of climate and non-climate stressors as drivers of populations; climate is expected to be the dominant driver of migratory trust species performance in Alaska, 

whereas pervasive non-climate stressors such as habitat conversion and fragmentation, invasive species, pollution, and competition for water are expected to complicate estimation of the net effects of 

climate change on migrants in the Central Flyway.

Management context 

The first unit of the NWRS was established in 1903, and the system has since grown to encompass 

584 units distributed throughout the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and the Trust Territories. These refuges provide the seasonal habitats necessary for migratory waterfowl to complete 

their annual life cycles, and conditions on one seasonal habitat may affect waterfowl performance in 

subsequent life history stages at remote locations within the NWRS. The key mandate of the NWRS 

is to maintain the integrity, diversity, and health of trust species and populations of wildlife, fish and 

plants, and this species mandate provides the system with substantial legal and cooperative latitude to 

respond to conservation challenges. Individual symptomatic challenges of climate change can be addressed at the refuge level, while NWRS planning is the more appropriate level for addressing systemic 

challenges to the system using all legal and partnership tools that are available.

Key climate change effects

• Observed warming that is more pronounced in Alaska than in southerly regions of the United 

States;

• Observed earlier thaw in Alaska that increases the length of the ice-free season;

• Observed increases in summer water deficits in Alaska;

• Observed lake drying in Alaska;

• Observed shifts to later freeze-up and longer growing seasons in the Central Flyway in Canada and 

in the Northern United States;

• Observed increases in temperatures that account for 60% of the variation in the number of wet basins 

in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Central Flyway;

• Projected further increases in temperature for much of the Central Flyway, with northerly regions 

expected to warm more than southern regions; 

• Projected drying of the Prairie Pothole Region in the Central Flyway, the single most important duck 

production area in North America, which may significantly affect the NWRS’s ability to maintain 

migratory species in general and waterfowl in particular;

• Projected sea level rise and increased urbanization in southern regions of the Central Flyway, which 

are expected to cause reductions in refuge area and increased insularity of remaining fragments, 

respectively;

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 46 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 46 
, g, ggpp

the likelihood that adaptive management responses to climate change will be implemented and 

be successful;

• Emphasis on multiple integrated-scale responses to climate change and developing enhanced 

formal mechanisms to increase inter- and intra- agency communication may be particularly effective for migratory species. 

Conclusions

The integrity, diversity, and health of NWRS migratory trust species populations are affected by 

habitat conditions throughout the system. The value of seasonal refuges can be evaluated only in 

the context of their relative contribution to trust species populations. Breeding areas in Alaska 

contribute birds to all four flyways from the Pacific to the Atlantic, but the status of staging and 

wintering habitats throughout these flyways also influences the number and condition of birds 

returning to Alaska to breed. Climate change adds substantial uncertainty to the problems associated with accessing resources necessary to meet energy requirements for migration and reproduction, and this climate challenge may interact synergistically in unexpected ways with non-climate stressors. For example, depending on the migratory species, lengthened access to migratory 

stopover areas that is caused by climate change combined with changing agricultural crop mixes 

that are driven by market forces may eventually result in either reduced or increased reproduction on breeding areas. The primary climate challenge to migratory waterfowl is that resource 

availability may become spatially or temporally decoupled from need, and, in a warming climate, 

individual refuges may no longer meet the purposes for which they were established. An emphasis 

on the contribution of all conservation lands to the NWRS mission and strategic system growth, 

using all available tools, will likely provide the greatest latitude for migratory trust species and the 

NWRS to adapt to climate change. The unresolved complexity of understanding the net effects of 

variable climate and non-climate stressors throughout the NWRS represents an opportunity to 

focus on the importance of strong interconnections among system units, and to foster a national 

vision for accommodating net climate warming effects on system trust species.

refuges as well as the existence of trust species 

(threatened and endangered species, migratory 

birds, marine mammals, and anadromous and 

interjurisdictional fish) in the refuge system. 

The most important tools available are the 

species themselves and their abilities to evolve 

genetic, physiological, morphological, and 

behavioral responses to changing climates, 

site-specific relationships, and environments. 

The opportunities for species to evolve in 

response to changing environments can be 

enhanced by ensuring that the full range of the 

target species’ biogeographical, ecological, 

geophysical, morphological, behavioral, and 

genetic expression is captured in the NWRS 

(Scott et al., 1993; Shaffer and Stein, 2000).

A national interagency climate change 

council, a national interagency climate change 

information network, researcher/manager 

conferences, research themes and management 

strategies, and the species inventories and 

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 47 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 47 
48

Response to climate change challenges must 

occur at multiple integrated scales. This must 

occur both within the NWRS and among 

partner entities. Individual symptomatic 

challenges of climate change must be addressed 

at the refuge level, while NWRS planning is the 

most appropriate level for addressing systemic 

challenges to the system. Both top-down and 

bottom-up approaches must be integrated. 

Due to the heterogeneous nature of observed 

(Figs. 5.3a and 5.b) and predicted changes in 

temperature and precipitation, a “one-size-fitsall” solution will not be appropriate.

Immediately convene a national researchmanagement workshop. At this workshop, 

researches and managers could identify and 

discuss the challenges presented by projected 

effects of climate change and collectively 

identify, frame, and prioritize managementrelevant research questions. Similar workshops 

could be convened regionally.

Establish coordinating bodies, such as a 

national interagency climate change information 

network, to provide information and advice on 

the management of ecosystems and resources. 

The scale of climate change is such that public 

lands (including refuges) and private lands 

may be best managed in concert rather than 

in isolation. Management and information 

mechanisms could be established to support 

this new level of cooperation. Adaptation to 

climate change will likely require an entirely 

new level of coordination among public lands 

at multiple spatial scales. Such coordination 

59 U.S. Global Change Research Program, 1997: 

Impact of land use and climate change in the southwestern United States. U.S. Geological Survey 

Website, http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/, accessed 

on 11-17-2007.

working groups.

Conduct vulnerability assessments and iden

conservation targets. Peer reviewed 

validated national and regional assessm

could be carried out to identify ecosyste

species, and protected areas facing the grea

risks; this information then could be u

to develop shared conservation targets 

objectives. The most vulnerable specie

refuges include those with restricted ran

limited dispersal capabilities, and those 

occur on a refuge that is at the geograph

ecological, or geophysical extreme 

species range and/or on a refuge that prov

incomplete life history support.

Conduct a series of workshops that compare 

costs and benefits of alternative managem

scenarios. A series of workshops that eval

alternative management scenarios in the fac

climate change would provide refuge mana

with a portfolio of tools, solutions, and act

to both proactively and reactively respon

the effects of climate change.

Manage lands as dynamic systems. It may 

be possible to manage for static conserva

targets. Species ranges will shift, disturba

regimes will change, and ecological proce

will be altered. Management actions to decr

non-climate stressors and enhance the biolog

integrity, diversity, and health of refuge spe

ecosystems, and ecological processes co

include water impoundment; control of w

flow; control of predators, competitors, 

nest parasites on conservation targets; 

enhancement of food resources and breed

habitat (e.g., red-cockaded woodpecker).

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 48 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 48 
of individual refuges and the NWRS, to 

increase resilience of populations and the 

conservation value of the NWRS through 

increased representation and redundancy of 

conservation target populations in the NWRS. 

Increased emphasis on providing connectivity 

and dispersal corridors among units, especially 

for trust species that cannot fly, will be critical. 

A refuge that has “lost” its establishment and/

or acquisition purpose could still be valuable 

to the NWRS, if it provides connectivity or is 

resilient enough to support different species 

and processes. The strategic growth of the 

NWRS and successful adaptation to climate 

change will require refuge managers, scientists, 

government officials and other stakeholders to 

look beyond any one species and any single 

refuge purpose. The mandate of the NWRS—to 

maintain biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System—is 

so complex and broad that it would be difficult 

if not impossible to state that a refuge has lost 

its larger purpose and will no longer contribute 

to the fulfillment of this mandate. The size and 

distribution of refuges in the NWRS, and the 

question of whether individual refuges continue 

to be capable of contributing to maintenance of 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of various conservation targets need to 

be vigorously assessed before any decisions 

regarding divestiture of existing refuge lands 

can be made.

The NWRS was designed principally as a 

migratory bird network. The widely dispersed 

units provide for the seasonally variable life 

history requirements for trust species. Because 

many birds make use of different parts of the 

NWRS throughout the year, the performance 

of birds on any one component of the NWRS 

will be affected by climate-induced changes 

throughout the NWRS. Thus, innovative inter

to be reasonable management goals in the face 

of climate change. Pursuing such goals would 

force managers to attempt to sustain species in 

areas where environmental conditions were no 

longer suitable. However management for selfsustaining native populations and ecosystems 

in the face of change and uncertainty as the 

standard would be consistent with maintaining 

integrity diversity and health of native species 

and ecosystems.

The NWRS has extensive experience working 

with private landowners and can be a model for 

private landowner responses to climate change. 

With 4 million acres in easements, the NWRS 

has developed valuable experience working 

with landowners to develop collaborative 

conservation projects, conservation incentive 

programs, and agreements that support systemwide objectives. Because refuge lands are 

more productive and at lower elevation than 

other protected areas, they are more similar 

in these characteristics to private lands and 

thus better suited to demonstrate practices that 

private landowners might adopt in responding 

to climate change. All public lands should be 

models for other landowners, but the refuges 

may be the most relevant models in many parts 

of the country. 

R e f u g e s a r e m o r e d i s t u r b e d a n d 

fragmented than other public land

units. These characteristics may exacerbate the 

challenges presented by climate-induced habitat 

changes. However, the NWRS has substantial 

experience with intensive management, a wide 

range of habitat restoration methods, and crossjurisdictional partnerships that should enhance 

the refuges’ ability to achieve objectives 

compared with other federal land management 

systems.

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 49 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 49 
50

If responses to projected climate change effects 

fail to match the scale of the challenges, it 

may not be possible to meet the legal mandate 

of managing refuges and the NWRS to 

maintain their biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health. The USGS and 

USFWS cross-programmatic, strategic, habitat 

conservation initiative illustrates the type of 

thinking and planning that will be needed 

1999) of the NWRSIA, nor will they m

the needs of American wildlife. We m

articulate a vision of the NWRS that foc

on system status in 2053, the 150th anniver

of establishment of the first refuge. What 

the NWRS contain, how healthy will it 

and what must we do to fulfill that vis

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 50 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 50 
60 The content of this table was taken from the ideas that emerged during the stakeholder workshop.

61 Combes, S., 2003: Protecting freshwater ecosystems in the face of global climate change, In: Buying Time: a User’s Manual 

Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems, [Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer, and J.R. Hoffman (eds.)]. World W

dation, Washington, DC, pp. 1-244 as cited in: Matson, N., 2006: Letter From Defenders of Wildlife to Beth Goldstein, Refuge P

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Comments on the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservatio

Matson, director of Defenders of Wildlife, provided this letter at the SAP 4.4 NWR Stakeholder Workshop, January 10–11, 200

the types)

p

previously were controlled by cold winter 

temperatures.

aquatic species 

distributions.

g

g

private organizations to 

increase/share 

knowledge.

m

t

p

e

r

s

Sea level 

rise

Loss of high and intertidal marsh; species 

affected: migratory 

waterfowl, shorebirds, 

threatened and endangered species, anadromous fish.

Need better 

models and 

projections 

of sea level 

rise; more 

extensive use 

of SLAMM 

(Sea Level and 

Marsh Migration Model).

Refuge boundaries may need to 

be established in a 

different way (e.g., 

Arctic refuge has 

ambulatory boundaries that are 

going to shift with 

sea level rise—

meaning that the 

islands and lagoon 

will be lost); dikes 

and impoundments 

are temporary, so 

longer term solutions need to be 

sought.

Avoid acquiring additional 

bunkered/

coastal lands; 

do acquire land 

further inland in 

areas where sea 

level projected 

to rise; avoid 

maladaptive 

activities such as 

moving wetland 

grasses/removing 

peat content.

Expand collaboration with 

other federal 

agencies, state 

agencies, 

private organizations to 

increase/share 

knowledge. 

N

m

in

M

n

t

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 51 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 51 
52

in the face of sea 

level rise. Presence of seawalls 

at one site in 

Texas increased 

the rate of habitat loss by about 

20% (Galbraith 

et al., 2002).

Hydrologic 

changes

See Cinq-Mars and Diamond (1991) for discussion of how changes in 

precipitation may affect 

fish and wildlife resources. See Larson (1995) 

for a discussion on the 

effects of changes in precipitation on northern 

prairie wetland basins. 

Van Riper III, Sogge, and 

Willey discuss the effects of lower precipitation on bird communities in the southwestern 

United States.63

Need better 

models and 

projections of 

hydrological 

changes.

May require accessibility to new 

sources of water.

Use projected 

changes in hydrology to help 

manage impacts 

caused by hydrologic changes. 

Cinq-Mars and 

Diamond (1991) 

recommend that 

“monitoring 

programs must 

be established 

for fish and 

wildlife resources; migration 

corridors must 

be identified and 

protected; and 

new concepts 

must be developed for habitat 

conservation.”

Increased 

cooperation 

with upstream 

land managers.

Increasi

demand

on wate

resourc

 

62 Matson, N., 2006: Letter From Defenders of Wildlife to Beth Goldstein, Refuge Planner at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Commen

the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Noah Matson, director of Defenders of Wil

provided this letter at the SAP 4.4 NWR Stakeholder Workshop, January 10–11, 2006. 63 van Riper, C., III, M.K. Sogge, and D.W. Willey, 1997: Potential impacts of global climate change on bird communities of the Southwes

Proceedings of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Conference hosted by US DOI and USGS: Impact of Climate Change and 

Use in the Southwestern United States.

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 52 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 52 
g 

affects raptor migration. 

Changes in snowpack 

in the West will result 

in reduced summer 

streamflow, which could 

affect habitat.

Diseases Diseases may move 

around or enter 

new areas (e.g., avian 

malaria in Hawaii may 

move upslope as climate 

changes). Diseases would 

seem to be a major 

concern considering shift 

in migration ranges, the 

changes in endemic disease patterns (northern 

shifts of traditionally 

“tropical” diseases, for 

example), and the ability for certain diseases 

to be spread rapidly 

through migratory bird 

populations. 

More detailed 

information on 

phenology of 

diseases and 

their effects 

on species’ 

vital rates.

Control of vectors 

at unprecedented 

scales.

Control vectors, 

increase habitat 

beyond projected range shifts 

of diseases and 

disease vectors.

Expand collaboration with 

other federal 

agencies, state 

agencies, 

private organizations to 

increase/share 

knowledge.

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 53 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 53 
54

64 Matson, N., 2006: Letter From Defenders of Wildlife to Beth Goldstein, Refuge Planner at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Commen

the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Noah Matson, director of Defenders of Wil

provided this letter at the SAP 4.4 NWR Stakeholder Workshop, January 10-11, 2006. 65 Matson, N., 2006: Letter From Defenders of Wildlife to Beth Goldstein, Refuge Planner at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Commen

the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Noah Matson, director of Defenders of Wil

provided this letter at the SAP 4.4 NWR Stakeholder Workshop, January 10-11, 2006. 66 Matson, N., 2006: Letter From Defenders of Wildlife to Beth Goldstein, Refuge Planner at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Commen

the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Noah Matson, director of Defenders of Wil

provided this letter at the SAP 4.4 NWR Stakeholder Workshop, January 10-11, 2006. 67 Waite, T. and D. Strickland, 2006: Climate change and the demographic demise of a hoarding bird living on the edge. In: Proceedings o

Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273(1603), 2809-2813 as cited in:Matson, N., 2006: Letter From Defenders of Wildlife to Beth Golds

Refuge Planner at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Comments on the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Comprehe

Conservation Plan. Noah Matson, director of Defenders of Wildlife, provided this letter at the SAP 4.4 NWR Stakeholder Workshop, Jan

10-11, 2006.

gy 

affect forests (the birds 

eat gypsy moths and 

other pests).64 Trees 

will become sterile, and 

dying trees will become 

more susceptible to 

invasive pathogens.65 

Native species will be 

affected by the change in 

tree species.66 Warmer 

conditions can lead to 

food spoiling prematurely for species that 

rely on freezing winter 

temperatures to keep 

food fresh until spring.67 

Prolonged autumns can 

also delay breeding, 

which can lead to lower 

reproductive success. 

See also Hannah et al. 

(2005).

g

aries.

, g, 

distance to sea; 

GLORIA: mountain top assessments of species 

shifts; GIS layers 

on land prices, 

LIDAR data (3) 

build redundancy 

into system (4) 

establish new 

refuges for single 

species (5) build 

connectivity into 

the conservation landscape 

(change where 

agriculture is 

located and 

what crops are 

planted to allow 

migratory corridors to exist); 

(6) acquire land 

to north when 

projected species shifts northward; (7) identify 

indicator species 

that will help 

detect changes 

in ambient temperatures.

long-ter

implications. M

agers ne

adaptat

tools. C

not dea

with thi

issue in 

pieceme

fashion 

cause w

likely be 

great de

of spati

redistri

bution i

and out 

of refug

system.

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 54 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 54 
More frequent and 

extreme 

storm 

events

Debris from human 

settlements may be 

blown in or washed into 

refuges, and may include 

hazardous substances. 

Eutrophication due to 

excess nutrients coming 

in from flood events 

could stimulate excessive 

plant growth and negatively affect habitats.68

Soils could be affected 

through erosion, changes 

in nutrient concentrations, seed losses, etc. 

Hydrology could be 

affected through stream 

downcutting, changes in 

bedload dynamics, loss 

of bank stability, changes 

in thermal dynamics, etc.

It is uncertain 

what the refuge system can 

do to manage 

for this issue.

Harden infrastructures.Space populations widely 

apart; if a catastrophic weather 

event occurs, 

population loss 

may be less.69

Cooperative agreements with 

up-elevation 

landowners 

and managers. 

Restoration 

of wetland 

habitats.

L

r

L

o

le

(

c

lo

c

u

a

q

s

b

e

s

Alaska 

central 

flyway (see 

Case Study 

Summary 

5.1): stressors include 

early thaw/

late freeze, 

sea level 

rise, storm 

events, 

warming 

temperatures

Early thaw/late freeze: 

resource access; increased rearing season 

length, crop mix, early 

spring migration, delayed 

fall migration, shortstopping, northwardshifted harvest, redistribution; warming: habitat 

access, disease.

Refined 

estimates of 

projected 

climate-warming-related 

changes in 

nesting and 

rearing lake 

number and 

area in Alaska 

and the Prairie 

Pothole 

Region; 

projections 

of climatechange-related 

changes in agricultural crop 

mixes and 

distribution 

in the Central 

Flyway.

Management may 

expect different 

distributions of 

waterfowl as a 

result of climate 

change, may be 

addressed through 

directional emphasis on partnerships 

(e.g., emphasize 

collaborative 

projects in areas 

where net gain 

under projected 

climate change is 

the greatest.

Recognition 

and monitoring; 

establish secure 

network of protected areas.

Enhance 

educational 

outreach, 

in-agency 

training, and 

focused monitoring.

L

t

u

r

p

c

n

s

a

d

e

t

m

p

68 Matson, N., 2006: Letter From Defenders of Wildlife to Beth Goldstein, Refuge Planner at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: C

the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Noah Matson, director of Defenders 

provided this letter at the SAP 4.4 NWR Stakeholder Workshop, January 10-11, 2006. 69 Matson, N., 2006: Letter From Defenders of Wildlife to Beth Goldstein, Refuge Planner at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: C

the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Noah Matson, director of Defenders 

provided this letter at the SAP 4.4 NWR Stakeholder Workshop, January 10-11, 2006.

Chapter 5_Refuges.indd 55 hapter 5_Refuges.indd 55 
C

6.1 SUMMARY

Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) provide a special suite of goods and services, valued highly by 

the public, that are inextricably linked to their flow dynamics and the interaction of flow with 

the landscape. The WSR System was created to protect and preserve the biological, ecological, 

historic, scenic, and other “outstandingly remarkable values” for which they have been selected. 

The management goals for WSRs center on the preservation and protection of these conditions 

and values. Currently there are 165 WSRs across the country, representing more than 11,000 

stream miles. Most states have at least one designated river or river segment, but 100 of the 

WSRs fall within just four states (Oregon, Alaska, Michigan, and California with 46, 25, 16, and 

13 WSRs respectively). With the exception of the state of Alaska, most WSRs are within watersheds affected by human activities, including development (agricultural, urban, or suburban 

land use) or dams. In fact, many WSR segments lie downstream of these impacts, meaning their 

management for scenic or free-flowing condition is difficult. 

Climate change adds to and magnifies risks that are already present in many watersheds with 

WSRs through its potential to alter rainfall, temperature, and runoff patterns, as well as to disrupt 

biological communities and sever ecological linkages in any given locale. Thus, the anticipation 

of climate change effects requires both reactive and proactive management responses if the 

nation’s valuable river assets are to be protected. 

KEY FINDINGS

The context of WSRs within their watershed and the ability to manage the many stressors 

that interact with climate change exert a large influence on their future. Anticipating the 

future condition of a river in the face of climate change requires explicit consideration not only 

of the current climatic, hydrogeologic, and ecological conditions, but also of how it is managed 

and how human behavior will affect the river (the human context). Even if impacts are small at 

present, consideration of the human context is critical because so many WSRs are not within 

a fully protected basin. This means that in addition to climate change, impacts associated with 

activities such as development and water withdrawals are likely to become issues in the future. 

Thus, stress associated with the future human context will interact with climate change, often 

exacerbating problems and intensifying management challenges. To the extent that managers 

are able to control aspects of this “context,” they are better placed to manage for adaptation 

to climate change.

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 1 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 1 
2

non-federal partners in the respective river basins. WSR managers could strengthen 

laborative relationships among federal, state, and local resource agencies and stakeholder

ease the implementation of adaptive river management strategies. Options to protect W

and river segments are diverse and most of them require cooperation and collaboration w

other groups, including local landowners, reservoir and dam managers, as well as city, co

or state agencies. Options presented assume WSR managers/administering agencies wil

tively seek cooperative arrangements with the needed parties to ensure WSR ecosystems 

protected. Land acquisition is an option that may provide the most security for WSRs that 

in watersheds with some non-federal land.

Managers may forge partnerships and develop mechanisms to ensure environme

flows for WSRs in basins that experience water stress, work with land use planner

minimize additional development in WSR watersheds, or ensure that land adjacent 

WSR is in protected status. Methods to manage and store surface and groundwater wi

important for WSRs in developed or dammed watersheds that are in regions expected to exp

ence more floods or droughts. With more than 270 dams located within 100 miles (upstream 

downstream) of a designated WSR, collaborative arrangements with dam managers offer g

potential to secure beneficial flows for WSRs under various climate change scenarios. Simil

working to develop agreements to limit water extractions, purchase additional water ri

or dry-year agreements with willing parties, and working with land use planners to minim

additional development may be very important in regions of the country that are expecte

experience water stress. 

In the face of climate change, management of WSRs will require both proactive 

proaches as well as reactive actions to be taken if impacts occur. The ability of a WS

provide the ecosystem goods and services in the future that originally prompted its designa

will depend largely on how it is managed. Without deliberate management actions that reac

stress already occurring or that anticipate future stress, the provision of ecosystem services 

not be guaranteed. Some actions are far more desirable to undertake proactively (e.g., acq

land to protect floodplains), and others may be done proactively or reactively (e.g., restor

parian habitat). Those actions that are more desirable to undertake reactively occur where 

costs of acting before an event are high and the uncertainty of an event occurring is high 

severe damage occurs from an extreme event that requires channel reconfiguration). Am

the most important proactive measures is expanding the technical capacity of WSR mana

so they have the needed tools and expertise to prepare for and implement new managem

Priority management strategies that include a focus on increased monitoring and 

development of tools to project future impacts will better enable river managers to 

oritize actions and evaluate effectiveness. A task critical to prioritizing actions and evalua

effectiveness is to monitor and develop regional-scale (preferably WSR basin-specific) t

for projecting the likely impacts of climate change in concert with other stressors. Monito

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 2 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 2 
unfolding on the Snake River near the small 

town of Oxbow, Idaho. Once known for its 

booming copper mines and rowdy saloons, this 

small town would soon be known as the site of 

the “Oxbow Incident.” Chinook salmon and 

steelhead had started their fall spawning run but 

became stranded in stagnant, un-aerated pools 

of water just below the 205-foot Oxbow Dam. 

Plans to trap the fish and transport them around 

the dam were failing. By the end of the season, 

10,000 fish had perished before spawning.1

Oxbow is situated just below Hell’s Canyon—

North America’s deepest river gorge—which 

was carved by the Snake River and remains 

one of the largest wilderness areas in the West. 

In the 1950s, this gorge contained one of the 

last free-flowing stretches of the Snake River 

(Fig. 6.1) and became the focus of a major fight 

that spanned two decades. Idaho Senator Frank 

Church played a pivotal role in deciding who 

1 Barker, R., 1999: Saving fall Chinook could be 

costly. The Idaho Statesman, http://www.bluefish.

org/saving.htm, accessed on 2-9-2006.

Church had supported development and dam 

construction that he felt were keys to the growth 

and prosperity of Idaho. However, the Oxbow 

Incident had a profound effect on Church. He 

witnessed the severe effect of dams on fisheries, 

and even began to ponder the value of riverine 

corridors to wildlife and their growing value to 

tourism and recreation. 

Frank Church’s efforts in the U.S. Senate 

resulted in passage of the national Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act in 1968. While it was not 

until 1975 that the Hell’s Canyon of the Snake 

River was designated as wild and scenic, two 

of the eight rivers originally designated as wild 

and scenic were in Idaho.

Fundamental to the Act was the desire to preserve 

select rivers with “outstandingly remarkable 

values” in a “free-flowing condition.” The Act 

defines free-flowing as “any river or section of a 

river existing or flowing 

in natural condition 

without impoundment, 

diversion, straightening, 

rip-rapping, or other 

modif ication of the 

waterway.” 2 O n e 

should note, however, 

that low dams or other 

minor str uct ures do 

not preclude a river 

from being considered 

f o r d e s i g n a t i o n . 

T he “out st a nd i ngly 

rema rk able values” 

encompass a range of 

scenic, biological, and 

2 Section 16(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 

U.S.C. 1271-1287 P.L. 90-542.

Figure 6.1. Photo of Snake River below Hell’s Canyon Dam. 

Photograph courtesy of Marshall McComb, Fox Creek Land Trust.

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 3 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 3 
4

rivers that have the wild and scenic designa

(16 and 13, respectively); however, most st

have at least one designated river or r

segment. Selected milestones in the evolu

of the Wild and Scenic Rivers system are sh

in Fig. 6.3.

As severe as the dam effects were on fishe

in Oxbow, Idaho, there is equal or gre

concern today about the potential fu

impacts of climate change on WSRs. Clim

Figure 6.2. Wild and Scenic Rivers in the United States. Data from USGS, National Atlas of the Un

States.3 Note: this map is missing three Wild and Scenic Rivers updated through 2006. The Missouri River in Nebraska, W

Clay Creek in Delaware and Pennsylvania, and Wilson Creek in North Carolina will be included in the final version.

• with natural flow

• with high water quality

• without impoundment

2. Protect “outstandingly remarkable 

values”:

• scenic

• recreational

• geologic

• fish and wildlife

• historic

• cultural

3 U.S. Geological Survey, 2005: Federal land features of the United States - parkways and scenic rivers. Fed

Land Features of the United States. http://www-atlas.usgs.gov/mld/fedlanl.html. 

 Available from nationalatlas.gov.

 U.S. Geological Survey, 2006: Major dams of the United States. Federal Land Features of the United St

http://www-atlas.usgs.gov/mld/dams00x.html. Available from nationalatlas.gov.

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 4 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 4 
change is expected to alter regional patterns 

in precipitation and temperature, and this has 

the potential to change natural flow regimes at 

regional scales. The ecological consequences of 

climate change and the required management 

responses for any given river will depend on 

how extensively the magnitude, frequency, 

timing, and duration of key runoff events 

change relative to the historical pattern of the 

natural flow regime for that river, and how 

adaptable the aquatic and riparian species are 

to different degrees of alteration.

6.3 CURRENT STATUS OF 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 

With the exception of the state of Alaska, most 

WSRs are within watersheds affected by human 

activities, including development (agricultural, 

urban, or suburban land use) or dams. In fact, 

many WSR segments lie downstream of these 

impacts, meaning their management for scenic 

or free-flowing condition is difficult. Thus in 

many ways, WSRs are like rivers all over the 

United States—they are not fully protected from 

human impacts. They are distinctive because 

river-specific outstanding values have been 

4 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 2007: 

Homepage: National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Website, 

http://www.rivers.gov, accessed on 5-30-2007. 

identified and river-administrating agencies 

have been directed to monitor and protect them 

as much as possible. More specifically, it is the 

responsibility of the relevant federal agency—

the Forest Service, the National Park Service, 

the Bureau of Land Management, or the Fish 

and Wildlife Service—in conjunction with 

some state and local authorities, to manage them 

in ways to best protect and enhance the values 

that led to the designation as wild and scenic. 

This makes WSRs ideal for implementing 

and monitoring the results of management 

strategies to minimize the impacts of climate 

change—the responsible manager (e.g., the 

river-administering agency) is specified and 

the ecosystem values in need of protection have 

been identified. 

6.3.1 Framework for Assessing 

Present and Future Status

Climate change is expected to have a significant 

impact on running waters throughout the world, 

not only in terms of changes in flow magnitude 

and timing, but in terms of thermal regimes 

and the flora and fauna that currently inhabit 

these waters (Sala et al., 2000). The focus in 

this chapter is not only on identifying the likely 

impacts of climate change, but also identifying 

management options for protecting riverine 

ecosystems and their values against these 

impacts. However, rivers across the United 

Figure 6.3. Selected milestones in the evolution of the Wild and Scenic Rivers system. Adapted from 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System website.4

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

ScenicAct

WSRsof WSRsScenic

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 5 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 5 
6

present, consideration of the human context is 

critical to a river’s future unless it is within a 

fully protected basin. If it is not, then impacts 

associated with activities such as development 

and water withdrawals are likely to become 

issues in the future. Stress associated with the 

future human context will interact with climate 

change, often exacerbating problems and 

intensifying management challenges (Fig. 6.4) 

The ability of a WSR to provide the ecosystem 

goods and services in the future that originally 

that are inextricably linked to their f 

dynamics and the interaction of flow w

the landscape. The ecological processes 

support these goods and services are fuele

the movement of water as it crosses ripa

corridors, floodplains, and the stream

transporting nutrients, sediment, orga

matter, and organisms. Thus, water purifica

biological productivity and diversity, as we

temperature and flood control, are all medi

by interactions between the local hydrology 

geologic setting. For this reason, the partic

goods and services offered by WSRs v

greatly across the nation, reflecting the g

variety of landscape settings and climate

which WSRs occur.

The Rogue River in Oregon supports whitew

rafting through dramatic gorges, while 

Loxahatchee River in Florida supports hi

productive cypress swamp. The goods 

services provided by any river depend in 

small measure on how “healthy” it is, 

the degree to which the fundamental rive

processes that define and maintain the riv

normal ecological functioning are work

properly. One of the main threats of clim

change to WSRs is that it may modify th

critical underlying riverine processes 

thus diminish the health of the system, w

potentially great ecological consequen

Of particular concern is the possibility 

climate-induced changes can exacerb

human-caused stresses, such as depletio

water flows, already affecting these rivers. 

likelihood of this happening will depend on 

current conditions in the river and the ex

to which future changes in precipitation 

temperature differ from present condition

Although every river is arguably uniqu

terms of the specific values it provides and 

Figure 6.4. Conditions and factors affecting the 

future conditions of Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Hydromorphic

Context of WS 

River and 

Ecosystem 

Services 

Desired

Legal & 

Management 

Context 

Present 

Human 

Context

Future Human 

Context 

(projected)

Climate 

Change

WS River 

Ecosystem 

Services 

Impacted

Reactive 

Management 

Required

WS River 

Ecosystem 

Services 

Protected

Assuming Current 

Management

Assuming New 

Management

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 6 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 6 
wildlife it supports, an important scientific 

perspective is to identify the general underlying 

processes that dictate how a river functions, so 

that researchers may consider the vulnerabilities 

of these systems to climate change. This report 

uses the phrase “hydrogeomorphic context” 

to mean the combination of fundamental 

riverine processes that interact with the 

particular landscape setting of a river to define 

its fundamental character and potential for 

ecological resilience in the face of natural 

variation and future climate change.

From a physical perspective, rivers function to 

move water and sediment off the landscape and 

downhill toward the sea. The regime of rainfall 

Water 

Purification 

(b) Processing of 

Contaminants

Biological removal by plants and 

microbes of materials such as 

excess sediments, heavy metals, 

contaminants, etc.

Direct measures of contaminant uptake or changes in contaminant flux. 

Toxic contaminants kill bio

excess sediments smother 

vertebrates, foul the gills o

etc; water not potable.

Decomposition of 

Organic Matter

The biological (mostly by 

microbes and fungi) degradation 

of organic matter such as leaf 

material or organic wastes.

Decomposition is measured 

as the rate of loss in weight of 

organic matter over time. 

Without this, excess orga

material builds up in strea

which can lead to low oxy

and thus death of inverteb

and fish; water may not be 

drinkable.

Primary 

Production 

Secondary 

Production 

Photosynthesis; 

chemosynthesis; consumption 

(e.g., herbivory, predation).

For primary production, measure the rate of photosynthesis 

in the stream; for secondary, 

measure growth rate of organisms or annual biomass.

Primary production suppo

the food web; secondary p

duction support fish and w

and humans.

Temperature 

Regulation

Infiltration and vegetative 

shading: temperature is 

“buffered” if there is sufficient 

infiltration in the watershed & 

riparian zone AND shading by 

riparian vegetation.

Measure the rate of temperature change in the water and air 

(in riparian zone immediately 

next to river) as surrounding 

air temperature changes or as 

increases in discharge occur.

If infiltration or shading ar

reduced (due to clearing o

etation along stream), stre

water and riparian air heat 

beyond what biota are cap

of tolerating.

Flood Control

Slowing of water flow from 

the land to streams or rivers 

so that flood frequency and 

magnitude are reduced; intact 

floodplains and riparian vegetation help buffer increases in 

discharge.

Measure the rate of infiltration 

of water into soils OR discharge in stream in response to 

rain events.

Without the benefits of flo

plains, healthy stream cor

and watershed vegetation

floods become more frequ

and higher in magnitude.

Biodiversity 

Maintenance

Maintenance of intact food web 

and genetic resources that together provide other ecosystem 

goods. Local genetic adaptation 

contributes to landscape-scale 

resilience of river ecosystems.

Enumeration of genotypes, species, or species guilds.

Impoverishment of genetic 

versity at broader spatial s

Reduced capacity for resil

and sustainability of many 

system goods and services

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 7 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 7 
8

slowly across flat land where channels can be 

wide and meandering due to sandy banks, such 

as Mississippi’s Black Creek. Likewise, rivers 

draining watersheds with porous soils and high 

groundwater levels respond very sluggishly to 

rainfall storm events, compared with those that 

drain impervious soils and show a rapid flood 

response to heavy rains (Paul and Meyer, 2001). 

Such differences exert strong control over the 

temporal dynamics of critical low and high 

flow events and thus directly influence many 

ecological processes and populations of aquatic 

and riparian species (Poff et al., 1997; Bunn and 

Arthington, 2002).

But the hydrogeomorphic context can also be 

extended beyond precipitation and geology. 

Specifically, the thermal regime of a river is 

also a critical component of its fundamental 

nature, because water temperature directly 

controls animal and plant metabolism and 

thus influences the kinds of species that can 

flourish in a particular environment and the 

rates of biogeochemical processes within the 

river ecosystem (Ward, 1992; Allan, 1995). This 

thermal response explains the categorization 

of fishes as being either cold-water species 

(e.g., trout, salmon) or warm-water species 

(e.g., largemouth bass) (Eaton and Scheller, 

1996; Beitinger, Bennett, and McCauley, 

2000). Regional climate largely determines 

air temperature, and hence water temperature 

(Nelson and Palmer, 2007), and this factor also 

influences whether precipitation falls as rain or 

snow. When it falls as snow, regional climate 

also influences the time and rate of melt to 

provide the receiving river with a prolonged 

pulse of runoff. 

At a broad, national scale, it is important to 

appreciate the differences in hydrogeomorphic 

context of WSRs. Not only do these differences 

the full range of river types across the Un

States. The wide geographic distributio

WSRs is important not only in ensuring la

scale biodiversity, but also the concomi

ecosystem processes associated with diffe

river systems. This is particularly true 

“wild” rivers, i.e., those that are not damme

heavily modified by human activities and 

are protected over the long term due to t

WSR status. Thus, wild rivers across the Un

States can serve as a valuable natural reposi

of the nation’s biological heritage (e.g., Po

al., 2007; Moyle and Mount, 2007), and 

threats of climate change to this ecolog

potential is of great national concern. 

6.3.2.2 What it Means to be Wild 

WSRs include headwaters with undistur

watersheds as well as river segments that h

only modest watershed impacts. The term “

river” in its strictest sense would include a r

with no human impacts in its entire waters

One of the key features of these truly wild ri

is their natural flow regime; i.e., the day-to

and year-to-year variation in the amoun

water flowing through the channel. Rese

over the last 10 years has clearly demonstr

that human modification of the natural f

regime of streams and rivers degrades 

ecological integrity and health of streams 

rivers in the United States and around the w

(Poff et al., 1997; Richter et al., 1997; Bunn 

Arthington, 2002; Postel and Richter, 2

Poff et al., 2007). 

From an ecological perspective, some of 

key features of a natural flow regime are 

occurrence of high flood flows and nat

drought flows. These flows act as nat

disturbances that exert strong forces of nat

selection on species, which have adapte

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 8 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 8 
these critical events over time (Lytle and Poff, 

2004). But it’s not just the magnitude of these 

critical flows that is ecologically important; it’s 

also their frequency, duration, timing, seasonal 

predictability, and year-to-year variation (Poff

et al., 1997; Richter et al., 1997; Lytle and 

Poff, 2004), because various combinations of 

these features can dictate the success or failure 

of aquatic and riparian species in riverine 

ecosystems. Thus, for example, a river that has 

frequent high flows that occur unpredictably at 

any time of the year provides a very different 

natural environment than one that typically has 

only one high flow event predictably year-in 

and year-out.

Across the United States there are large 

differences in climate and geology, and thus 

there is a geographic pattern to the kinds of 

natural flow regimes across the nation. This 

is illustrated in Fig. 6.5 from Poff and Ward 

(1990). For example, in the Rocky Mountain 

states and in the northern tier of states, most 

annual precipitation falls in the winter in the 

form of snow, which is stored on the land until 

the spring, when it melts and enters the rivers 

as an annual pulse (Fig. 6.5a). In more southerly 

regions where there is frequent rainfall, floods 

can occur unpredictably and flow regimes are 

much more variable over days to weeks (Fig. 

6.5b). In watersheds with highly permeable 

soils, such as those in Michigan, falling rain 

infiltrates into the ground and is delivered 

slowly to the stream as groundwater (Fig. 6.5c). 

The frequency of floods and river low flows 

depends on precipitation patterns and specific 

hydrologic conditions within a given watershed. 

Yet other streams may be seasonally predictable 

but present harsh environments because they 

cease to flow in some seasons (Fig. 6.5d). 

These different flow regime types result in 

very different hydrogeomorphic contexts, 

which in turn support very different ecological 

communities. For example, Montana’s Upper 

Missouri River supports extensive stands of 

native cottonwood trees along the riverbanks. 

These trees become established during annual 

peak flows that jump the banks and create 

favorable establishment conditions during 

the annual snowmelt runoff event. Arkansas’ 

Buffalo River is nestled in the Ozark Mountains 

and supports a tremendous diversity of fish 

and other aquatic life such as native mussels, 

Figure 6.5. Illustration of natural flow regimes from four unregulated streams in the United States: (A) 

the upper Colorado River (CO), (B) Satilla Creek (GA), (C) Augusta Creek (MI), and (D) Sycamore Creek 

(AZ). For each the year of record is given on the x-axis, the day of the water year (October 1–September 

30) on the y-axis, and the 24-hour average daily streamflow on the z-axis (Poff and Ward, 1990).

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 9 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 9 
10

Management context 

The Wekiva River basin is a complex system of streams, springs, lakes, and swamps that are generally in superb 

ecological condition and harbor an impressive list of endangered species, including the West Indian Manatee and 

endemic invertebrates. The springs that feed the river are affected by pumping of groundwater and by proximity to 

the expanding population of Orlando. Agricultural and urban expansion is affecting groundwater and surface water 

systems critical to the ecological balance of the WSR. Other management issues include urban and agricultural po

lution, and invasive exotic species. The National Park Service has overall coordinating responsibility for the Wekiv

WSR, while land, water, and natural resources management in the basin is provided through cooperation among 

state agencies, local governments, and private landowners. Even without climate change considerations, the basin 

is expected to reach maximum sustained yields of water use by 2013. Agencies in the basin are monitoring water 

quantity and quality, ecosystem health, and native and invasive species populations, and are taking an increasingly 

proactive approach to water management. 

Key climate change impacts

• Projected increase in average temperatures (2.2–2.8°C in Central Florida by 2100);

• Projected increase in the frequency of tropical storms and hurricanes;

• Projected sea level rise of 0.18–0.59 m by 2099; 

• Projected decline of water availability due to increased evaporation and transpiration.

Opportunities for adaptation 

• Monitoring programs could support more robust modeling to project management needs in a climate change sc

nario, including how rising sea level might affect saltwater intrusion into the groundwater.

• The possible shift to longer droughts, punctuated by more intense rain events, could be addressed through a

gressive practices to maintain water quality and availability, e.g., by maximizing recharge of the aquifer during ra

events and minimizing withdrawals during droughts through water conservation programs; 

• Additional measures could be pursued to reduce pollution of surface and groundwater reaching the Wekiva Rive

management changes should be informed by more research into how pollutants in reclaimed water are transporte

through the porous karst geology to the aquifer and springs. 

• There is considerable public interest in the importance of water; therefore, management programs have the o

portunity to provide education to the public and other stakeholder groups on conserving water and reducin

pollution, including limiting runoff of nitrate-based fertilizers and encouraging the use of central sewage treatme

facilities instead of septic tanks.

Conclusions

The preservation of ecological conditions in the Wekiva WSR will require integrated management of the complex 

interactions between surface and ground water in the watershed. Expanded water monitoring and advanced mode

ing programs will be keys to maintaining water quantity and quality in the Floridian aquifer, and for regulating runof

to maximize reuse for urban and rural uses while ensuring optimal water reaching the river. 

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 10 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 10 
These natural flow regime types occur across 

the nation and ref lect the interaction of 

precipitation, temperature, soils, geology, and 

land cover. For every region of the country there 

can be a natural flow regime representative 

of the unaltered landscape; i.e., with native 

vegetation and minimally altered by human 

activities such as point- or non-point source 

pollution (Poff et al., 2006). 

6.3.3 Present Human Context 

To the American public, the designation of a 

river as “Wild and Scenic” conjures an image 

of a river protected in pristine condition, largely 

unchanged by human development. However, 

as mentioned above, in reality many of the 

rivers in the WSR system have experienced 

some ecological degradation from a variety of 

human activities. 

Due to their vulnerable position as the lowermost 

features of landscapes, rivers are the recipients 

of myriad pollutants that flush from the land, 

the bearers of sediment loads washed from 

disturbed areas of their watersheds, and the 

accumulators of changes in the hydrologic 

cycle that modify the volume and timing of 

surface runoff and groundwater discharge. As 

Aldo Leopold once said, “It is now generally 

understood that when soil loses fertility, or 

washes away faster than it forms, and when 

water systems exhibit abnormal floods and 

shortages, the land is sick” (Leopold, 1978). 

Because rivers are integrators of changes in 

a watershed, they are also often indicators of 

ecological degradation beyond their banks.

WSR managers have limited authority or 

control over human activities occurring outside 

of federally owned WSR corridors. The 

vulnerability of rivers generally increases in 

relation to the area of contributing watershed 

processes and often support sensitive species.

To prepare a foundation for understanding 

the potential consequences of climate change, 

this report summarizes current influences and 

historic trends in water use and dam operations 

that affect the ecological condition of WSRs.

6.3.3.1 Water Use 

Excessive withdrawals of water from rivers can 

cause great ecological harm. The nature and 

extent of this ecological damage will depend 

upon the manner in which water is being 

withdrawn. The hydrologic and ecological 

effects of surface water withdrawals may 

differ considerably from the impact of the same 

amount of water being withdrawn through 

groundwater extraction. When on-channel 

reservoirs are used to store water for later use, 

the placement and operation of dams can have 

considerably greater ecological impact than 

direct withdrawal of water using surface water 

intakes, as discussed below. 

The depletion of river flows fundamentally 

alters aquatic habitats because it reduces 

the quantity of habitat available (Poff et 

al., 1997; Richter et al., 1997; Bunn and 

Arthington, 2002). Adequate water flows 

can also be important in maintaining proper 

water temperature and chemistry, particularly 

during low-flow periods. The depth of water 

can strongly influence the mobility of aquatic 

animals such as fish, and river levels can also 

influence water table levels in adjacent riparian 

areas, particularly in rivers with high degrees of 

hydraulic connectivity between the rivers and 

alluvial floodplain aquifers.

During the latter half of the 20th century, water 

withdrawals in the United States more than 

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 11 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 11 
12

oves so ucwateto vesos aetactoCooao aew eco tat te vebes y o

about 80 miles south of El Paso, Texas, resulting in two distinct hydrologic systems: the northern segment of th

WSR is strongly influenced by spring snowmelt, while the segment forming the border between Texas and Mexic

receives most of its water from summer rains in Mexico.

Management context 

Management responsibilities for the Rio Grande WSR corridor rest with the Bureau of Land Management, the For

est Service, the National Park Service, and state and local agencies, while water in the river basin is largely controlled through complex water rights agreements and international treaties. Ecological management goals in the up

per and lower WSR address similar priorities: preserving the natural flow regime, maintaining and improving water 

quality, conserving plant and animal species, and addressing invasive species. Impoundments and water extractions 

have reduced stream flow by over 50%, and invasive species have significantly altered ecosystems, particularly in th

lower segment of the WSR. Water rights were established before the river was designated as a WSR, so they have 

priority over management goals of the WSR. Extraction of groundwater exceeds recharge in parts of the basin, an

existing international agreements to provide the river with water have not been met in recent drought years, leaving the river as a series of pools in segments of the WSR along the border with Mexico. 

Key climate change impacts

• Projected increase in average temperatures;

• Projected reductions in snowpack and earlier spring melts;

• Projected 5% decrease in annual precipitation by 2010, leading to recurring droughts;

• Projected increases in population and development, leading to greater water demands;

• Projected decline in water availability due to increased evaporation and runoff; 

• Projected increase in invasive species due to warming of water and irregularity of the flow regime.

Opportunities for adaptation 

• Scenario-based forecasting could be used by water managers to better anticipate trends and address their ram

fications.

• Management of water releases, diversions, and extractions could be adapted to store water from early snowme

and summer rains, and release water to the river to mimic the natural flow regime. 

• Economic incentives can bring flexibility to water rights, including purchasing or leasing of water rights for the rive

and incentives that promote water efficiency and reduce pollution.

• Improving efficiency of agricultural and urban water use through conservation and reuse of water could reduc

demand and improve water quality.

Conclusions

Meeting the management goals for the Rio Grande WSR is challenging even today, and will be more so as historic 

problems of water availability and international water rights are complicated by climate change. Even so, the WSR 

may be maintained through improved water use forecasting, water conservation, and reduced water demand, com

bined with economic incentives to ensure that enough water is provided to the WSR on a schedule that mimics th

natural flow regime. 

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 12 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 12 
doubled (Fig 6.6).5 Virtually all of this increase 

occurred during 1950–1980, and withdrawals 

leveled off in 1980–2000 even while the U.S. 

population grew by 24%. This flattening of 

water withdrawals resulted primarily from 

lessened demand for thermoelectric power 

and irrigation. Thermoelectric-power water 

withdrawals primarily were affected by federal 

legislation that required stricter water quality 

standards for return flow, and by limited water 

supplies in some areas of the United States.5

Consequently, since the 1970s, power plants 

increasingly were built with or converted to 

closed-loop cooling systems or air-cooled 

systems, instead of using once-through cooling 

systems. Declines in irrigation withdrawals are 

due to changes in climate, shifts in crop types, 

advances in irrigation efficiency, and higher 

energy costs that have made it more expensive 

to pump water from ground- and surfacewater sources. 

An important exception to the recent nationwide 

declines in total water withdrawals has been a 

continuous increase in public water supply 

5 Hutson, S.S., N.L. Barber, J.F. Kenny, K.S. Linsey, 

D.S. Lumia, and M.A. Maupin, 2004: Estimated use 

of water in the United States in 2000. U. S. Geological Survey Circular 1268. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/

circ/2004/circ1268/. 

withdrawals (withdrawals for urban use) during 

the past 50+ years; withdrawals for public water 

supplies more than tripled during 1950–2000 

(Fig 6.6).5 These rises in urban water demand 

have been driven by overall population growth 

as well as the higher rate of urban population 

growth relative to rural population growth. 

Fifty U.S. cities with populations greater than 

100,000 experienced growth rates of at least 

25% during recent decades.6

Water withdrawals for urban and agricultural 

water supplies are having substantial impacts 

on the natural flow regimes of rivers across the 

United States, including WSRs. For example, 

upstream withdrawals for New York City’s water 

supply have depleted average annual flows in the 

Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River 

by 20%, with flows in some months lowered 

by as much as 40% (Fig. 6.7 and Case Study 

Summary 6.3) (Fitzhugh and Richter, 2004). 

Heavy agricultural and municipal withdrawals 

along the Rio Grande in Colorado, New Mexico, 

Texas, and Mexico have increasingly depleted 

river flows during the past century (Collier, 

Webb, and Schmidt, 1996).

6 Gibson, C., 1998: Population of the 100 Largest 

Cities and Other Urban Places in the United States: 

1790–1990. Population Division, U.S. Bureau of the 

Census, Washington, DC.

Figure 6.6. Trends in water withdrawals by water-use category. As the population has grown, water 

has been increasingly withdrawn for public use since 1950 as indicated by total withdrawals (blue line). 

Water withdrawn for power production and water for irrigation represent the largest use, followed by 

water for industrial uses, then public supply.5

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 13 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 13 
14

Management context 

Predominately private ownership of the WSR corridor requires that the National Park Service, along 

with local and state government agencies, work with private interests to develop and implement the 

river management plan. The goals of the plan include maintaining and improving water quality and ecosystems, providing opportunities for recreation, and maintaining scenic and historic values of the river. 

The rights of private landowners are especially emphasized in the management plan. In addition to 

providing water to New York City (the city takes about 50% of the available water) and flood control, 

the reservoirs in the upper tributaries strategically release water downstream to the keep the salt 

front in the tidal zone from reaching upstream infrastructure that would be damaged by the salt water. 

The timing and quantity of these water releases do not match natural flow regimes of the river, and 

occasional low water levels tend to concentrate pollutants and increase water temperature in some 

river segments. Water conservation in the Delaware Basin and New York City has significantly helped 

address drought-related water shortages.

Key climate change impacts

• Observed and projected increase in mean temperature and annual precipitation, changes in amount 

and timing of precipitation;

• Observed and projected increase in severe flood events;

• Projected decrease in snowpack and earlier spring melts;

• Projected periodic droughts; 

• Projected rise in sea level that will push the salt front further upstream.

Opportunities for adaptation 

• Modeling tools can be used to project climate change impacts on the water system, and to determine 

the reservoir levels and water releases that can best establish an optimal water flow regime and offset 

river water warming in the WSR.

• Incentives and ordinances could be used to improve water quality by reducing agricultural pollutants 

reaching the river, reducing storm water runoff, and improving flood and erosion control through 

restoration of wetlands and riparian buffers.

• Support for water-efficient measures could further improve efficiency of water use in New York City 

and throughout the basin, thereby reducing per-capita demand for household water.

• Reservoir management could be adapted to store water from early snowmelt and release water to 

the river, in order to mimic the natural flow regime. 

Conclusions

The Upper Delaware River currently has good water quality and provides natural and scenic resources 

for residents of nearby urban areas. However, recent acute climatic events and projected climate 

change strongly suggest that new management programs must be considered by the Delaware River 

Basin Commission, local communities, and private interests that manage land and water resources in 

the basin and Upper Delaware WSR corridor. Reservoir and landscape management to reduce impacts 

of floods, to manage flow regime and water temperature, and to expand water conservation programs 

will become increasingly important as the population continues to grow and impacts of climate change 

increase.

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 14 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 14 
Inventory of Dams for the United States.7

Approximately one-third of these dams are 

publicly owned, with ownership divided among 

federal, state, local, and public utility entities. 

An estimated 272 of these dams are located 

within 100 miles upstream or downstream of 

WSRs (Fig. 6.8).

7 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2000: National 

inventory of dams. http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/

webpages/nid.cfm, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. CD-ROM.

8 U.S. Geological Survey, 2007: USGS surface water data for the nation. U

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/sw, accessed on 7-26-2007.

Figure 6.7. Changes in monthly average river flows on the Delaw

the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River segment. Lowe

December–July result from upstream depletions for New York City w

Increased flows result from upstream reservoir releases during sum

for the purpose of controlling salinity levels in the lower Delaware. 

on data provided by USGS.8

Figure 6.8. Location of dams and WSRs in the United States. Data from USGS, National Atlas of the 

United States.3 Note: map is missing three Wild and Scenic Rivers updated through 2006. The Missouri River in Nebraska, 

White Clay Creek in Delaware and Pennsylvania, and Wilson Creek in North Carolina will be included in the final version.

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 15 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 15 
16

for irrigation. 

However, damming of the country’s rivers has 

come at great cost to their ecological health and 

ecosystem services valued by society (Ligon, 

Dietrich, and Trush, 1995; World Commission 

on Dams, 2000; Postel and Richter, 2003; 

Poff et al., 2007). The most obvious change in 

river character results from the conversion of 

a flowing river into an impounded reservoir. 

Also obvious is the fact that dams create 

barriers for upstream-downstream movements 

of mobile aquatic species such as fish. A 

dam can artificially divide or isolate species 

populations, and prevent some species from 

completing anadromous or diadromous life 

cycles, such as by blocking access to upriver 

spawning areas (Silk and Ciruna, 2005). 

For example, Pacific salmon migrations 

through WSR segments on the Salmon and 

Snake rivers in Idaho and pallid sturgeon 

migrations on the Missouri River are impeded 

by dams. The consequences of such population 

fragmentation have been documented for many 

fish species, including many local extirpations 

following damming. Hence, dams located 

downstream of WSRs likely have consequences 

for movements of aquatic animals, particularly 

widely ranging fish.

Dams have considerable inf luence on 

downstream river ecosystems as well, in 

some cases extending for hundreds of miles 

below a dam (Collier, Webb, and Schmidt, 

1996; McCully, 1996; Willis and Griggs, 

2003). Dam-induced changes affect water 

temperature (Clarkson and Childs, 2000; Todd

et al., 2005) and chemistry (Ahearn, Sheibley, 

and Dahlgren, 2005); sediment transport 

(Williams and Wolman, 1984; Vörösmarty et 

al., 2003); floodplain vegetation communities 

(Shafroth, Stromberg, and Patten, 2002; 

water flowing downstream, change the tim

frequency, and duration of high and low flo

and alter the natural rates at which rivers 

and fall during runoff events. 

The location of a WSR relative to upstr

dams can have great influence on the ecolog

health of the WSR. As a general rule, ecolog

conditions improve with distance downstr

of dams due to the influence of tributar

which moderate dam-induced changes in w

flow, sediment transport, water temperat

and chemistry. For example, flow alterat

associated with hydropower dams in 

Skagit River are most pronounced immedia

downstream of the dams, but lessen consider

by the time the river reaches its estuar

is quite difficult to assess the dam-indu

biophysical changes that have transpire

WSRs, because long-term measurement

sediment, temperature, water quality, 

biological conditions are rarely availa

However, for many rivers, dam-related chan

to hydrologic regimes can be evaluated 

examining streamflow changes before and a

dams were built (see Fig. 6.7 for example).

6.3.3.3 Land-Use Changes

As humans have transformed natural landsc

into cities and farms, and increasingly util

resources such as timber and metals, 

consequences to river ecosystems h

been quite severe. Beyond the impact

water quantity and timing of river f l

discussed above, landscape conversion has 

substantial influence on water quality (

9 Olsen, S.B., T.V. Padma, and B.D. Richter, Und

Managing freshwater inflows to estuaries: a met

guide. U.S. Agency for International Developm

Washington, DC.

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 16 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 16 
While most of this water is consumed through 

evapotranspiration, the portion of irrigation 

water that returns to streams and rivers is 

commonly tainted with chemicals or laden 

with sediment (National Research Council, 

1993).11 Because much of the land converted 

to agricultural use in recent decades has been 

wetlands and riparian areas, this conversion 

has severely affected the natural abilities of 

landscapes to absorb and filter water flows. 

Major pollutants in freshwater ecosystems 

include excessive sediment, fertilizers, 

herbicides, and pesticides (Silk and Ciruna, 

2005). Agriculture is the source of 60% of all 

pollution in U.S. lakes and rivers; nitrogen is 

the leading pollution problem for lakes and 

the third most important pollution source for 

rivers in the United States (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2000). The U.S. Geological 

Survey National Water Quality Assessment 

(NAWQA) found that most of the rivers sampled 

in agricultural areas contained at least five 

different pesticides,11 including DDT, dieldrin, 

and chlordane. Intensive agriculture often leads 

to the eutrophication of freshwater ecosystems, 

resulting in deoxygenation of water, production 

of toxins, and a general decline in freshwater 

biodiversity. Agriculture is a major source 

of sedimentation problems as well, resulting 

from large-scale mechanical cultivation, 

channelization of streams, riparian clearing, 

and accentuated flood runoff.

After agriculture, the next three top sources 

of river ecosystem degradation include 

10 See also U.S. Geological Survey, 2006: Rates, 

Trends, Causes and Consequences of Urban LandUse Change in the United States. USGS Professional 

Paper 1726. 11 See also U.S. Geological Survey, 2001: Hydrological simulation program—Fortran. http://water.usgs.

gov/software/hspf.html. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Reston, VA.

activities located in cities pose several threats to 

river ecosystems, including effluent discharge 

and risk of chemical spills, in addition to water 

withdrawals. The NAWQA program reports the 

highest levels of phosphorus in urban rivers. 

Other highly problematic forms of pollution in 

urban areas include heavy metals, hormones 

and pharmaceutical chemicals, and synthetic 

organic chemicals from household uses.11

Excellent reviews on the effects of urbanization 

on streams have been published (Paul and 

Meyer, 2001; Walsh et al., 2005), but in brief 

the most obvious impacts are increases in 

Figure 6.9. Photo of scientists standing on the 

bed of an urban stream whose channel has been 

incised more than 5 m due to inadequate storm 

water control. Incision occurred on the time scale 

of a decade, but the bank sediments exposed near 

the bed are marine deposits laid down during 

the Miocene epoch. Photograph courtesy of 

Margaret Palmer.

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 17 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 17 
18

an attempt by the U.S. Congress to proactively 

rebalance the nation’s river management toward 

greater protection of its river assets. Every river 

or river segment included within the WSR 

System must be managed according to goals 

associated with preserving and protecting 

the values for which the river was designated 

for inclusion in the system (see Box 6.1). The 

degree of protection and enhancement afforded 

each river or river segment is a prerogative of 

the agency responsible for a particular river’s 

management, but the values that made the 

river suitable for inclusion in the WSR System 

must be protected. (Throughout the rest of this 

chapter, the term “river,” in the context of a 

WSR, refers to the segment of river designated 

under the Act.)

When a river is admitted into the WSR System, 

it is designated under one of three categories: 

“wild,” “scenic,” or “recreational.” These 

categories are defined largely by the intensity 

in the past, may have some development a

their banks, and may be accessible by roa

railroad. Despite the label, WSRs design

as “recreational” are not “river parks”—

is, they are not necessarily used or mana

primarily for recreational pursuits. Even w

recreational uses exist, management of 

WSR emphasizes the protection of natural 

cultural values. As with the “wild” and “sce

categories, it is the degree of developm

within the river corridor that determines 

designation as “recreational.” So the existe

of a road alongside a designated river, 

instance, likely places that river segment in 

“recreational” category, but the “outstandi

remarkable value” that qualifies the r

for inclusion in the WSR System migh

critical fish habitat and has nothing to do 

recreational benefits.12

Regardless of how a WSR is classified—w

scenic, or recreational—administering agen

must seek to protect existing river-related va

and, to the greatest extent possible, enha

those values. Once placed under one of the t

classifications, the river must be manage

maintain the standards of that classificatio

river classified as wild, for instance, canno

permitted to drop to the less-strict criteri

scenic. A non-degradation principle there

guides river management. So, for exam

while many WSRs had dams in place prio

the river segment being designated as wild 

scenic (Fig. 6.8), the Wild and Scenic Ri

Act charges the administering agency w

reviewing any new federally assisted w

12 Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordina

Council, 2002: Wild & Scenic River Manage

Responsibilities. National Wild and Scenic R

System.

BOX 6.3. Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act of 1968.

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United 

States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, 

with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish 

and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, 

shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and 

that they and their immediate environments shall be 

protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present 

and future generations. The Congress declares that 

the established national policy of dam and other construction at appropriate sections of the rivers of the 

United States needs to be complemented by a policy 

that would preserve other selected rivers or sections 

thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the 

water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital 

conservation purposes.

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 18 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 18 
Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) (Fig. 6.10). WSRs administered by 

the NPS and the USFWS are managed as part 

of the National Park System or the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, respectively. If a 

conflict arises between laws and regulations 

governing national parks or refuges and the 

WSR Act, the stricter of them—that is, the laws 

and regulations affording the greatest protection 

to the river—applies. 

In addition to ensuring that the management 

of lands within the river corridor sufficiently 

protects WSR values, the administering agency 

must work to ensure that activities on lands 

adjacent to the river corridor do not degrade 

WSR values. Other (non-administering) 

Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered 

Species Act, and the National Historic 

Preservation Act—come into play in the 

management of WSRs. The four primary 

administering agencies therefore work 

collaboratively with agencies that administer 

these “cross-cutting acts,” such as the Army 

Corps of Engineers and the Environmental 

Protection Agency. The Act also encourages 

river-administering federal agencies to enter 

into cooperative agreements with state and 

local political entities where necessary or 

beneficial to protect river values. For example, 

state and local authorities implement zoning 

restrictions and pollution control measures that 

may be critical to protecting the river’s water 

quality or specific outstandingly remarkable 

values. Finally, where private landholdings 

The Council consists of representatives of 

the four wild and scenic rivers administering 

agencies and addresses a broad range of 

issues, including management concerns 

on rivers presently in the national system, 

potential additions listed on the Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory, state designations, and the 

provision of technical assistance to other 

governments and non-profi t organizations. 

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

has 165 rivers in it, amounting to 11,362 river 

miles—just over one-quarter of one percent 

of all rivers in the United States. For WSRs 

located on federal lands, management is the 

responsibility of the relevant federal agency—

the Forest Service, the National Park Service, 

the Bureau of Land Management, or the Fish 

and Wildlife Service—in conjunction with state 

and local authorities.

Level of Organization Jurisdiction

Interagency Wild & 

Scenic Rivers Council

Bureau of Land 

Management 

National Park 

Service

U.S. Forest 

Service

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers

Figure 6.10. Organization of the WSR system. Adapted from National Wild and Scenic Rivers System website.4

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 19 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 19 
20

would amend its Resource Management Plans) 

in order to ensure that the designated river 

corridor’s values are protected or enhanced. 

For rivers designated at the request of a state, a 

CRMP is not required, but the state’s application 

for a river’s inclusion in the WSR System must 

include a strategy to ensure that the river will 

be managed so as to meet the goals (see Box 6.1) 

associated with the purposes of the Act. In 

developing CRMPs, federal agencies will 

typically consult with state and local agencies 

and solicit intensive public involvement. Over 

the years, various parties have challenged the 

allowance of certain activities (i.e., timber 

harvesting, livestock grazing, road-building) 

when a CRMP has not been prepared and the 

effects of the potentially harmful activities in 

question cannot be adequately assessed. CRMPs 

are an important vehicle for establishing the 

flow and quality objectives that will sustain 

the values for which the river was designated. 

They are also vehicles for setting forth adaptive 

strategies to mitigate the effects of future 

human stressors on WSRs, including potential 

climate change impacts.

The Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Coordinating Council, a government body 

established to coordinate management of 

WSRs among the responsible agencies, has 

identified six steps to identify the water 

quantity and quality that are needed to ensure 

river values are protected: (1) clearly define 

the water-related values to be protected, 

(2) document baseline conditions against which 

to assess future changes or threats, (3) identify 

potential threats and protection opportunities, 

(4) identify an array of protection options in the 

management plan, (5) vet the plan through legal 

counsel, and (6) decide upon and implement 

below), and background data on water qu

are often essential for pursuing actio

stop some proposed activity that threate

river’s ecological services and outstandin

remarkable values. In a case decided in 1

for instance, the Oregon Natural De

Association claimed that the BLM’s r

management plan was failing to protect 

riparian vegetation and aquatic habitat of 

Donner and Blitzen WSR, which studies 

shown were adversely affected by lives

grazing. The court ultimately determined 

grazing could continue, but only in a man

that fulfilled BLM’s obligation to “protect 

enhance” the values that qualified the river 

WSR. Without adequate baseline informat

it is difficult, if not impossible to impleme

“protect and enhance” policy. 

Since passage of the Act, scientific understan

of the ecological importance of the nat

variability of a river’s historic flow regime 

expanded markedly (Poff et al., 1997; Po

and Richter, 2003; Richter et al., 2003)

particular, a prior emphasis on the maintena

of “minimum flows”—ensuring that some w

flows in the channel—has been succeede

the more sophisticated and scientifically b

“natural flow paradigm,” which calls on r

managers to mimic, to some degree, the vari

natural flows that created the habitats 

ecological conditions that sustain the riv

biodiversity and valuable goods and serv

Especially in the face of climate change 

the resulting likelihood of altered river f

patterns, an understanding of the importa

of a river’s historical natural flow pattern to 

maintenance of its ecological services wi

13 Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coord

ing Council, 2003: Water Quantity and Quali

Related to the Management of Wild & Scenic Ri

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 20 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 20 
adapt the management of WSRs to climate 

change impacts and related human stressors.

Water Rights Claims and Purchases

By virtue of two U.S. Supreme Court rulings, 

one in 1908 (Winters v. United States) and 

another in 1963 (Arizona v. California), national 

parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and other 

federal land reservations, as well as Indian 

reservations, may claim federal “reserved” 

water rights to the extent those rights are 

necessary to carry out the purposes for which 

the reservation was established. The WSR Act 

makes clear that such reserved rights also apply 

to designated WSRs.12 The quantity of the right 

cannot exceed that necessary to protect the 

specific river values that qualified the river for 

inclusion in the WSR System. To date, there 

are approximately 15 WSRs with water rights 

adjudications completed or in progress. 

Because most WSR designations are less 

than 30 years old, WSRs typically have very 

junior rights in the western system of “firstin-time, first-in-right” water allocations. In 

over-allocated western rivers, another way of 

ensuring flows for a WSR segment is often 

to purchase water rights from private entities 

willing to sell them. In any effort to secure 

more flow for a WSR, the CRMP developed 

for the river must demonstrate how the river’s 

outstandingly remarkable values depend on 

a particular volume or pattern of flow, and 

include a strategy for protecting flow-dependent 

river values.

Environmental Flow Protections

An environmental flow study can assist river 

managers in establishing scientifically based 

limits on flow alterations that are needed to 

protect a WSR’s habitat, biodiversity, fishery, 

and other values (Richter et al., 1997; Postel and 

authorities and a water utility committing 

themselves to the protection of flows needed to 

safeguard fisheries and other flow-dependent 

outstandingly remarkable values.14

Figure 6.11. Farmington WSR. Photo courtesy of 

the Farmington River Watershed Association.

Land Protection Agreements with Landowners 

Adjacent to WSR Corridors

Protection of the land included in the designated 

river corridor is critical to the protection of 

the habitat, scenic, scientific, and other values 

of a WSR. The boundary of a WSR includes 

up to 320 acres per river mile (twice this for 

Alaskan rivers), measured from the ordinary 

high water mark.14 Under the WSR Act, the 

federal government may acquire non-federal 

lands, if necessary, to achieve adequate river 

protection, but only if less than 50% of the 

entire acreage within the WSR boundary is in 

public ownership. However, other options for 

land protection, besides acquisition, exist.14 For 

14 Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating 

Council, 1996: Protecting Resource Values on NonFederal Lands. National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System.

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 21 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 21 
22

regulations can also be part of a land-protection 

strategy.14

Limitations on Impacts of Federally Assisted 

Water Projects on WSRs

The WSR Act is clear that no dams, diversions, 

hyd ropower facilities, or other major 

infrastructure may be constructed within a 

designated WSR corridor. In addition, the Act 

states that no government agency may assist 

(through loans, grants, or licenses) in the 

construction of a water project that would have a 

“direct and adverse effect” on the river’s values. 

A grayer area exists, however, when projects 

upstream or downstream of a designated WSR 

would “invade” or “unreasonably diminish” 

the designated river’s outstandingly remarkable 

values. Legal decisions in a number of WSR 

cases suggest that proposed water projects 

above or below a designated stream segment, 

or on a tributary to a WSR, should be evaluated 

for their potential to “unreasonably diminish” 

the scenic, recreational, fish, or wildlife values 

of the designated river. For example, when 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed 

to complete the Elk Creek Dam, located 

57 miles upstream of the Rogue WSR, the 

two administering agencies— BLM and the 

USFS—issued a determination that the dam 

would result in “unreasonable diminishment 

to the anadromous fisheries resource [within 

the designated area] because of impediments 

to migration and some loss of spawning and 

rearing habitat.” While it was left to Congress 

to decide whether the dam should be built, the 

Rogue WSR’s administering agencies weighed 

in to protect the river’s values.12

Cooperative Arrangements with Other Agencies 

to Mitigate Impacts on WSRs

The WSR administering agencies can work 

proactively with other federal or state agencies 

received WSR designation in 1999) led 

“nutrient trading” program designed to red

pollution loads and eutrophication probl

within the river systems.13

Establishment of Effective Baseline Informati

Although there is sufficient authority for 

administering agencies to acquire land inter

and water rights, information is often lackin

answer the important detailed questions a

where to acquire these interests and w

rights, when to do so, for how much, and 

what purposes. Baseline data that are neede

adequately implement authorities under the 

are often skimpy or lacking altogether. It is 

difficult for a river manager to propose a cha

when it cannot be demonstrated what 

change will do to the river’s protection. Wit

baseline data as a reference point, it will als

impossible to detect climate-induced chan

in flow regimes. Thus, it is critical to begi

develop baseline data. 

Technical Assistance

The spirit of the WSR Act is one of coopera

and collaboration among all the enti

involved—whether public or private, 

including local, state, regional, and nati

political divisions. The provision of techn

assistance to communities within or ne

designated or potential WSR can be a powe

tool for implementing the Act. In some ca

for example, communities may see the valu

zoning restrictions only when given assista

with GIS mapping that shows the potentia

harmful flooding in the future.

6.4 ADAPTING TO CLIMAT

CHANGE 

Climate change arises from human activity 

unlike climate variation resulting from nat

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 22 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 22 
climate change impacts. Because impacts due 

to human activities (e.g., land use change, water 

extraction) will persist or grow in the future, 

this discussion focuses on climate change 

impacts and the interactive effects of climate 

change with other stressors on ecosystems 

and their services. This section finishes by 

presenting adaptation options for WSRs. 

6.4.1 Climate Change Impacts 

Output from climate change models indicate 

that global temperature will increase, with the 

direction and magnitude varying regionally. 

Projections of changes in precipitation are 

less certain but include change in the amount 

or timing of rainfall as well as the 

frequency and magnitude of extreme 

rainfall events. The latest IPCC 

(2007b) assessment report states: [We 

are] “virtually certain to experience 

warmer and fewer cold days over most 

land areas as well as warmer and more 

frequent hot days; we are very likely

to experience heat waves and heavy 

rainfall events more frequently; and we 

are likely to experience more drought 

in some regions.” Thus, much of the 

world can expect warmer conditions 

and many watersheds will experience 

more severe weather events.

mass for flow (Stewart, Cayan, and Dettinger, 

2005) (Fig. 6.12). Because streams and rivers 

are generally well mixed and turbulent, they 

respond to changes in atmospheric conditions 

fairly easily and thus they would become 

warmer under projected climate change (Eaton 

and Scheller, 1996). Rivers that are fed by 

groundwater, such as Michigan’s Au Sable and 

Florida’s Wekiva, should be somewhat buffered 

from atmospheric heating (Allan, 2004). Those 

that do warm could experience reductions 

in water quality due to increased growth of 

nuisance algae and to lower oxygen levels 

(Murdoch, Baron, and Miller, 2000). 

(www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/research/regional/projected_US_climate_change.htm)

Figure 6.12. Projected temperature changes for 2091-2100.15

15 University of Arizona, Environmental Studies Laboratory, 2007: Climate change pr

for the United States. University of Arizona, http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/, 

on 5-17-2007.

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 23 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 23 
24

6.4.1.2 Precipitation 

Little to no change in precipitation is projected in 

southern Utah, southern Colorado, northeastern 

New Mexico, eastern Texas, and Louisiana, 

where only a few WSRs are designated (the 

Saline Bayou, Louisiana; Upper Rio Grande 

and Pecos, New Mexico) (Fig. 6.13). Up to a 

10% increase in rainfall may occur around the 

Great Lakes region, where there are a number 

of designated rivers including the Indian, 

Sturgeon, Presque Isle, and St. Croix. As much 

as a 10% decrease in precipitation may occur in 

southern Arizona and southeastern California, 

where the Verde, Kern, Tuolumne, and Merced 

rivers are designated as Wild and Scenic. 

In regions that receive most of their precipitation 

as snow, the increased temperatures may result 

in a shift from winter snow to rain or rain plus 

snow. A recent analysis of long-term USGS 

discharge gauge records showed that most 

rivers north of 44° North latitude—roughly 

from southern Minnesota and Michigan 

through northern New York and southern 

Maine—have had progressively earlier winterspring streamflows over the last 50–90 years 

(Hodgkins and Dudley, 2006). Rivers in 

mountainous regions also may experience 

earlier snowmelt, and in some regions, less 

snowpack (Stewart, Cayan, and Dettinger, 

2005; McCabe and Clark, 2005). Many parts 

of Oregon and southern Washington, which are 

total volume of river runoff and 

timing of peak flows and low fl

are expected to shift significant

some regions. In humic, veget

regions of the world, the majorit

runoff follows subsurface pathw

and the majority of precipita

retur ns to the atmosphere 

evapotranspiration (Allan, Palmer, and P

2005). Since climate change will affect 

distribution of vegetation (Bachelet et al., 20

the dominant flow paths to some rivers 

shift, resulting in higher or flashier disch

regimes (Alcamo, Flörke, and Märker, 200

Milly, Dunne, and Vecchia (2005) evalu

relative (i.e., percent) change in runoff fro

1900–1970 baseline (2006 IPCC 20C3M m

runs) to a 2041–2060 period (2006 IPCC A

model runs). They averaged the relative cha

across 24 pairs of model runs, obtained f

12 different models, some of which perfor

replicate runs. Fig. 4 in Milly, Dunne, 

Vecchia (2005) shows projected change

runoff in two ways: (1) as the mean, acros

pairs of runs, of the relative changes in run

and (2) as the difference between the num

of pairs of runs showing increases in ru

minus the number showing decreases in run

Fig. 6.14 shows similar results from the s

analysis, but with (1) central estimates of cha

based on the more stable median instead o

mean, (2) equal weighting of the 12 mo

instead of the 24 pairs of model runs, and 

relative changes of areal-averages of runoff 

United States water regions instead of rela

changes of point values of runoff. 

The median projections are for increa

runoff over the United States Midwest 

Middle-Atlantic, through slightly decrea

Figure 6.13. Projected annual precipitation changes for 2091-2100.15

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 24 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 24 
runoff in the Missouri River Basin and the 

Texas Gulf drainage, to substantial change 

(median decreases in annual runoff approaching 

20%) in the Southwest (Colorado River Basin, 

California, and Great Basin). Median estimates 

of runoff changes in the Pacific Northwest are 

small. Large (greater than 20%) increases in 

runoff are projected for Alaska.

Fig. 6.14 also contains information on the 

degree of agreement among models. Uncolored 

regions in the Southeast, New England, and 

around the Great Lakes indicate that fewer 

than two thirds of the models agreed on the 

direction of change in those regions. Elsewhere, 

the presence of color indicates that at least two 

thirds of the models agreed on the direction of 

change. Diagonal stippling in Alaska and the 

Southwest indicate that more than 90% (i.e., 11 

or 12) of the 12 models agree on the direction 

of change. 

It is important to note that and some of the 

regions in Fig. 6.14 are small and are not well 

resolved by the climate models, so important 

spatial characteristics—such as mountain 

ranges in the western United States—are 

only very approximately represented in these 

results. However, these regions are generally 

larger than many of the river basins for which 

Milly, Dunne, and Vecchia (2005) demonstrated 

substantial model skill in reproducing historical 

observations.

In regions in which snowmelt occurs earlier 

due to warmer temperatures, stream flows 

will increase early in the season and flooding 

may be pronounced (see Fig. 6.15 for a picture 

of river flooding) if high flows coincide with 

heavy rainfall events (“rain on snow events”). 

As evidenced by increases in discharge, a shift 

in the timing of springtime snowmelt toward 

Figure 6.15. Photo of snowmelt in WSR during winter-spring 

flows. Photo courtesy of National Park Service, Lake Clark 

National Park & Preserve.

Figure 6.14. Median, over 12 climate models, of the percent changes in runoff from United States water 

resources regions for 2041–2060 relative to 1901–1970. More than 66% of models agree on the sign of 

change for areas shown in color; diagonal hatching indicates greater than 90% agreement. Recomputed 

from data of Milly, Dunne, and Vecchia (2005) by Dr. P.C.D. Milly, USGS.

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 25 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 25 
26

Figure 6.16. Earlier onset of spring snowmelt pulse in river runoff from 

1948–2000. Shading indicates magnitude of the trend expressed as the 

change (days) in timing over the period. Larger symbols indicate statistically significant trends at the 90% confidence level. From Stewart, Cayan, 

and Dettinger (2005).

will experience more mobilization of bed 

sediments (Pizzuto et al., 2008), which may 

result in changes in the river’s width and 

depth (Bledsoe and Watson, 2001). Regions 

that lose vegetation under future climate may 

have increased runoff and erosion when it 

does rain (Poff, Brinson, and Day, Jr., 2002). 

The drier conditions for extended periods of 

time may result in some perennial streams 

becoming intermittent and many intermittent 

or ephemeral streams potentially disappearing 

entirely, thus simplifying the network. 

6.4.2 Future Human Context: 

Interactive Effects of Multiple 

Stressors 

The effects of multiple environmental stressors 

on ecosystems are still poorly understood, 

feed WSRs (Allan, 2004; Nelson and Pal

2007). 

WSRs in watersheds with a significant am

of urban development are expected to not 

experience the greatest changes in tempera

under future climates, but also to experie

temperature spikes during and immedia

following rain storms (Nelson and Palm

2007) (Fig 6.17). Such changes may resu

the extirpation of cool water species.16

The number of extreme flow events would 

increase more in WSRs in urbanized ba

compared with those that are mostly wild. L

amounts of impervious cover are well kn

to cause an increase in flashiness in stream

both higher peak flows during the rainy sea

and lower base flows in the summer (Wals

al., 2005). Thus, flooding may be a very ser

problem in regions of the United States 

are expected to have more rainfall and m

urbanization in the future (e.g., the North

and portions of the mid-Atlantic) (Nowak 

Walton, 2005) (see Fig. 6.13). Areas of 

United States that will experience the grea

increase in population size are the South 

West, with increases of more than 40% betw

the year 2000 and 2030.17 More specific

significant growth is occurring in the follow

regions that have rivers designated as wild 

scenic: most of Florida; central and south

16 Nelson, K., M.A. Palmer, J.E. Pizzuto, G.E. Mo

P.L. Angermeier, R. Hilderbrand, M. Dettinger

K. Hayhoe, submitted: Forecasting the combine

fects of urbanization and climate change on st

ecosystems: from impacts to management opt

Journal of Applied Ecology. 17 U.S. Census Bureau, 2004: State interim po

tion projections by age and sex: 2004–2030. 

Census Bureau Projection Website, www.cen

gov/population/www/projections/projectionsag

html, accessed on 4-1-2007.

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 26 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 26 
gy

tems and Current Management

Climate change is happening faster in the Arctic than 

at lower latitudes and is the predominant stressor of 

WSR ecosystems in Alaska today. The annual average 

Arctic temperature has risen almost twice as fast as in temperate and equatorial zones, precipitation has 

increased, glaciers are melting, winter snows and river ice are melting earlier, and permafrost is vanishing (Hassol, 2004). Research in Siberia has shown large lakes permanently lost and attributes the loss to 

thawing of permafrost, which allows the lakes and wetlands to drain (Smith et al., 2005). Major impacts of 

climate change on the rivers include earlier ice breakup in spring, earlier floods with higher flows, more 

erosion, and greater sediment loads. These trends are projected to accelerate as warming continues. 

Major shifts in ecological assemblages may occur. For example, where permafrost thaws, new wetlands 

will form—although these may be temporary and in turn may be displaced by forest. In currently forested 

areas, insect outbreaks and fires are very likely to increase and may facilitate invasions of non-native species (Hassol, 2004). Invasive plants have also begun to colonize gravel bars near roads, railway and put-ins

although this is not attributed to climate change, climatic changes may favor these species to displace som

native species. 

Shifts in flow regime (from earlier snowmelt), increased sedimentation, and warmer water, combined wit

climate change impacts on marine and estuarine systems, may negatively affect anadromous fish populatio

with far-reaching ecological and human impacts. Higher water temperatures in rivers are thought to be 

associated with outbreaks of fish diseases such as Ichthyophonus, a fungal parasite suspected of killing som

salmon before they spawn and degrading the quality of dried salmon. Salmonid runs are an important com

ponent of many WSRs, providing a critical food source for other wildlife and for Alaska Natives. Increase

erosion along riverbanks results in loss of archeological sites and cultural resources, since there is a long 

history of seasonal human settlement on many Alaskan rivers.

Potential for Altering or Supplementing Current Management Practices to Enable Adaptation to Climate Change

Managing these large rivers in extremely remote regions of Alaska can not be compared to managing WS

in the lower 48 states, where river managers are dealing with urban centers, intensive rural land use, dam

diversions, and water extraction infrastructure—all of which can potentially be manipulated. Most of the 

WSRs in Alaska are truly wild rivers. 

Even in these remote regions, there are opportunities to manage WSRs affected by climate change. For 

example, invasive species might be minimized by educating people to avoid introducing problematic specie

Archeological and cultural resources of Alaska Natives and their ancestors are abundant along the rivers 

that have been the transportation corridors for millennia. In consultation with Alaska Natives, these sites 

should be inventoried, studied, and, where possible, saved from negative impacts of permafrost thaw and 

erosion resulting from climate change.

Finally, the wild rivers of Alaska are a laboratory for researching climate change impacts on riverine ecosy

tems and species, and for informing managers farther south years before they face similar changes.

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 27 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 27 
28

California; western Arizona; around Portland, 

Oregon; much of the mid-Atlantic; and parts of 

Wisconsin, northern Illinois, and Michigan.18

Excessive water extractions are already 

affecting some WSRs (e.g., the Rio Grande) 

and this impact will be exacerbated in regions of 

the country expected to experience even more 

water stress under future climates. Alcamo, 

Flörke, and Märker (2007) used a global water 

model to analyze the combined impacts of 

climate change and future water stress due 

to socioeconomic driving forces (income, 

18 Auch, R., J. Taylor, and W. Acevedo, 2004: Urban 

Growth in American Cities. U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1252, US Geological Survey, EROS Data 

Center, Reston, VA.

electricity production, water-use efficie

etc.) that influence water extractions. T

models indicate that for the 2050s, areas u

severe water stress will include not only par

Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East

also the western United States. (Fig. 6.18) 

Water managers will need to adjust opera

plans for storing, diverting, and releasing w

as the timing and intensity of runoff cha

due to climate change (Bergkamp, Orla

and Burton, 2003). If these water managem

adjustments do not keep pace with clim

change, water managers will face increasi

severe water and energy shortages du

lessened efficiency in capturing and sto

Figure 6.17. Very rapid increases (1–4 hours) in water temperature (temperature “spikes”) in u

streams north of Washington D.C. have been found to follow local rain storms. Top graph: dark line sh

stream discharge that spikes just after a rainfall in watersheds with large amounts of impervious co

gray line shows temperature surges that increase 2–7oC above pre-rain levels and above streams in 

developed watersheds in the region. There is no temperature buffering effect that is typical in wildl

where rain soaks into soil, moves into groundwater, and laterally into streams. Bottom graph: shows 

the number of temperature surges into a stream increases with the amount of impervious cover. F

Nelson and Palmer (2007).

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 28 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 28 
water to supply cities and farms, or to generate 

electricity.

Dam building in the United States has slowed 

considerably relative to the past century, 

so river impacts related to the interactive 

effects of dams and climate change will result 

primarily from changes in management of the 

dams, particularly as water withdrawals for 

irrigation or urban water supplies increase in 

response to a changing climate. For basins 

expected to experience high water stress in the 

future (e.g., in the southwestern United States), 

drawdown of reservoirs is expected, with less 

water available to sustain environmental flows 

in the downstream rivers. In regions expected 

to experience increased precipitation, such 

as the Great Lakes, flooding problems may 

increase—particularly if climate change brings 

greater intensity of rainfall. Shifts in the timing 

of snowmelt runoff or ice break-up will force 

dam managers to adjust their operating plans to 

avoid catastrophic high releases of water into 

downstream areas. In general, WSRs in basins 

that are affected by dams or are highly developed 

will require more changes in management than 

free-flowing rivers in basins that are mostly 

wild (Palmer et al., 2008). Ideally this will 

be done proactively to minimize the need to 

repair and restore damaged infrastructure and 

ecosystems.

6.4.3 Ecosystem Goods and 

Services Assuming Present 

Management 

This chapter has outlined expectations given 

future climate projections that include warmer 

water temperatures for most rivers and changes 

in flow regimes, with extreme events (floods 

and droughts) increasing in frequency for many 

rivers. While the impacts will vary among the 

WSRs depending on their location, their ability 

to absorb change—which is largely related 

to the “wildness” of their watershed—also 

depends on the management response. If 

proactive measures to buffer ecosystems (such 

as those discussed in the next section) are 

taken, then the consequences may be reduced. 

The need for these proactive measures should 

be least for WSRs that are classified as “wild,” 

followed by those that are designated “scenic.” 

Presumably wild rivers are the least affected 

by human activities that may exacerbate the 

impacts of climate change (Palmer et al., 2008). 

However, as noted earlier, because many WSRs 

are in reality river segments within watersheds 

Figure 6.18. Water stress projected for the 2050s based on withdrawals-to-availability ratio, where 

availability corresponds to annual river discharge (combined surface runoff and groundwater recharge). 

From Alcamo, Flörke, and Märker (2007).

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 29 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 29 
30

of some WSRs is focused primarily on water 

sports, it may be that other users still have a 

strong preference for the other attributes listed 

above. Clean and beautiful waterways are only 

possible if materials entering that water—e.g., 

nutrients, excess organic matter, etc.—do not 

interfere with natural biophysical processes or 

the health of flora and fauna.

For a given level of “wilderness,” the impacts 

of climate change on WSRs will depend 

on how much the changes in thermal and 

flow regimes deviate from historical and 

recent regimes (Fig. 6.5). Changes outside 

the natural range of f low or temperature 

variability may have drastic consequences for 

ecosystem structure and function (Richter et 

al., 1997; Poff, Brinson, and Day, Jr., 2002). 

The impacts will also depend on the rate of 

change in temperature or discharge relative 

to the adaptive capacity of species (amount 

of genetic diversity). Finally, the impacts will 

depend on the number and severity of other 

stressors. Thus, the warmer temperatures and 

drier conditions expected in southwestern 

rivers may lead to severe degradation of river 

ecosystems, which will be exacerbated if water 

withdrawals for consumptive uses increase 

(Xenopoulos et al., 2005). For example, the 

Verde River north of Phoenix, Arizona is in a 

region of the United States that is experiencing 

increases in population size, and is expected 

to have reduced rainfall as well as higher 

winter and summer temperatures under future 

climates. The Verde is one of the few perennial 

rivers within Arizona, but its headwaters are 

an artificial reservoir (Sullivan Lake) and its 

flows are affected by groundwater pumping 

and diversions despite being largely in national 

forest land. 

6.4.3.1 SpeciesLevel Impacts 

As the water warms, individual growth 

reproductive rates of fish are expecte

increase so long as thermal tolerances of 

life history stage are not exceeded; typic

eggs and young juveniles are the most sens

to temperature extremes (Van der Kr

and Pankhurst, 1997; Beitinger, Benn

and McCauley, 2000). Faster growth r

and time to maturation typically resul

smaller adult size and, because size is clo

related to reproductive output in many aqu

invertebrates (Vannote and Sweeney, 19

population sizes may decline over time. 

spawning time of fish may also shift ea

if river waters begin to warm earlier in 

spring (Hilborn et al., 2003). Further, s

aquatic species require prolonged periods of 

temperatures (Lehmkuhl, 1974); these spe

may move northward, with local extirpati

However, dispersal to more northern ri

may be restricted by habitat loss, and rive

insects with adult flying stages that dep

on vegetated corridors for dispersal may 

survive (Allan and Flecker, 1993). For f

amphibians, and water-dispersed plants, ha

fragmentation due to dams or the isolatio

tributaries due to drought conditions may re

in local extirpations (Dynesius et al., 20

Palmer et al., 2008).

Depending on their severity, climate-indu

decreases in river discharge may red

freshwater biodiversity, particularly if o

stressors are at play. Xenopoulos et al. (20

predict that up to 75% of local fish biodive

could be headed toward extinction by 2070 

to the combined effects of decreasing disch

and increasing water extractions. Eve

streams do not dry up in the summer, those 

experience reductions in baseflow (e.g., in 

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 30 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 30 
of species unless they are capable of moving 

to less-affected regions. Since species life 

histories are closely tied to flow regime, some 

species may not be able to find suitable flow 

environments for feeding, reproducing, or 

surviving major flood events. Further, with 

higher flows come higher suspended sediment 

and bedload transport, which may interfere with 

feeding. If sediment deposition fills interstitial 

spaces, this will reduce hyporheic habitat 

availability for insects and spawning areas for 

lithophilic fish (Pizzuto et al., 2008). Whether 

deposition or net export of these sediments 

occurs depends on the size of the sediment 

moving into channels in concert with peak 

flows (i.e., the stream competency). Particle size 

and hydraulic forces are major determinants 

of stream biodiversity (both the numbers and 

composition of algae, invertebrates, and fish) 

and excessive bottom erosion is well known to 

decrease abundances and lead to dominance by 

a few taxa (Allan, 1995). 

6.4.3.2 Impacts on Ecological Processes 

Many of the ecological processes that ensure 

clean water for drinking and for supporting 

wildlife will be influenced by higher water 

temperatures and altered f lows. Primary 

production in streams is very sensitive to 

temperature and flow levels (Lowe and Pan, 

1996; Hill, 1996); climate change may thus 

result in an increase in food availability to 

herbivorous biota that could support higher 

abundances and also shift species composition. 

If riparian plants also grow at faster rates, inputs 

of leaves and other allochthonous material 

to rivers may increase. While this could be 

expected to provide more food for detritivores, 

this may not be the case if the rate of breakdown 

of those leaves is higher under future climates. 

This may occur with higher water temperatures 

There is a great deal of uncertainty about how 

rates of nutrient processing in streams will 

be influenced by climate change. Dissolved 

inorganic nitrogen (as NO3) levels may decrease 

if rates of denitrification are increased (e.g., by 

higher temperatures and lower oxygen), which 

could be important given increasing levels of 

nitrogen deposition (Baron et al., 2000). On the 

other hand, if discharge and sediment transport 

increase, then the downstream movement of 

nitrogen (as NH4) and phosphorus (as PO4) 

may increase. In short, there is a high degree of 

uncertainty with respect to how climate change 

will affect ecological processes. This means 

that our present ability to predict changes in 

water quality and food availability for aquatic 

biota is limited. To date, few studies have been 

conducted to simultaneously examine the 

many interacting factors that are both subject 

to change in the future and known to influence 

ecological processes.

6.4.4 Options for Protection 

Assuming New Management

Options to protect WSRs and river segments are 

diverse, and most of them require cooperation 

and collaboration with other groups. Depending 

on the specific watershed and the level of human 

use (development, agriculture, forestry, etc.), 

these groups could include local landowners, 

reservoir and dam managers, as well as city, 

county or state agencies. As pointed out several 

times in this chapter, WSRs are distinctive—as 

are some other ecosystems on federally owned 

land—because rivers are affected by all

activities in their watershed whether the land 

is federal or not. Thus the options we discuss 

below extend well beyond federal boundaries 

and assume WSR managers/administering 

agencies will be proactive in seeking cooperative 

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 31 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 31 
32

much more quickly than historical climate shifts 

did (IPCC, 2007a). Further, many WSRs are 

affected by development in their watershed, 

dams, and excessive water extractions. Thus, 

the ability to adjust to changes in the flux of 

water and material, particularly on rapid time 

scales, is impeded in many watersheds. 

In general, WSRs that are in fairly pristine 

watersheds with no development and few 

human impacts will fare the best under future 

climates because their natural capacity to adjust 

is intact. Even in the face of climate change 

impacts, rivers surrounded by uninhabited 

and undeveloped land may experience shifts 

in channels—perhaps even a deepening and 

widening of those channels—but their provision 

of ecosystem services may remain intact. The 

access points for wildlife or river enthusiasts 

may need to be shifted and existing trails 

moved, but largely these rivers are expected 

to remain beautiful and healthy. In contrast, 

rivers in Illinois, which will also experience 

increased discharge, may experience serious 

problems because flooding and erosion may 

be exacerbated by development. That said, 

even some pristine rivers may be negatively 

affected. For example, the Noatak River in 

Alaska is already experiencing very large 

temperature shifts because of its fairly high 

latitude. This could have serious consequences 

for migrating salmon and other highly valued 

species (National Research Council, 2004) 

(Box 6.4). 

The question becomes, what is the appropriate 

management response? Following Palmer et 

al., (2008) we distinguish between proactive 

and reactive responses. The former includes 

management actions such as restoration, land 

purchases, and measures that can be taken now to 

maintain or increase the resilience of WSRs (i.e., 

event that requires channel reconfigurat

(Boxes 6.5 and 6.6). 

6.4.4.1 Reactive Management 

Reactive management basically refers to w

managers will be forced to do once imp

are felt if they have not prepared for th

When it comes to rivers, examples of reac

measures include responding to events s

as floods, droughts, erosion, and species 

as they occur. Extreme flow events in a

expected to have later snowmelt with 

potential for rain-on-snow events may 

to substantial erosion of river banks, not 

placing sensitive riparian ecosystems at 

but potentially causing water quality probl

downstream due to higher suspended sedim

loads.16 At the other extreme, arid regions 

experience more droughts may find populat

of valued species isolated due to dropp

water levels. For these examples, reac

management efforts may be needed to s

future degradation of ecosystems or extirpa

of a species. 

The most expensive and serious reac

measures will be needed for WSRs in ba

that are heavily developed or whose wat

managed for multiple uses. In areas with hi

discharge, reactive measures may include r

restoration projects to stabilize eroding bank

projects to repair in-stream habitat. To red

future occurrences of severe erosion, m

stormwater infrastructure may be nee

Other measures, such as creating wetland

off-channel storage basins, may be a wa

absorb high flow energy and provide ref

for fauna during droughts or floods. Remov

sediment from the bottom of reservoirs c

be a short-term solution to allow for more w

storage, perhaps averting dam breaches 

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 32 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 32 
• Increase physical habitat heterogeneity in channels to support diverse biotic assemblages. 

• Establish special protection for multiple headwater reaches that support keystone processes or sensitiv

species. 

• Conduct river restoration projects to stabilize eroding banks, repair in-stream habitat, or promote fis

passages from areas with high temperatures and less precipitation.

• Restore the natural capacity of rivers to buffer climate-change impacts (e.g., through land acquisitio

around rivers, levee setbacks to free the floodplain of infrastructure, riparian buffer repairs).

• Plant riparian vegetation to provide fish and other organisms with refugia.

• Acquire additional river reaches for the WSR where they contain naturally occurring refugia from climat

change stressors.

• Create side-channels and adjacent wetlands to provide refugia for species during droughts and floods.

• Establish programs to move isolated populations of species of interest that become stranded when wate

levels drop. 

could be disastrous. Water quality problems 

due to high sediment loads or contaminants 

may appear in WSR reaches downstream of 

developed (urbanized or agricultural) regions, 

and these problems are very difficult to cope 

with in a reactive manner.

In regions with higher temperatures and less 

precipitation, reactive projects might include 

fish passage projects to allow stranded fish to 

move between isolated river reaches during 

drought times, replanting of native riparian 

vegetation with drought-resistant vegetation, 

or removal of undesirable non-native species 

that take hold. If dams are present upstream 

of the WSR, flow releases during the summer 

could be used to save f lora and fauna in 

downstream river reaches that are drying up, 

and accentuated floods can be managed to avert 

potentially disastrous ecological consequences 

of extreme floods. 

These are simply examples of reactive 

management that are discussed more fully in 

Palmer et al., (2008) but the most important 

point is that a reactive approach is not the 

most desirable response strategy to climate 

change, because a high degree of ecosystem and 

infrastructure damage is likely to occur before 

reactive measures are taken. The best approach 

for reactive management is to continuously 

evaluate river health over time with rigorous 

monitoring and scientific research, so that 

management begins as soon as problems are 

detected; i.e., before problems are severe. 

Further, this monitoring and research should 

help identify proactive needs, thus minimizing 

costs of repair and loss of ecological services. 

6.4.4.2 Proactive Management 

Many of the management actions that are 

needed to respond to the risks of climate 

change arise directly from changes in the 

frequency and magnitude of extreme events, 

in addition to changes in average conditions 

or baseflow. Anticipating how climate impacts 

will interact with other ongoing stressors is 

critical to developing strategies to protect 

the values of WSRs. Proactive measures 

that restore the natural capacity of rivers to 

buffer climate-change impacts are the most 

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 33 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 33 
34

Improve environmental monitoring 

and develop WSR-scale climate 

forecasts 

To facilitate planning and better understand local effects of climate change.

Build capacity to offer technical 

assistance 

National or regional enhancement of technical capacity can provide assistance 

to WSR managers who may not have the resources to do this on their own. 

Designate more WSRs and/or 

acquire land around existing WSRs

May raise awareness of value of WSRs, potentially leading to additional protection; land acquisition may enhance floodplain extent and buffer river segments from impacts in surrounding watershed, and could provide “replication” 

in space of at-risk habitats and refugia for species. 

Conjunctive Groundwater/

Surface Water Management 

Purchasing more water rights may be needed for WSRs under water stress 

due to droughts or extractions. If dams are present, develop reservoir release 

options with dam managers and/or design structures for temporary storage 

of flood waters before they reach reservoir; remove dams in areas with high 

evaporation, and consider methods to divert water to groundwater storage to 

provide for later use; adjust outlet height on dam to release high quality water 

to downstream rivers.

Restoration Projects 

Needed particularly for rivers in watersheds with some level of development: riparian management to revegetate damaged areas to slow runoff in the 

event of more floods, OR to remove drought-tolerant exotic species in drier 

regions; stormwater management projects and wetland creation to reduce 

runoff and sediment flux to river or to store flood water; channel reconfiguration and/or stream bank stabilization—some configurations may help channel 

withstand peak flow releases, OR in drier regions stream bank may need to be 

re-graded to reconnect floodplain to channel to enhance water storage and 

habitat. 

desirable actions since they may also lead to 

other environmental benefits such as higher 

water quality and restored fish populations. 

Examples of such measures might include 

stormwater management in developed basins 

or, even better, land acquisition around the 

river or setting back existing levees to free the 

floodplain of infrastructure, absorb floods, 

and allow regrowth of riparian vegetation. 

For WSR segments fed by non-design

headwaters that are not protected in some 

from human impacts, efforts should be mad

extend the designation to these small tributa

through land acquisition or partnerships 

landowners. Indeed, since headwaters o

support rare and sensitive species, protec

multiple small headwaters will provide a 

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 34 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 34 
tolerant varieties of plants may help protect 

the riparian corridor from erosion. A focus on 

increasing genetic diversity and population 

size through plantings or via stocking fish 

may increase the adaptive capacity of species. 

Aquatic fauna may benefit from an increase in 

physical habitat heterogeneity in the channel 

(Brown, 2003), and replanting or widening 

any degraded riparian buffers may protect 

river fauna by providing more shade and 

maintaining sources of allochthonous input 

(Palmer et al., 2005). 

Incorporating the potential impacts of climate 

change into water management strategies 

inevitably involves dealing constructively with 

uncertainty. Enough is now known about the 

likelihood of certain impacts of climate change 

on water availability and use that it is possible 

to design proactive management responses to 

reduce future risks and to protect important 

river assets. At the core of these strategies is the 

ability to anticipate change and to adapt river 

management to those changing circumstances. 

Water managers need to know, for example, 

when to take specific actions to ensure the 

maintenance of adequate flows to sustain river 

species. It is important that this adaptive capacity 

be built at the watershed scale, incorporating 

factors such as grazing, farming, forestry, and 

other land-uses; reservoir management; water 

withdrawals; and other features. A new layer of 

cooperation and coordination among land and 

water managers will thus be essential to the 

successful implementation of these adaptive 

strategies for the management of WSRs.

Legal and institutional barriers exist in many 

river systems, and will need to be overcome for 

the adoption of effective management strategies. 

Water rights, interstate water compacts, 

property rights, and zoning patterns may all 

flexibility. 

Along with the management tools described 

above, a number of other categories of actions 

and measures can enhance the WSR System’s 

ability to protect the nation’s rivers under 

changing climatic regimes, as described below. 

Box 6.5 presents a summary list of specific 

actions WSR managers can take to promote 

adaptation.

Improve Water Monitoring Capabilities and 

Apply Climate Forecasting 

It is critical that river flow monitoring be 

supported adequately to detect and adapt to 

flow alterations due to climate change and 

other stressors. However, many stream gauges 

maintained by USGS have been discontinued 

due to resource limitations. Without sufficient 

monitoring capabilities, river managers simply 

cannot do their jobs adequately and researchers 

cannot gather the data needed to elucidate 

trends. For instance, adequate monitoring to 

detect trends in flow is needed to show that 

flooding is increasing as a consequence of more 

rapid melting in spring. River managers may 

use the monitoring data to determine where to 

pursue additional land conservation easements 

or where to encourage local zoning that limits 

development on floodplains. 

Climate forecasts can enable water managers to 

minimize risk and avoid damage to WSR values. 

The development of scenarios that capture the 

spectrum of possible outcomes is an invaluable 

tool for anticipating the ramifications of climaterelated hydrological and land-use changes, 

including reduced snowpacks, greater spring 

flooding, lower summer flows, and warmer 

stream temperatures. The utility of forecasting 

tools, however, depends on the ability to apply 

their results to water management planning. 

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 35 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 35 
36

southwestern rivers.19

Build Capacity to Offer Technical Assistance

The ability to demonstrate to communities the 

importance of certain zoning restrictions, land 

conservation measures, land-use modifications, 

or floodplain restrictions may require userfriendly models or tools that exhibit potential 

climate change impacts within specific 

watersheds. While sophisticated tools may be 

feasible to use in reaches with ample resources 

to support management activities, there is a 

need for affordable tools that enable managers 

to offer technical assistance in areas with fewer 

resources. 

Designate More River Corridors as Wild and 

Scenic and Acquire Land Adjacent to WSRs

Rivers may be designated as Wild and Scenic by 

acts of Congress or by the Secretary of Interior 

upon a state’s request. Designation of additional 

rivers to the WSR program may raise visibility 

and expand protection to river assets at a time 

when they are coming under increased human 

and climatic pressures. Possible candidates for 

designation include rivers in the Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory (NRI). The NRI, which 

is maintained by the National Park Service 

(updated last in the 1980s), includes more than 

3,400 free-flowing river segments that are 

believed to possess at least one outstandingly 

remarkable value of national significance. 

By virtue of a 1979 Presidential directive, all 

federal agencies must seek to avoid or mitigate 

actions that would affect NRI segments. The 

WSR System would also benefit from hastening 

the review of rivers that have already been 

19 New Mexico Office of State Engineer and Interstate 

Stream Commission, 2006: The Impact of Climate 

Change on New Mexico’s Water Supply and Ability 

to Manage Water Resources. New Mexico Office of 

State Engineer/Interstate Stream Commission.

same ecoregions may provide protection (ac

space) for species. At any given time, there 

be rivers within the ecoregion that are no

affected by drought. Land acquisition aro

existing WSRs may also reduce extinction i

land helps buffer the river segment from ne

development pressures or the land allows 

floodplain expansion. 

Consider Conjunctive Groundwater/Surface W

Management 

The protection of river health and natural fl

under a changing climatic regime will req

more concerted efforts to secure environme

flows, namely flows that will support 

ecosystem, for rivers. With more than 

dams located within 100 miles (upstream 

downstream) of a designated WSR, collabora

arrangements with dam managers offer g

potential to secure beneficial flows for W

under various climate change scenarios. 

WSR segments in watersheds with dams, t

may be a need to develop reservoir rel

options with dam managers and/or de

structures for temporary storage of flood wa

before they reach reservoirs. In regions w

extremely high rates of evaporation, mana

may wish to work with requisite author

to consider removing dams below shal

high-surface-area reservoirs. In such ca

alternative strategies for water storage wi

needed. Finally, with large changes in reser

water levels, the outlet height on dams 

need adjusting to ensure high quality wate

downstream WSRs. 

Because the agencies administering W

have little or no authority over dam operati

a proactive collaboration among the agen

involved—at federal, state, and local levels

critical. Additionally, the purchase or lea

of water rights to enhance flow managem

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 36 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 36 
povded Seco6...above, pojecs 

may be required to repair damage associated 

with a changing climate. Since floodplains 

and riparian corridors are critical regions both 

for mitigating floods and for storing water, 

measures should be taken to ensure they are as 

healthy as possible. This could include removal 

of invasive plants that threaten native species, 

re-grading river banks to reconnect floodplains 

to the active channel, and a whole host of 

other measures that are more fully described 

elsewhere (Bernhardt et al., 2007; Palmer et al., 

2008; Wohl, Palmer, and Kondolf, 2008). 

Develop and Amend CRMPs to Allow for 

Adaptation to Climate Change

For river managers to fulfill their obligations to 

protect and enhance the values of WSRs, their 

management plans need to be evaluated and 

amended as appropriate to take into account 

changing stressors and circumstances due to 

shifting climate (Poff, Brinson, and Day, Jr., 

2002). For example, the severe drought in 

Australia in recent years has not only had serious 

short-term impacts on river flows, but—due to 

the effects of fires—may have severe long-term 

flow effects as well. Studies of the Murray 

River system by researchers at the University 

of New South Wales have found that large-scale 

forest regeneration following extensive bush 

fires will deplete already low flows further due 

to the higher evapotranspiration rates of the 

younger trees compared with the mature forests 

they are replacing. The 2003 fires, for example, 

may reduce flows by more than 20% for the next 

two decades in one of the major tributaries to 

the Murray.20 Similar flow alterations might be 

20 University of New South Wales, 2007: Fire in the 

snow: thirsty gum trees put alpine water yields at 

risk. University of New South Wales Website, http://

www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2007/bushfire.

html, accessed on 1-20-2007.

anticipated in the American Southwest, which 

can expect a significant increase in temperature, 

reduction in snowpack, and recurring droughts 

that may cause more frequent fires and related 

vegetation changes. Management of the Rio 

Grande Wild and Scenic corridors in both 

New Mexico and Texas will need to take such 

scenarios into account. 

Rebalance the Priority of Values used for 

Designation of WSRs

In light of climate change impacts and their 

anticipated effects on habitat, biodiversity, 

and other ecological assets, it may be useful to 

emphasize such natural values when designating 

new WSRs. In addition, where two outstandingly 

remarkable values are in conflict within the 

same designated river—as sometimes happens, 

for example, between habitat and recreational 

values—an open and fair process in which 

climate change impacts are considered needs 

to be used to evaluate the priorities. To protect 

ecosystem services, strong consideration should 

be given to prioritizing those natural assets most 

at risk from climate change. 

6.5 CONCLUSIONS 

The WSR System was created to protect and 

preserve the biological, ecological, historic, 

scenic and other “remarkable” values of the 

nation’s rivers. These assets are increasingly 

at risk due to land-use changes, population 

growth, pollution discharges, flow-altering 

dams and diversions, excessive groundwater 

pumping, and other pressures within watersheds 

and river systems. Climate change adds to and 

magnifies these risks through its potential to 

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 37 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 37 
38

significant impact on rivers and will exert stress 

that could exacerbate any problems associated 

with climate change, WSR managers alone 

can not ensure the protection of many WSRs. 

Thus, forging partnerships with nonfederal 

water managers, land owners, towns, and states 

will be necessary to protect and to preserve the 

“outstandingly remarkable values” that are the 

basis for the designation of many rivers as wild 

and scenic. 

In a world of limited budgets, it may not be 

possible to implement all of the measures 

identif ied in the previous section and 

summarized in Box 6.5. But given limited 

financial and human resources, the highest 

priorities for the protection of WSR assets 

under conditions of climatic change are the 

following:

gppp 

to ensure environmental flows for WSR

basins that experience water stress. 

• Work with land use planners to minim

additional development on parcels of 

adjacent to WSRs, and optimally to acq

floodplains and nearby lands that are 

currently federally owned or ensure they 

placed in protected status. 

• Build flexibility and adaptive capacity 

the CRMPs for WSRs, and update th

plans regularly to reflect new informa

and scientific understanding.

Chapter 6_Rivers.indd 38 hapter 6_Rivers.indd 38 
C

KEY FINDINGS

In the short time frame of a few decades, negative consequences of climate change 

may be avoided or minimized by enhanced efforts in managing traditional stressors of 

estuarine ecosystems through existing best management practices (BMPs). For example, 

climate change will enhance eutrophication in many estuaries by increasing stratification of 

the water column, elevating biological oxygen demand by increasing temperatures, elevating 

nutrient loading as wetland buffers are inundated and eroded with sea level rise, and increasing organic loading in runoff from more frequent intense storms. Thus, traditional BMPs to 

minimize eutrophication are appropriate to expand so as to protect against the climate change 

enhancement of eutrophication. Protection and restoration of wetland buffers along riverine 

and estuarine shores should emphasize those shorelines where no barriers exist to prevent 

7.1 SUMMARY

National estuaries comprise a group of 28 estuaries, distributed around the United States and 

its protectorates and territories, that form the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National 

Estuary Program (NEP). The NEP mandates and supports the grass-roots development of estuaryspecific Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs), which, because national 

estuaries have no regulatory authority, rely on voluntary commitments to targets and on a wide 

suite of existing federal, state, and local authorities for implementation. The CCMPs hold several 

management goals in common: maintaining water quality; sustaining fish and wildlife populations, 

preserving habitat, protecting human values, and fulfilling water quantity needs. 

Maintaining the status quo of estuarine management would guarantee growing failures in meeting 

all of these management goals under progressive climate change. This chapter thus reviews the 

suite of management adaptations that might accommodate effects of climate change in ways that 

could preserve the ecosystem services of estuaries. On time scales of a few decades, management 

strategies exist that may build resilience sufficiently to minimize ecosystem service losses from 

estuaries. However, over longer time scales, despite these actions to enhance resilience, dramatic 

net losses in ecosystem services will arise, requiring trade-offs to be made among which services 

to preserve and which to sacrifice. 

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 1 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 1 
2

expansion of flooding frequency and extent. Other management adaptations could be desig

to build resilience of ecological and social systems. These adaptations could include choo

only those sites for shoreline habitat restoration that allow natural recession landward, 

thus provide resilience to sea level rise.

The appropriate time scale for both planning and implementing new management 

aptations requires considering and balancing multiple factors. Management adaptation

climate change can occur on three different time scales: (a) reactive measures taken in respo

to observed negative impacts; (b) immediate development of plans for management ada

tion to be implemented later, either when an indicator signals that delay can no longer o

without risking serious consequences, or in the wake of a disaster that provides a window 

socially feasible opportunity; or (c) immediate implementation of proactive policies. The fac

determining which of these time frames is appropriate for any given management adapta

include balancing expenditures associated with implementation against the magnitude of r

of injurious consequences under the status quo of management; the degree of reversibilit

negative consequences of climate change; recognition and understanding of the problem 

managers and the public; the uncertainty associated with the projected consequences of clim

change; the time table on which change is anticipated; and the extent of political, institutio

and financial impediments. 

To minimize negative consequences of climate change beyond a few decades, plann

for some future management adaptations and implementing other present mana

ment adaptations is necessary now. For estuaries, the most critical management challe

to sustain ecosystem services over longer time frames is to implement actions now that 

allow orderly retreat of development from shorelines at high risk of erosion and flooding, o

preclude development of undeveloped shorelines at high risk. Such proactive management act

have been inhibited in the past by: (a) uncertainty over climate change and its implications

failures to include true economic, social, and environmental costs of present policies allow

and subsidizing such risky development; and (c) legal tenets of private property rights. 

possible proactive management option would be to establish and enforce “rolling easeme

along largely undeveloped estuarine shorelines as sea level continues to rise, thereby sust

ing the public ownership of tide lands yet allowing private property use to continue. Ano

proactive management action could be developing and implementing effective ecosystem-b

management (EBM). This requires collaboration that crosses traditionally separate leve

management (e.g., state and federal) and management authorities (e.g., water quality and l

use planning) to coordinate and focus actions of all agencies with responsibilities to manage 

influence stressors that affect estuarine organisms and ecosystems. 

Even with sufficient long-term planning and enhancing short-term resilience by insti

ing BMPs, dramatic long-term losses in ecosystem services are inevitable and will req

tradeoffs among services to protect and preserve. The most serious conflict arises betw

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 2 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 2 
climate change and other environmental stressors is an essential part of any adaptive 

approach to management. Going back into the past to identify baselines from historic environmental, agency, and ecological records, and from paleoecological reconstructions, is critical so as to enhance our understanding of estuarine responses to historic climate change and 

thereby improve our models of the future. A key goal of monitoring is to establish and follow 

indicators that signal an approach toward an ecosystem threshold that—once passed—implies 

passage of the system into an alternative state from which conversion back is difficult. Avoiding 

conversion into such alternative states, often maintained by positive feedbacks, is one major 

motivation for implementing proactive management adaptation. This is especially critical if the 

transition is irreversible, or very difficult and costly to reverse, and if the altered state delivers 

dramatically fewer ecosystem services. One example of such ecosystem conversions involves 

nitrogen-induced conversion from an estuary dominated by submersed benthic grasses to an 

alternative dominated by seaweeds and planktonic microalgae. Detecting ecosystem responses 

to climate change plays an integral role in management adaptation, because it can trigger implementation of planned but delayed management responses and because such monitoring serves 

to test the accuracy, and reduce the uncertainty, of the models that guide our management 

actions. This is the essence of agency learning and adapting management accordingly. Various 

federal programs for global and national observing systems are currently in development, but 

they need to include more focus on estuaries and more biological targets to accompany the 

physical parameters that dominate the current plans. 

The nature and scope of many anticipated consequences of climate change are not widely recognized by policy makers, managers, and the public because they involve interactions among 

stressors. Consequently, an effective class of management adaptation involves reducing levels 

of those existing stressors to minimize the risks and magnitudes of interactive consequences 

of climate change. These interactions and their potential significance also imply a need for 

more substantive rather than superficial evaluations of interacting effects of climate change in 

environmental impact and environmental assessments conducted in response to the National 

Environmental Policy Act and its state analogs. Interactions of climate change with other stressors leads to a management priority for including consideration of climate change sensitivity, 

resilience, and adaptation responses in all relevant federal and state funding programs. In the 

absence of such actions, for example, climate impacts on estuarine wetlands will likely violate the 

“no net loss of wetlands” policy, which underlies the Clean Water Act, in two ways: (a) wetland 

losses resulting from sea level rise and increasing frequency of intense storms will compound the 

continuing loss of wetlands from small development projects with inadequate mitigation; and (b) 

measures used to protect human developments and infrastructure from climate change impacts 

will inhibit wetland adaptation to climate change. Management adaptations taken in response to 

the importance of potential interactions between climate change and existing stressors could 

include ending direct and indirect public subsidies that now support risky development on coastal 

barriers and estuarine shores at high risk of flooding and storm damage. 

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 3 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 3 
4

Kennedy et al., 2002; Harley and Hughes, 2006) 

by its focus on developing adaptive management 

options and analyzing the characteristics of 

human and ecological systems that facilitate or 

inhibit management adaptation. The chapter is 

thus written mostly for an audience of natural 

resource and environmental managers and 

policy makers.

A summary of federal legislation for the 

protection and restoration of estuaries is 

presented in the Appendix. There are 28 

national estuaries in the U.S. National Estuarine 

Program, which is administered by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (Fig. 7.1). 

we choose an alternative, geomorphologic

based definition of an estuary as a se

enclosed body of water on the seacoas

which fresh and salt water mix (adapted f

Pritchard, 1967). Such a definition inclu

not only those water bodies that are lar

perpendicular to the coastline where ri

approach the sea, but also marine lago

which are largely parallel to the shoreline 

experience only occasional fresh water inf

thereby retaining high salinities most of 

time. In the landward direction, we include 

intertidal and supratidal shore zone to be pa

the estuary and thus include marshes, swa

and mangroves (i.e., the coastal wetlands).

Figure 7.1. Organization of the NEP System.1

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007: Office of Water organizational chart. EPA Website, 

 http://www.epa.gov/water/org_chart/index.htm, accessed on 5-30-2007.

The Offi ce of Water enforces federal clean water and safe drinking 

water laws, provides support for municipal wastewater treatment 

plants, and takes part in pollution prevention efforts aimed at 

protecting watersheds and sources of drinking water. 

Coastal environments are strongly infl uenced by upstream 

sources of pollution and freshwater infl ow, and are subject to an 

ever-growing coastal population. EPA protects these resources 

through a watershed approach and its regulatory and cooperative 

management programs.

There are 28 national estuaries, each with a director and staff, 

working with local stakeholders to improve the health of their estua

including its waters, habitats, and living resources. Each of the 28 

national estuaries has developed a Comprehensive Conservation 

and Management Plan to meet the goals of Section 320 of the 

Clean Water Act, which directs EPA to develop plans for improving 

or maintaining water quality in an estuary including both point and 

nonpoint sources of pollution.

Level of Organization Jurisdiction

EPA

Offi ce of Water

Offi ce of Wetlands, 

Oceans, & Watersheds

National Estuary 

Program

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 4 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 4 
estuaries places physiological 

constraints on the organisms 

t h a t c a n o c c u p y t h e m , 

generally requiring broad 

tolerances for varying salinity 

but also for temperature and 

other factors. Consequently, 

the organisms of estuaries 

represent a biota that may 

have unusually high intrinsic 

capability for species-level 

physiological adaptation to 

changing salinity, temperature, 

and other naturally varying 

aspects of historic climate 

change. The challenge is to 

predict how these species will 

respond to accelerated rates of 

change and how species interactions will alter 

communities and ecosystems.

Estuaries possess several features that render 

them unusually valuable for their ecosystem 

services, both to nature and to humans. The 

biological productivity of estuaries is generally 

high, with substantial contributions from 

vascular plants of historically extensive tidal 

marshes and coastal wetlands as well as from 

sea grasses and other submerged aquatic 

vegetation. A large fraction of the fisheries 

of the coastal ocean depend on estuaries to 

provide nursery or even adult habitat necessary 

to complete the life cycle of the fish or shellfish. 

Similarly, many species of coastal wildlife, 

including terrestrial and marine mammals and 

coastal birds, depend on estuaries as essential 

feeding and breeding grounds. Although 

depicting the ecosystem services of only one 

estuarine habitat, the wetlands and marshes, 

the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) 

provides a table of ecosystem services that 

helps indicate the types and range of natural 

and human values that are vested in estuarine 

ecosystems more broadly (Box 7.1). Partly in 

recognition of the value of estuaries and the 

threats to their health, the National Estuary 

Program (NEP) was established by Congress 

in 1987 and housed within EPA (Fig. 7.1).2

After the establishment of this program, the 

28 national estuaries were added over a 10-year 

period (Fig. 7.2).

Estuaries represent the collection point past 

which runoff from the entire watershed must 

flow. The health and functioning of estuaries 

are at risk from pollutants that are discharged 

and released over the entire catchment area and 

reach these collection points. Degradation of 

estuarine habitats, water quality, and function is 

traceable to human modification of watersheds, 

with substantial cumulative consequences 

worldwide (Jackson et al., 2001; Worm et al., 

2006; Lotze et al., 2006). More recently, threats 

2 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387 P.L. 100-4

2. Buffer against storm wave damage

3. Shoreline stabilization

4. Hydrologic processing

• Flood water storage

5. Water quality

• Sediment trapping

• Nutrient cycling 

• Chemical and metal retention

• Pathogen removal

6. Biodiversity preservation

7. Carbon storage

8. Socioeconomic services to humans

• Aesthetics

• Natural heritage

• Ecotourism

• Education

• Psychological health

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 5 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 5 
6

to estuaries have arisen from sources even 

closer to estuarine waters as human population 

migration and growth have targeted the coasts, 

especially waterfront property. Although more 

than half of the U.S. population now lives on 

the 17% of lands considered coastal, within the 

next 25 years human populations on the coast 

are expected to increase by 25% (National 

Coastal Assessment Group, 2000). Thus, the 

threats to estuarine ecosystems are not only 

widespread, requiring a basin-wide scope for 

management, but increasingly local as more 

people choose to occupy habitats of higher risk. 

The growing human occupation of estuarine 

shores increases the challenge of managing 

for climate change, because estuarine services 

are placed at growing risk from both direct 

impacts of changing climate as well as indirect 

consequences of human responses to personal 

and property risks from climate change.

7.2.2 Interpretation of National 

Estuary Program Goals 

Under the goals of Section 320 of the Clean 

Water Act, each national estuary4 is required 

3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007: 

National Estuary Program: program profiles. EPA 

Website, http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/list.

htm, accessed on 5-30-2007. 4 In the National Estuary Program, individual 

national estuaries are referred to as National Estuary 

Programs. To avoid confusion between individual 

estuary programs and the umbrella program, this 

chapter uses the term “national estuaries” to refer 

to the individual programs.

to develop a Comprehensive Conservation 

Management Plan (CCMP). Many nati

estuaries have watersheds found within a si

state, and therefore their CCMP is conta

within one state. Other estuarine watersh

are trans-boundary and more than one s

participates. Emphasis is on “integra

watershed-based, stakeholder-oriented w

resource management.”5 These plans 

produced by a full range of stakehold

within each national estuary through a pro

involving (1) assessments of trends in w

quality, natural resources, and uses of 

estuary; (2) evaluation of appropriate d

and (3) development of pollutant load

relationships to watershed and estua

condition. The final CCMP is approved by 

governors of the states in the study area 

the EPA administrator. The programs are 

obligated to implement the CCMPs and mon

effectiveness of actions.6 Each national estu

prepares an annual plan, approved by EPA

guide implementation of its CCMP.

The national estuaries represent a wide var

of sizes, geomorphologies, and waters

characteristics. For example Santa Monica 

is a relatively small, open embayment or coa

lagoon; the Maryland Coastal Bays are a gr

5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006

National Estuary Program: a Ten Year Perspec

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Web

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/aniv.

accessed on 4-6-2007. 6 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387 § 320

1987 1988 1990 1991 1992 1995 2007

Figure 7.2. Timeline of National Estuaries Program Formation.3

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 6 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 6 
do not share easily identified geomorphic 

characteristics, they are recognized to share 

common stressors (Bricker et al., 1999; Worm

et al., 2006; Lotze et al., 2006). These stressors 

include “eutrophication, contamination from 

toxic substances and pathogens, habitat loss, 

altered freshwater inflows, and endangered 

and invasive species” (Bearden, 2001). This 

particular list ignores direct and indirect fishing 

impacts, which are important and included in 

many CCMPs. Even more importantly, this list 

fails to include the direct and indirect effects of 

climate change, particularly the threats posed 

by sea level rise.

A hallmark of the NEP is that it is largely a 

local program with federal support. While 

federal grants provide a critical source of 

base funding, most national estuaries have 

successfully raised significant local and state 

support, primarily to finance specific projects 

or activities. The individual national estuaries 

lack regulatory authority; thus they depend on 

voluntary cooperation using various incentives, 

plus existing federal, state, tribal, and local 

legislation and regulation. Their purpose is to 

coordinate these local efforts and promote the 

mechanisms to develop, implement, and monitor 

the CCMPs. The NEP was designed to provide 

funding and guidance for the 28 estuaries 

around the country to work in a bottom-up 

science-based way within the complex policymaking landscape of federal, state, and local 

regulations. Non-regulatory strategies must 

complement the limited federal and even state 

authority or regulations. Lessons learned about 

how monitoring, research, communication, 

education, coordination, and advocacy work to 

achieve goals are transferable to all estuaries, 

not just NEP members.

anthropogenic impacts and their management 

(Kennish, 1999).

Within recent years, each national estuary has 

developed or begun to develop system-specific 

ecosystem status indicators. These indicators 

allow ongoing assessments of the success 

of management activities resulting from the 

CCMPs. However, almost none of the CCMPs 

mention climate change, and only one national 

estuary (Puget Sound) has completed a planning 

process to assess implications of climate change 

for the perpetuation of ecosystem services in its 

system (Snover et al., 2005). Managers may fail 

to account for the effects of climate change on 

the estuaries if the choices of indicators are not 

reconsidered in the context of changing climate. 

Perhaps more importantly, climate change may 

confound the interpretation of the indicator 

trend results and thus the interpretation of the 

effectiveness of the CCMPs.

7.3 CURRENT STATUS OF 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

7.3.1 Key Ecosystem 

Characteristics on Which Goals 

Depend

To understand how climate drivers might affect 

individual national estuaries, it is useful to 

identify the susceptibility of characteristics 

of the entire management system. At a large 

scale, the location of the estuary on Earth 

(i.e., its latitude and longitude) determines its 

susceptibility. Climate varies over the globe, 

and expectations for change likewise differ 

geographically on a global scale. Expected 

temperature and precipitation changes and 

range shifts can be estimated from global-scale 

geographic position quite well, whereas local 

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 7 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 7 
8

counterparts. Western estuaries are affected 

more by fog banks emanating from coastal 

waters. Climate drivers that change wind, 

ultraviolet radiation, and precipitation patterns 

are particularly important at this scale.

Next in hierarchical context is the watershed. 

The NEP takes a watershed perspective 

to management. Land and watershed use, 

population density, and regulatory effectiveness 

combine to determine the potential loading 

of pollutants, extraction of freshwater and 

resources, and transformation of habitat and 

coastline. Climate change can influence each 

of these factors. Changes in temperature, 

sea level, storminess, precipitation, and 

evapotranspiration patterns can alter human 

settlement and migration, agricultural and 

fisheries practices, and energy and resource 

use. These responses are likely to be long-term 

and large-scale, although their influence on 

estuarine dynamics may be exhibited on shorter 

time scales. For example, seasonal nutrient 

loading varies as a result of changes in tourism 

or crop choice. These factors largely affect 

the concentration of nutrients, while changes 

in runoff and river flow affect the discharge 

component of loading.

At the opposite end of the estuary is the 

marine environment, which also serves as an 

intermixing boundary susceptible to climate 

change. The oceans and coastal marine waters 

have responded—or are expected to respond—

to climate change by changes in sea level, 

circulation patterns, storm intensity, salinity, 

temperature, and pH. Some of these factors may 

change little over the large scale, but may be 

altered locally outside the mouths of estuaries. 

All of these factors influence the biota, with all 

but pH exerting additional indirect effects by 

modifying estuarine hydrodynamics.

various components of climate change.

The way in which a specific estuary respo

to climate change depends on the anthropog

stressors acting on it. These stressors inc

those that pollute and contaminate the sys

as well as those that remove or disrupt estua

resources. Pollutants include nutrients, me

pathogens, sediments, and organic toxica

Extractions include uses of fresh and brac

water, sediments, and living resources wi

the ecosystem. Disruption of a variet

biological communities occurs thro

overfishing, introduction of invasive spe

habitat destruction, damming, boat tra

and shoreline conversion and stabiliza

activities.

Finally, there are the social, political, 

economic contexts for susceptibility. S

of these contexts play out in ways alre

mentioned. But it is clear that stakeho

attitudes about estuaries and their percept

about climate change are critical to w

management for climate change. E

stakeholder group, indeed each individual, 

estuaries in different ways and places diffe

importance on specific ecosystem services. 

aim of this report is to provide a common b

of knowledge to stakeholders and to mana

at higher levels (local, state, tribal, and fed

governments) to inform their choices.

7.3.2 Current Stressors of 

Concern

Estuaries are generally stressful environm

because of their strong and naturally vari

gradients of salinity, temperature, and o

parameters. However, estuaries are 

essential feeding and reproduction grounds, 

provide refuge for a wide variety of seas

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 8 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 8 
to manage estuarine resources are focused on 

these stressors (Kennish, 1999 and the various 

CCMPs).

Several stressors result from modified rates 

of loading of naturally occurring energy 

and materials. Nutrient loading is perhaps 

the most studied and important material 

addition. Although essential to the primary 

production of any open ecosystem, too much 

nutrient loading can cause eutrophication, the 

subject of considerable concern for estuaries 

source for the geomorphological balance in 

the face of sea level rise, and for nutrients 

(especially phosphorus) for primary production. 

However, land clearing, agriculture, and urban 

land use can increase sediment load (Howarth, 

Fruci, and Sherman, 1991; Cooper and Brush, 

1993; Syvitski et al., 2005), while dams may 

greatly restrict delivery and promote deltaic 

erosion (Syvitski et al., 2005). Historically, 

sediment loading has increased on average 

25-fold, and nitrogen and phosphorus loading 

almost 10-fold, in estuaries since 1700 (Lotze

Table 7.1. The major stressors currently acting on estuaries, and their expected impacts on management goals, as 

determined by consensus opinion of the contributing authors. Evidence is mounting that sea level rise is already having di

and indirect impacts on estuaries (e.g., Galbraith et al., 2002), but because this factor has not yet been widely integrated i

management, we do not list it here despite its dominating significance in future decades.

Stressor Water Quality Fisheries Habitat Human Value & 

Welfare Water Quant

Excess Nutrients negative positive then 

negative

positive then 

negative

positive then 

negative

Sediments negative positive or negative

positive or negative negative

Pathogens negative negative negative

Oyster Loss & Habitat 

Destruction negative negative negative negative

Benthic Habitat Disturbance negative positive or 

negative

positive then 

negative negative

Wetland Habitat Loss from 

Development negative negative negative positive or negative

positive or 

negative

Toxics negative negative negative negative

Invasive Species positive or 

negative

positive or 

negative

positive or 

negative

positive or 

negative

Thermal Pollution

positive then 

negative or 

down

positive then 

negative

positive then 

negative or 

down

positive then 

negative

Biological Oxygen Demand 

(BOD) negative negative negative negative

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 9 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 9 
10

and surface and ground water consumption. 

Thermal pollution, largely from power plants, 

is a direct enhancement of energy with resultant 

local changes in metabolic rates, community 

structure, and species interactions.

Human activities also cause or enhance the 

delivery of materials and organisms that are not 

normally part of the natural systems. Pathogen 

loading compromises the use of estuarine 

resources, causing shellfish bed closures and 

beach closures (e.g., Health Ecological and 

Economic Dimensions of Global Change 

Program, 1998), human health advisories, and 

diseases to estuarine organisms themselves. 

Other anthropogenic contributions include 

the discharge and ongoing legacy of organic 

wastes and persistent organic pollutants (e.g.,

DDT, dioxin, PCBs, petroleum) (Kennish, 

1999). The toxicity of some of the persistent 

organic pollutants has been recognized for 

decades, dating to the publication of Silent 

Spring by Rachel Carson (1962). More recently, 

the potential importance of other endocrinedisrupting chemicals is causing concern 

(Cropper, 2005). Added to these organic 

pollutants are metals entering estuaries from 

direct dumping, riverine waters, sediments, 

and atmospheric deposition. Moreover, 

biodegradable organic wastes contribute to 

eutrophication and dissolved oxygen deficits 

(Nixon, 1995). Finally, the introduction and 

spread of non-indigenous species are enhanced 

by globalization and shipping, intentional 

decisions for commerce or other human 

use, and unintentional actions (Mooney and 

Hobbs, 2000). For those locations that have 

been surveyed, the known number of resident 

non-indigenous species ranges from about 

60 to about 200 species per estuary in the 

United States (Ruiz et al., 1997; Lotze et al., 

300 years (Lotze et al., 2006). Wetland ha

loss from development continues, des

changes in perceptions about wetland v

and regulations intended to protect wetla

Coastal wetlands represent a diverse assortm

of hydrogeomorphic classes (Brinson, 1

Christian et al., 2000), both sea-level contro

(e.g., marshes and mangroves), non-sea-l

controlled (e.g., swamps, fens, bogs, 

pocosins) and subtidal (e.g., submerged aqu

vegetation (SAV), seagrass, and macroal

habitats. Supratidal and intertidal wetlands 

subject to land use change, dredging and fil

and changes in water quality. Subtidal hab

are particularly susceptible to not only th

impacts but also activities within the water

example, SAV loss also occurs from bott

disturbing fishing practices and eutrophica

Oyster reef habitat destruction occurs f

direct exploitation and bottom disturbance f

fishing practices (e.g., trawling). For 12 st

sites around the world, both seagrass mead

and oyster reefs have experienced substan

losses over the last 300 years (>65% and a

80%, respectively) (Lotze et al., 2006). Toge

with the loss of wetlands, these changes h

resulted in great reductions of essential nur

habitats, important filtering functions (nutr

cycling and storage), and coastal protec

(barriers and floodplains) in estuaries (W

et al., 2006; Lotze et al., 2006).

Another important anthropogenic stresso

estuaries is the extraction of living and n

living material that alters estuarine ecosys

structure and functioning. Historically, estua

provided a wide variety of resources used 

valued by humans as sources of food, 

feathers, fertilizer, and other materials (L

et al., 2006). Since the 19th century, howe

the ecological service of estuaries receiv

greatest management attention has been t

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 10 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 10 
of the past (e.g., Jackson et al., 2001; Lotze et 

al., 2006; Myers et al., 2007). Ongoing fishing 

pressure targets species lower and lower in 

the food chain, affecting detritivorous and 

herbivorous invertebrates and marine plants; 

consequences can include further alteration 

of ecosystem structure and functioning and 

negative effects on habitat integrity and 

filtering functions (Pauly et al., 1998; Worm et 

al., 2006; Lotze et al., 2006). Management goals 

to stabilize current or restore former ecosystem 

states are jeopardized if large consumers are not 

also recovered (Jackson et al., 2001).

It is rare that an estuary is subject to only one 

of these stressors. Management decisions must 

consider not only stressors acting independently 

but also interacting with each other (Breitburg, 

Seitzinger, and Sanders, 1999; Lotze et al., 

2006). Multiple stressors can interact and 

cause responses that cannot be anticipated 

from our understanding of each one separately. 

For example, Lenihan and Peterson (1998) 

demonstrate that habitat damage from oyster 

dredging and the stress of bottom-water 

hypoxia interact to affect oyster survival. 

Tall oyster reefs, both those that remain and 

those that have been rebuilt, project above 

hypoxic bottom waters and therefore allow 

oyster survival in the upper wind-mixed layers 

even as water quality further deteriorates. 

Unfortunately, management of fisheries and 

water quality is done by different agencies, 

inhibiting the integrated approach that such 

interacting stressors demand. 

Interactive effects of multiple stressors are likely 

to be common and important because of both the 

interdependence of physiological rate processes 

within individuals and the interdependence of 

ecological interactions within communities 

and ecosystems (Breitburg and Riedel, 2005). 

period from a particular stressor can extend 

beyond the period of exposure, thus influencing 

responses to subsequent stressors. For example, 

Peterson and Black (1988) demonstrated that 

bivalves that were already stressed from living 

under crowded conditions exhibited higher 

mortality rates after experimental application 

of the stress of sedimentation. Moreover, 

effects of stressors on indirect interactions 

within populations and communities can extend 

the spatial scale of stressor effects and delay 

recovery (Peterson et al., 2003), increasing 

the potential for interactions with additional 

stressors. For example, years after the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill, female harlequin ducks exposed 

to lingering oil during feeding on benthic 

invertebrates in contaminated sediments, and 

exhibiting activation of detoxification enzymes, 

suffered lower survivorship over winter. Winter 

is a period of energetic stress to these smallbodied ducks (Peterson et al., 2003). On longer 

time scales, heritable adaptations that increase 

tolerance to one class of stressors may enhance 

susceptibility to others (Meyer and Di Giulio, 

2003). 

One hallmark of the NEP is the recognition 

that management actions need to take account 

of the complexity of the larger watershed and 

the potentially diverse socioeconomic demands 

and objectives within them. The NEP tracks 

habitat restoration and protection efforts 

with annual updates from the component 

estuaries.7 The reality of interacting stressors 

has important implications for estuarine 

management. Specifically, because climate 

change affects some pre-existing stressors, 

7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007: 

Performance indicators visualization and outreach 

tool introduction. EPA Website, www.epa.gov/

owow/estuaries/habitat/index.html, accessed on 

7-25-2007.

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 11 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 11 
12

these acts possess state counterparts, and 

local laws—especially land use planning and 

zoning—also play roles in management of 

estuarine services. This web of legal authorities 

and guiding legislation is a historical legacy, 

ref lective of prevailing management that 

compartmentalized responsibilities into 

multiple agencies and programs. 

The presentation here of applicable federal 

legislative acts is long, yet incomplete, and 

does not attempt to list state and local laws. 

One motivation in providing this spectrum 

of applicable legislation is to illustrate the 

challenges involved for estuaries in the 

integration of management authorities that is 

urged under the umbrella of ecosystem-based 

management by the U.S. Commission on Ocean 

Policy.

7.3.3.1 Basin-Wide Management of Water 

Quality

As one of the tools to meet the goal of 

“restoration and maintenance of the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s 

waters” under §402 of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, any entity that discharges 

pollutants into a navigable body of water 

must possess a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit.8 This 

requirement applies to public facilities such as 

wastewater treatment plants, public and private 

industrial facilities, and all other point sources. 

While EPA was the original administrator of 

the program, many states have now assumed 

the administrative function. All states have 

approved State NPDES Permit Programs 

except Alaska, the District of Columbia, Idaho, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, 

8 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387 § 420

own or operate municipal stormwater disch

facilities.

Although the content, style, and lengt

any given NPDES permit for point-sou

discharge will be slightly different depen

on where and when it is written, all per

contain certain core components mand

by the Clean Water Act, including test

monitoring, and self reporting. NPDES per

are renewed every five years, and monito

and/or reporting requirements may cha

These changes are determined by the l

Regional Water Quality Control Boards or 

State Water Resources Control Board thro

their research and monitoring efforts.

In addition to traditional NPDES permit

for point sources, states are required by 

Clean Water Act of 1972 (modified in 1

1981, and 1987) to manage and protect w

quality on a basin-wide scale. This invo

assessing the assimilative capacity of 

water body for wastes of various sorts 

managing loads from all sources to pre

water quality violations in any of the 

water quality standards used to indi

degradation. The inputs of most concern 

estuaries are nutrient loading, sedimentat

BOD, and fecal coliform bacteria. EPA 

developed several technical guidance man

to assist the states in their basin-wide plann

including those for nutrients, sediments, 

biocriteria of estuarine health. When chr

water quality violations persist, then TM

(total maximum daily loads) are mandate

EPA and must be developed to cap loading 

restore water quality. TMDLs are also 

triggered by inclusion of any water body 

the 304(d) list of impaired waters, which 

states are obligated to provide annually to E

In the 2000s, EPA has expanded the scop

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 12 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 12 
flooding effects, stratification of waters, salt 

penetration and intrusion, and acidification.

7.3.3.2 Habitat Conservation under 

Federal (Essential Fish Habitat) and State 

Fishery Management Plans

As administered under NOAA, the Magnuson 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 

1976 (amended as the Sustainable Fisheries Act 

(SFA) in 19969 and reauthorized as MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act (MSA) of 200610 established 

eight regional fishery management councils that 

are responsible for managing fishery resources 

within the federal 200-mile zone bordering 

coastal states. Management is implemented 

through the establishment and regulation of 

Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). In addition 

to “conservation and management of the fishery 

resources of the United States...to prevent 

overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks and 

insure conservation,” the Act also mandates the 

facilitation of long-term protection of essential 

fish habitats, which are defined as “those waters 

and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, 

breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” 

The Act states “One of the greatest long-term 

threats to the viability of commercial and 

recreational fisheries is the continuing loss of 

marine, estuarine, and other aquatic habitats.” It 

emphasizes that habitat considerations “should 

receive increased attention for the conservation 

and management of fishery resources of the 

United States” and “to promote the protection 

of essential fish habitat in the review of projects 

conducted under Federal permits, licenses, or 

other authorities that affect or have the potential 

to affect such habitat.”

9 P.L. 94-265

10 P.L. 109-479

histories, few are considered to be dependent 

on a single, specific habitat type (except, for 

example, larger juvenile and adult snappers and 

groupers on ocean hard bottoms) or region. As 

a result, federal FMPs do not comprehensively 

cover species’ habitats that are not specifically 

targeted within their region. In addition, the 

only estuarine-dependent fish stocks under 

federal management authority are migratory 

stocks, such as red drum and shrimp, so 

estuarine habitats are not a key focus for 

essential fish habitat. However, many states 

also have FMPs in place or in preparation for 

target fisheries under their jurisdiction (the nonmigratory inshore species) and participate with 

the regional councils under the SFA/MSA.

Thus, threats to marshes and other estuarine 

systems that constitute essential fish habitat 

or state-protected fisheries habitat should 

include all potential stressors, whether natural 

or anthropogenic, such as climate change and 

sea level rise. Although essential fish habitats 

have been codified for many fisheries, and 

science and management studies have focused 

Kevin Rosseel, EPA

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 13 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 13 
14

loss of coastal marshes and wetlands from sea 

level rise by 2100, with an elimination of 6,441 

square miles (65%) of marshes in the continental 

United States associated with a probable rise of 

1m (Park et al., 1989).

7.3.3.3 Estuarine Ecosystem Restoration 

Programs

While comprehensive planning of coastal 

restoration is inconsistent at the national level, a 

number of national, regional, and local programs 

are coordinated to the extent that stressors are 

either the target of restoration or addressed 

as constraints to restoration. These programs 

tend to be oriented toward rehabilitation of 

injuries done by individual stressors, such as 

eutrophication or contaminants, or toward 

restoration of ecosystems that have not been 

so extensively modified that their loss or 

degradation is not irreversible. Federal programs 

that authorize restoration of estuaries include:

Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 

(P.L. 106-457, Title I)

Probably the most prominent federal program 

that involves non-regulatory restoration in the 

nation’s estuaries is the Estuary Restoration Act 

of 2000 (ERA). The ERA promotes estuarine 

habitat restoration through coordinating 

federal and non-federal restoration activities 

and more efficient financing of restoration 

projects. It authorizes a program under which 

the Secretary of the Army, through the Corps 

of Engineers (USACE), may carry out projects 

and provide technical assistance to meet the 

restoration goal. The purpose of the Act is to 

promote the restoration of estuarine habitat; to 

develop a national Estuary Habitat Restoration 

Strategy for creating and maintaining effective 

partnerships within the federal government 

and with the private sector; to provide federal 

The Interagency Council implementing 

ERA published a strategy in December of 2

with the goal of restoring one million acre

estuarine habitat by the year 2010. Prog

toward the goal is being tracked via NOA

National Estuaries Restoration Inventory.

Although the guiding principles that contrib

to the development of this legislation arg

for the “need to learn more about the eff

of sea level rise, sedimentation, and a ho

other variables to help set appropriate g

and success indicators for restoration proj

in their dynamic natural environmen

climate change is not explicitly addresse

the ERA. Similarly, the Council’s Estua

Habitat Restoration Strategy, published in 2

neglects to explicitly mention climate cha

or sea level rise.

National Estuary Program and National 

Monitoring Program (EPA)

The National Estuary Program (NE

administered under Section 320 of the 1

amended Clean Water Act, focuses on po

and non-point source pollution in targeted, h

priority estuarine waters. Under the NEP, 

assists state, regional, and local governme

landowners, and community organization

developing a Comprehensive Conservation 

Management Plan (CCMP) for each estu

The CCMP characterizes the resources in 

watershed and estuary and identifies spe

actions to restore water quality, habitats, 

other designated beneficial uses. Each of 

28 national estuaries has developed a CC

to meet the goals of Section 320. Because 

primary goal of the NEP is maintenanc

restoration of water quality in estuaries, 

CCMPs tend to focus on source contro

treatment of pollution. NEP tracks estua

habitat restoration and protection, with an

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 14 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 14 
a range of climate change challenges, although 

their assessments have been completed only 

recently. 

7.3.3.4 National Coastal Zone 

Management Act and Its Authorized State 

Programs

The federal Coastal Zone Management Act 

of 1972 (CZMA) provides grants to states to 

develop and implement federally approved 

coastal zone management plans. Approval 

of the state plan then allows that state to 

participate in reviews of federal actions and 

determine whether they are consistent with 

the approved state plan. In addition, CZMA 

authorized establishment of the National 

Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). 

Individual states have responded by creating 

various governmental structures, legislation, 

commissions, and processes for developing 

and implementing the coastal planning process. 

Planning extends down to the local level as local 

communities take responsibility for local Land 

Use Plans, which are then reviewed for approval 

by the state authority. Thus, this process has 

substantial capacity for responding to and 

adapting to climate change. CZMA explicitly 

identifies planning for climate change as one 

of its mandates: “Because global warming may 

result in a substantial sea level rise with serious 

adverse effects in the coastal zone, coastal 

states must anticipate and plan for such an 

occurrence.”12 The act calls for balancing of the 

11 New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, 2006: Hudson Valley climate change 

conference, December 4, 2006. New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation, http://

www.dec.state.ny.us/website/hudson/hvcc.html,

accessed on 3-23-2007. 12 16 U.S.C. 1451-1456 P.L. 92-583

impacts that we emphasize and address here. 

The report used surveys, to which 18 state 

programs responded, to develop information on 

how the state Coastal Management Programs 

are currently addressing climate change and the 

new challenges posed by accelerating rates of 

sea level rise, enhanced frequencies of intense 

storms, and rainfall and flood risk changes.13

Several states are actively examining climate 

change impacts to their coastal zone planning, 

often through interagency commissions. New 

policies are being considered and developed 

in response to rising rates of sea level rise and 

enhanced storm and flood risk to reconsider 

siting of public infrastructure, site-level project 

planning, wetland conservation and restoration, 

shoreline building setbacks, building elevations, 

and alternatives to shoreline “armoring” to 

counteract erosion.

The NOAA NERRS Program authorized by 

CZMA now includes 27 constituent estuaries 

from around the country. This program uses 

a local grassroots process to help monitor 

and create public awareness of the resources, 

threats, and values of constituent estuaries. 

Clearly, the goals of NERRS are compatible 

with the goals of the National Estuary Program 

and CZMA, implying need for cross-agency and 

federal-state partnerships to develop integrated 

management adaptations to climate change.

13 CSO Climate Change Work Group, 2007: The 

Role of Coastal Zone Management Programs in 

Adaptation to Climate Change. Coastal States Organization.

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 15 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 15 
16

when shores erode) or the public trust doctrine

(the state holds tidelands in trust for the people 

unless it decides otherwise). Shoreline planners 

in many states (e.g., Texas, Rhode Island, South 

Carolina, and Massachusetts) use these laws to 

plan for natural shoreline dynamics, including 

policies and tools such as “rolling easements” 

(i.e., as the sea rises, the public’s easement 

“rolls” inland; owners are obligated to remove 

structures if and when they are threatened by an 

advancing shoreline), setbacks (i.e., prohibitions 

against development of certain areas at a set 

distance from the shoreward property line), 

prohibition of future shoreline armoring, and 

direct purchase of land that will allow wetlands 

or beaches to shift naturally (IPCC, 2001).14

Some states are beginning to prohibit new 

structures in areas likely to be eroded in the 

next 30–60 years (e.g., North Carolina through 

its Coastal Resources Commission).

7.3.3.6 Species Recovery under Federal 

Endangered Species Act

Recovery plans for aquatic species that are 

threatened or endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA)15 may be contingent on 

implicit assumptions about habitat conditions in 

the coastal zone. However, explicit accounting 

for impacts and strategic designing of recovery 

efforts to consider climate variability and 

change is rare. A recent analysis of current 

ESA recovery plans indicates that of 101 plans 

that mention climate change, global warming, 

or related terms, only 60 actually discuss these 

topics, and only 47 identify climate change or 

its effects as a threat, possible threat, or factor in 

14 Spyres, J., 1999: Rising tide: global warming accelerates coastal erosion. Erosion Control, http://www.

forester.net/ec_9909_rising_tide.html, accessed on 

3-22-2007. 15 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884

2006).

Climate variability and change will undoubt

involve an even more consequential respons

diadromous fishes and macroinvertebrates 

require extensive, high-quality juvenile or a

transitional habitats during migrations betw

ocean and estuarine or freshwater aqu

systems. For example, in the Pacific Northw

and Alaska, sea level rise and shifts in tim

and magnitude of snowmelt-derived rive

runoff may be particularly exacerbated 

climate variability and change. Conseque

the recovery plans for threatened or endang

Pacific salmon (e.g., juvenile, “ocean-ty

Chinook [Oncorhynchus tshawytscha] 

summer chum [O. keta] salmon) may nee

account for their extreme sensitivity to clim

induced changes in environmental condition

their estuarine wetland habitats during diffe

life stages of the fish.

7.3.3.7 Wetland Protection Rules 

Requiring Avoidance, Minimization, an

Mitigation for Unavoidable Impacts

Federal jurisdiction of waters of the Un

States began in 1899 with the Rivers and Har

Act of 1899, and wetlands were included in 

definition with the passing of the Clean W

Act of 1977 (CWA). This jurisdiction does 

extend beyond the wetland/upland bound

However, many state environmental laws, 

as those of New York17 and New Jersey, req

permits for alterations in adjacent upland a

in addition to protecting the wetland it

While not originally intended for the purpo

16 Jimerfield, S., M. Waage, and W. Snape, 2

Global Warming Threats and Conservation Ac

in Endangered Species Recovery Plans: a Pre

nary Analysis. Center for Biological Diversity

17 New York State, 1992: Tidal wetlands - land 

regulations. 6 NYCRR Part 661.

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 16 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 16 
to require that dredge or fill activities avoid 

or minimize wetland impacts (Committee on 

Mitigating Wetland Losses, National Research 

Council, 2001). The Corps and EPA developed 

criteria (Section 404(b)(1) guidelines) that 

over the years (latest, 1980) have defined 

mitigation as both minimization of wetland 

impacts and compensation for wetland losses. 

Thus, mitigation has been loosely interpreted 

to include a range of actions from wetland 

restoration and enhancement to creation of 

wetlands where they have never occurred. 

However, a 1990 memorandum of agreement 

between the Corps and EPA established that 

mitigation must be applied sequentially. In 

other words, an applicant must first avoid 

wetland impacts to the extent practicable, then 

minimize unavoidable impacts, and finally—

only after these two options are reasonably 

rejected—compensate for any remaining 

impacts through restoration, enhancement, 

creation, or in exceptional cases, preservation 

(Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses, 

National Research Council, 2001). The Corps 

now grants permits for shoreline development 

that include armoring of the present shoreline, 

which guarantees future loss of wetlands as sea 

level rises, thereby violating the requirement for 

mitigation in the application of this authority 

(Titus, 2000).

7.3.3.8 Compensatory Restoration 

Requirements for Habitat and Natural 

Resource Injuries from Oil Spills or 

Discharges of Pollutants

Federal legislation requires compensatory 

restoration of estuarine habitats and natural 

resources after environmental incidents such 

as spills of oil or other toxicants (e.g., Fonseca, 

18 Codified generally as 33 U.S.C. §1251; 1977.

responsible party(ies) sufficient to achieve 

restoration, and then design and implement 

the restoration. The process of restoration 

typically involves rehabilitation of biogenic 

habitats such as salt marshes, seagrass beds, or 

oyster reefs. The modeling done to insure that 

the restoration will provide ecosystem services 

equal to the injuries may need to be modified 

to reflect impacts of climate change, because 

services from habitat restorations are assumed 

to extend for years and even decades in these 

computations.

7.3.3.9 Federal Legislation Controlling 

Location of Ballast Water Release to 

Limit Introduction of Non-Indigenous 

Marine and Estuarine Species

One of the more troubling implications of 

climate change for estuaries is the probability 

of expanded distributions of non-indigenous 

species with the potential of progressively 

warmer waters in temperate zones. Ballast water 

discharged from ships in harbors after transiting 

from foreign ports (and domestic estuaries 

with extensive species invasions, such as San 

Francisco Bay) is one of the major sources of 

aquatic nuisance species. The primary federal 

legislation regulating ballast water discharge 

of invasive species is the National Invasive 

Species Act of 1996, which required the Coast 

Guard to establish national voluntary ballast 

water management guidelines. Because of a 

lack of compliance under the initial nationwide 

self-policing program that began in 1998, the 

voluntary program became mandatory in 2004. 

All vessels equipped with ballast water tanks 

that enter or operate within U.S. waters must 

now adhere to a national mandatory ballast 

water management program and maintain a 

ballast water management plan. Ballast water 

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 17 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 17 
18

discharge may fall under the scope of the Clean 

Water Act, which adjudication may resolve.

7.3.3.10 Flood Zone Regulations

Tidal flood surge plains will likely be the 

estuarine regions most susceptible to climate 

change forcings, with consequent effects on 

human infrastructure, especially as development 

pressures continue to increase along the 

nation’s coastal zone. Before the more recent 

projections of (higher) sea level rise rates, 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

1991) estimated that existing development 

in the U.S. Coastal Zone would experience a 

36%–58% increase in annual damages for a 

0.3-meter rise in sea level, and a 102%–200% 

percent increase for a 1-meter rise. While state 

and local governments regulate building and 

other human activities in existing flood hazard 

zones, FEMA provides planning assistance 

by designating Special Flood Hazard A

and establishing federal flood insurance r

according to the risk level.

7.3.3.11 Native American Treaty Right

More than 565 federally recognized governm

of American Indian and other indigen

peoples of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Pac

and Caribbean islands carry unique statu

“domestic dependent nations” through trea

Executive Orders, tribal legislation, act

Congress, and decisions of the federal co

(National Assessment Synthesis Team, 20

While climate variability and change are li

to impinge on all of these tribal entities, 

impacts will perhaps be most strongly fel

the large coastal Native reservations, w

are integrally linked to tourism, human he

rights to water and other natural resour

subsistence economies, and cultural resour

While these Native peoples have persi

• system-wide evapotranspiration – (Arora, Chiew, and Grayson, 2000)

• timing of maximum runoff – (Ramus et al., 2003)

• groundwater delivery – (Wolock and McCabe, 1999)

Water column mixing is affected by:

• strength of temperature-driven stratification – (Li, Gargett, and Denman, 2000)

• strength of salinity-driven stratification – (Li, Gargett, and Denman, 2000)

• wind velocity – (Li, Gargett, and Denman, 2000)

Water temperature is affected by:

• air temperature via sensible heat flux – (Lyman, Willis, and Johnson, 2006)

• insolation via radiant heat flux – (Lyman, Willis, and Johnson, 2006)

• temperature of fresh water runoff – (Arora, Chiew, and Grayson, 2000)

• temperature of ocean seawater advected into the estuary – (Lyman, Willis, and Johnson, 2006)

Salinity is affected by:

• exchange with the ocean – (Griffin and LeBlond, 1990) 

• evaporation from estuary or lagoon – (Titus, 1989)

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 18 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 18 
with resource management of shared natural 

resources, Natives’ treaty status may provide 

them with additional responsibility and 

influence. For example, on the basis of the 

“Boldt II decision,” treaty tribes in Washington 

State have treaty-based environmental rights 

that make them legal participants in natural 

resource and environmental decision making, 

including salmon and shellfish habitat protection 

and restoration (Brown, 1993; 1994).

7.3.4 Sensitivity of Management 

Goals to Climate Change 

7.3.4.1 Climate Change and Changing 

Stressors of Estuarine Ecosystems

Many estuarine properties are expected to be 

altered by climate change. Global-scale modeling 

has rarely focused on explicit predictions for 

physics, chemistry, and biology of estuaries. In 

particular, climate change may have significant 

impacts on those factors that are included in the 

definition of an estuary (Box 7.2). For example, 

climate-driven alterations to geomorphology 

will affect every physical, chemical, biological, 

and social function of estuaries. 

The 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) summarizes 

the results of multiple credible models of climate 

change, providing various ranges of estimated 

change by year 2100. Whereas these projections 

carry varying degrees of uncertainty, and in 

some cases fail to include processes of likely 

significance in the modeling due to high 

scientific uncertainty, these projections of rates 

of change over the next century help ground 

our scenario building for consequences of 

Table 7.2. Percentage change in oceanic properties or processes as a result of climate change forcing by 2050. This table 

is adapted from Sarmiento et al. (2004). Physical changes used as inputs to the biological model are the mean of six globa

Atmosphere-Ocean Coupled General Circulation Models (AOCGCMs) from various laboratories around the world. The 

AOCGCMs were all forced by the IPCC IS92a scenario, which has atmospheric CO2 doubling by 2050.

Domain

Percentage Change by 2050 Due to Climate Change Forcing

Mixed layer Upwelling 

volume

Vertical 

stratification

Growing 

season

Chlorophyll 

concentration

Primary 

productivity

Marginal ice zone -41 -10 +17 -14 +11 +18

Subpolar gyre, 

seasonally stratified -22 +1 +11 +6 +10 +14

Subtropical gyre, 

seasonally stratified -12 -6 +13 +2 +5 +5

Subtropical gyre, 

permanently stratified nd* -7 +8 0 +3 -3

Low-latitude and 

equatorial upwelling nd* -6 +11 0 +6 +9

* No data

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 19 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 19 
20

reach levels inferred to have existed in the last 

interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when 

paleoclimate information suggests reductions 

of polar ice extent and a 4–6-meter rise in sea 

level. The IPCC projects growing acidification 

of the ocean, with reductions in pH of between 

0.14 and 0.35 units over the next century. In our 

report, so as to standardize our framework for 

climate change across responses, we discuss 

a short term of two to three decades, and also 

project the consequences of a 1-meter rise in sea 

level. This increase may not occur within the 

next century, but if ice sheet shifts add to the 

present rate of sea level rise, a 1-meter increase 

may occur sooner than the IPCC projects. 

Climate change may also modify existing 

stressors (described in Section 7.2.2) and create 

new ones not discussed above. For example, the 

nutrient, sediment, pathogen, and contaminant 

stressors usually carried downstream with 

(Box 7.3). The most important emerging 

enhanced stressors related to climate cha

have largely negative consequences for 

ecosystem services and management goa

the Nation’s estuaries (Table 7.3). 

Importantly, there are likely to be interact

among existing and novel stressors, betw

those factors that define estuaries and stress

and between stressors and existing managem

strategies. As noted above (Section 7.2

interactions among the multiple stres

related to climate change are likely to p

considerable challenges. Nonetheless, 

important for successful natural resou

management and conservation that manag

researchers, and policy makers consider 

myriad stressors to which natural syst

are exposed. Importantly, interactions am

multiple stressors can change not only 

magnitude of stressor effects, but also 

Table 7.3. Effects of emerging or enhanced stressors on estuaries arising from climate change.

Stressor Water Quality Fisheries & 

Wildlife Habitat Human Value & Welfare

Water 

Quantit

Sea Level Rise (shoreline 

armoring prevents 

transgression of habitats)

positive then 

negative

positive then 

negative

positive then 

negative negative negativ

Increased Intensive Storms 

(shoreline erosion; pulsed 

floods and runoff)

negative negative negative negative

Temperature Increases (new 

species mix; disease and 

parasitism increase, phenology 

mismatch)

positive then 

negative

positive then 

negative

positive then 

negative

positive then 

negative

Increased CO2 and 

Acidification (CaCO3 

deposition inhibited)

negative negative negative negative

Precipitation Change 

(stratification changes) negative positive or negative

positive or 

negative

positive or 

negative

positive 

negativ

Species Introduction 

(facilitated by disturbance) unpredictable positive or 

negative

positive or 

negative

positive or 

negative

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 20 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 20 
patterns of variability and predictability on 

which management strategies rely (Breitburg

et al., 1998; Breitburg et al., 1999; Vinebrooke

et al., 2004; Worm et al., 2006). Enhancing 

ecosystem resilience by establishing better 

controls on current stressors would limit the 

strength of interactions with climate change.

7.3.4.2 Impacts to and Responses of the 

Ecosystem

7.3.4.2.1 Temperature Effects on Species 

Distributions

Because species distributions are determined 

in part by physiological tolerances of climatic 

extremes, ecologists expect that species will 

respond to climate warming by shifting 

distributions towards the poles—so long as 

dispersal and resources allow such shifts 

(Walther et al., 2002). In fact, a wide array 

of species is already responding to climate 

warming worldwide (Walther et al., 2002; 

Parmesan and Yohe, 2003; Root et al., 2003; 

Parmesan and Galbraith, 2004; Parmesan, 

2006). Global meta-analyses of 99 species of 

birds, butterflies, and alpine herbs demonstrate 

that terrestrial species are migrating poleward 

at a rate of 6.1 km per decade (Parmesan and 

Yohe, 2003). Moreover, 81% of 920 species 

from a variety of habitats showed distributional 

changes consistent with recent climate warming 

(Parmesan and Yohe, 2003). In marine systems, 

warm water species of zooplankton, intertidal 

invertebrates, and fish have migrated into 

areas previously too “cool” to support growth 

(Barry et al., 1995; Southward, Hawkins, and 

Burrows, 1995; Walther et al., 2002; Southward

et al., 2004). Some copepod species have 

shifted hundreds to 1,000 kilometers northward 

(Beaugrand et al., 2002), and the range of the 

oyster parasite Perkinsus marinus expands 

in warm years and contracts in response to 

cold winters (Mydlarz, Jones, and Harvell, 

2006). Its range expanded 500 kilometers 

from Chesapeake Bay to Maine during one 

year—1991—in response to above-average 

winter temperatures (Ford, 1996) .

g yp

• Increased desiccation lethality to intertidal organisms

• Increased roles of disease and parasitism

• All of the above open niches for invasive species 

Timing of seasonal temperature changes, acting through phenology, disrupts: 

• Predator and prey availability

• Food and reproductive pulses

• Runoff cycle and upstream migration 

• Temperature-driven behavior from photoperiod-driven behavior 

• Biological ocean-estuary exchanges (especially of larvae and juveniles) 

CO2 increases drive acidification (lowered pH), forcing:

• Reduced carbonate deposition in marine taxa

• Greatly increased coral reef dieoff

• Reduced photosynthetic rates

• Increased trace metal toxicity 

• Evaporation from estuary or lagoon – (Titus, 1989)

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 21 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 21 
22

predators, prey, and competitors. For example, 

“invading” species may move poleward faster 

than “resident” species retreat, potentially 

creating short-term increases in species richness 

(Walther et al., 2002). Competitive, plantherbivore, predator-prey, and parasite-host 

interactions can be disrupted by shifts in the 

distribution, abundance, or phenology of one 

or more of the interacting species (Walther et 

al., 2002; Parmesan, 2006). Not surprisingly, 

therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, 

to predict how community dynamics and 

ecosystem functioning will change in response 

to species shifts (Walther et al., 2002).

Evidence from studies that have monitored 

changes in marine biota over the last three 

decades has shown that in coastal waters, 

the response of annual temperature cycles to 

climate change is both seasonally and regionally 

asymmetric. Along the mid-Atlantic East Coast, 

maximal summer temperatures are close to 

30°C. When greenhouse gas forcing provides 

more heat to the surface waters in summer, they 

do not get warmer; instead the additional heat 

increases evaporation and is transferred to the 

atmosphere as a latent heat flux. Consequently 

maximum summer temperatures have not 

changed in the mid-Atlantic regions, but 

the minimum winter temperatures are now 

dramatically higher, by as much as 1–6°C 

(Parker Jr. and Dixon, 1998). In the reef fish 

community off North Carolina, the reduction 

over 30 years in winter kill during the coldest 

months made it possible for two new (to the area) 

families and 29 new species of tropical fishes to 

become permanent residents on the reef (Parker 

Jr. and Dixon, 1998). In addition, the 28 species 

of tropical reef fishes that have been present on 

the site for the entire three decades increased 

in abundance. An increase in fish-cleaning 

On the West Coast, changes in the spe

composition of a rocky intertidal commu

showed that between the 1930s and 1990s m

species’ ranges shifted poleward (Barry e

1995). The abundance of eight of nine south

species increased and the abundance of fiv

eight northern species decreased. Annual m

ocean temperatures at the central Califo

coastal site increased by 0.75°C during the 

60 years, but more importantly the mon

mean maximum temperatures during 

warmest month of year were 2.2°C warm

On the West Coast, summer conditions 

relatively cool and foggy due to strong coa

upwelling that produces water temperat

from 15–20°C. For intertidal organisms ada

to these relatively cool summer temperatu

a 2°C increase in monthly mean tempera

during the warmest month of the year 

enough to decrease survival of northern spe

and increase the survival of southern spe

It is clear that climate change has alre

altered the species composition and abunda

of marine fauna, but is equally clear that 

physical and biological response of organi

to warming in marine waters is extrem

complex. 

These effects of temperature on spe

distributions have influenced and will cont

to influence fish and wildlife populations, 

will modify habitat provided by organisms 

as mangroves, requiring many site-spec

adaptive modifications in management. 

7.3.4.2.2 Temperature Effects on Risks of 

Disease and Parasitism

Not only will species’ distributions change

scientists expect that higher temperatures 

likely to lead to increased risks of parasi

and disease, due to changes in paras

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 22 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 22 
alter host susceptibility (Harvell et al., 2002) by 

compromising physiological functioning and 

host immunity (Mydlarz, Jones, and Harvell, 

2006). Animals engaged in partnerships with 

obligate algal symbionts, such as anemones, 

sponges, and corals, are at particular risk for 

problems if temperatures alter the relationship 

between partners (Mydlarz, Jones, and Harvell, 

2006).

Reports of marine diseases in corals, turtles, 

mollusks, marine mammals, and echinoderms 

have increased sharply over the past three 

decades, especially in the Caribbean (Harvell

et al., 2002; Ward and Lafferty, 2004). For 

example, temperature-dependent growth of 

opportunistic microbes has been documented 

in corals (Ritchie, 2006). Poulin and Mouritsen 

(2006) documented a striking increase in 

cercarial production by trematodes in response 

to increased temperature, with potentially large 

effects on the intertidal community (Poulin and 

Mouritsen, 2006). Geographic range expansion 

of pathogens with broad host ranges is of 

particular concern because of the potential to 

affect a broad array of host species (Dobson 

and Foufopoulos, 2001; Lafferty and Gerber, 

2002).

Importantly, however, we cannot predict 

the effects of climate change on disease 

and parasitism based solely on temperature 

(Lafferty, Porter, and Ford, 2004). Temperature 

is likely to interact with a variety of other 

stressors to affect parasitism and disease rates 

(Lafferty, Porter, and Ford, 2004), including 

excess nutrients (Harvell et al., 2004), chemical 

pollutants such as metals and organochlorines 

(Harvell et al., 2004; Mydlarz, Jones, and 

Harvell, 2006), and hypoxia (Mydlarz, Jones, 

and Harvell, 2006). For example, the 2002 

die-off of corals and sponges in Florida Bay 

Such changes in risk of parasitism and disease 

will influence populations of fish and wildlife, 

and can affect habitat that is provided by 

organisms like corals, thereby affecting 

management.

7.3.4.2.3 Effects of Shoreline Stabilization on 

Estuaries and Their Services

Estuarine shorelines along much of the U.S. 

coast have been affected by human activities. 

These activities have exacerbated both waterand land-based stressors on the estuarine 

land-water interface. Real and perceived 

threats from global sea level rise, increased 

intensity of tropical storms, waves from boat 

wakes, and changes in delivery of and erosion 

by stream flows have contributed to greater 

numbers of actions taken to stabilize estuarine 

shorelines using a variety of techniques. 

Shoreline stabilization can affect the physical 

(bathymetry, wave environment, light regime, 

sediment dynamics) and ecological (habitat, 

primary production, food web support, filtration 

capacity) attributes of the land-water interface 

in estuaries. Collectively, these physical and 

ecological attributes determine the degree to 

which ecosystem services are delivered by 

these systems (Levin et al., 2001). Shoreline 

stabilization on the estuarine shoreline has only 

recently begun to receive significant attention 

(Committee on Mitigating Shore Erosion along 

Sheltered Coasts, National Research Council, 

2006).

Surprisingly little is known about the effects 

of estuarine shoreline stabilization structures 

on adjacent habitats (Committee on Mitigating 

Shore Erosion along Sheltered Coasts, 

National Research Council, 2006). Marsh 

communities at similar elevations with and 

without bulkheads behind them were found 

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 23 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 23 
24

to be indistinguishable in a study in Great 

Bay Estuary in New Hampshire (Bozek and 

Burdick, 2005). However, this study also 

reported that bulkheads eliminated the up-slope 

vegetative transition zone. This loss is relevant 

for both current function of the marsh and also 

future ability of the marsh to respond to rising 

sea level. In several systems within Chesapeake 

Bay, Seitz and colleagues (2006) identified 

a link between the hardening of estuarine 

shorelines with bulkheads or rip-rap and the 

presence of infaunal prey and predators. This 

study illustrated the indirect effects that can 

result from shoreline stabilization, and found 

them to be on par with some of the obvious 

direct effects. Loss of ecological function in 

the estuarine land-water margin as a result of 

shoreline stabilization is a critical concern. 

However, the complete loss of the structured 

habitats (SAV, salt marsh) seaward of shoreline 

stabilization structures as sea level rises is a 

more dire threat. In addition, the intertidal sand 

and mud flats, which provide important foraging 

grounds for shorebirds and nektonic fishes and 

crustaceans, will be readily eliminated as sea 

level rises and bulkheads and other engineered 

shoreline stabilization structures prevent the 

landward migration of the shoreline habitats. 

Absent the ability to migrate landward, even 

habitats such as marshes, which can induce 

accretion by organic production and sediment 

trapping, appear to have reduced opportunity to 

sustain themselves as water level rises (Titus, 

1998).

y 

to soil compaction, other geologic (subside

processes, and anthropogenic extractio

fluids such as groundwater and oil. Howe

marsh surfaces (marsh plain) also build vertic

due to the combined effect of surface sedim

deposition and subsurface accumulatio

live and dead plant roots and decaying p

roots and rhizomes. Both of these proce

are controlled by tidal-fluvial hydrology 

controls delivery of sediments, nutrients, 

organic matter to the marsh, as well as 

oxygen content of the soil. Local landsc

setting (wave energy) and disturbance reg

(storm frequency and intensity) are also fac

over the long term. Thus, the relative sea l

(the simultaneous effect of eustatic sea level 

and local marsh subsidence) can be relati

stable under a moderate rate of sea level 

because marsh elevation increases at the s

rate as the sea level is rising (e.g., Reed, 1

Callaway, Nyman, and DeLaune, 1996; Mo

et al., 2002). Whether a marsh can main

this equilibrium with mean sea level 

sustain characteristic vegetation and associ

attributes and functions is uncertain. It 

depend on the interaction of complex fac

including sediment pore space, mineral m

deposition, initial elevation, rate of sea l

rise, delivery rates of sediments in stream 

tidal flows, and the production rate of be

ground organic matter (U.S. Climate Cha

Science Program, in press).

Thus, changes in sediment and nutrient deli

and eustatic sea level rise are likely to be 

key factors affecting geomorphic resilienc

coastal wetlands. Sediment delivery may be 

critical factor: estuaries and coastal zones 

currently have high rates of sediment load

such as those on the southeast and northw

coasts, may be able to persist up to thresh

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 24 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 24 
incorporating sediment transport. SAP 4.1 

elucidates potential impacts by providing maps 

depicting the wetland losses in the mid-Atlantic 

states that are anticipated under various rates 

of sea level rise (U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program, in press). Such changes in sediment 

and nutrient delivery to the estuary will threaten 

the geomorphologic resilience of salt marsh 

habitat, thereby altering water quality and fish 

and wildlife production; these changes imply 

the need for management adaptation.

7.3.4.2.5 Effects of Sea Level Rise and Storm 

Disturbance on Coastal Barrier Deconstruction

Two important consequences of climate change 

are accelerated sea level rise and increased 

frequency of high-intensity storms. Sea level 

rise and intense storms work alone and in 

combination to alter the hydrogeomorphology 

of coastal ecosystems and their resultant 

services. Furthermore, the extent to which 

they act on ecosystems is dependent on human 

alterations to these ecosystems. Perhaps the 

best known example of the current interaction 

of sea level rise, storm intensity, and human 

activity is the coast of the Gulf of Mexico 

around the Mississippi River. Relative sea level 

rise of the Louisiana coast is one of the highest 

in the world, in large part as a result of human 

activities, and this has caused significant losses 

of wetlands (Boesch et al., 1994; González and 

Törnqvist, 2006; Day, Jr. et al., 2007). The 

consequences of intense storms (e.g., Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita) on coastal ecosystems of 

the Gulf of Mexico, human-dominated and 

natural, are now legend (Kates et al., 2006). 

New Orleans and other cities were devastated 

by these storms. Wetland loss was dramatic, 

with sharp alterations to community structure 

Although the impacts of the hurricanes of 

2005 and the influence of relative sea level 

rise on their impacts were the most costly 

to the United States, they are not the only 

examples of how storms and sea level rise 

influence hydrogeomorphology. Sea level rise 

and erosion, fostered by storms, have caused 

estuarine islands to disappear and led to 

significant changes in shorelines (Hayden et 

al., 1995; Riggs and Ames, 2003). Barrier island 

shape and position are dynamic, dependent 

on these two processes. These processes are 

natural and have occurred throughout the 

Holocene; what is relatively new are the ways in 

which human values are in conflict with these 

processes and how humans either promote or 

inhibit them.

Wetlands can maintain themselves in the face 

of sea level rise by accretion. This accretion is 

supported by both sedimentation and organic 

matter accumulation (Chmura et al., 2003). 

The ability to accrete makes it difficult to 

assess the true consequences of sea level rise 

on landscape pattern and resultant area of 

wetlands, especially over large areas (Titus and 

Richman, 2001). We do not know exactly the 

potential accretion and subsidence rates of most 

wetlands and the thresholds at which relative sea 

level rise exceeds net elevation change, causing 

increased inundation and ultimately wetland 

loss. Based on the experiences of Louisiana, 

we can estimate that the maximum accretion 

rate may be less than 10 mm per year, but 

applicability to other systems is undetermined. 

Two things are clear: First, the limits depend 

on the source of material for accretion (i.e.,

sediment or organic matter) and hence the rates 

19 U.S. Geological Survey, 2007: Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita. USGS, http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/hurricane/katrina.htm, accessed on 3-23-2007.

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 25 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 25 
26

regime (Brinson, Christian, and Blum, 1995; 

Hayden et al., 1995; Christian et al., 2000). 

For example in the mid-Atlantic states, coastal 

upland, which is rarely flooded, would be 

replaced by high salt marsh as sea level rises. 

High marsh is replaced by low marsh, and low 

marsh is replaced by intertidal flats. While sea 

level rise alone may effect these changes in 

state, they are promoted by disturbances that 

either kill vegetation (e.g., salt intrusion from 

storms killing trees) or change elevation and 

hence hydroperiod (e.g., erosion of sediment). 

It is unclear how accelerated sea level rise and 

frequency of severe storms will alter the balance 

of this sequence.

Normally one considers that disturbances would 

be local, such as salt water intrusion or wrack 

deposition. But these state changes can actually 

result from regional impacts of disturbance. For 

example, Juncus roemerianus is a rush species 

commonly found in high marshes along the 

mid-Atlantic, southern Atlantic, and Gulf of 

Mexico coasts of the United States. It is less 

common where astronomical tidal signals are 

strong (Woerner and Hackney, 1997; Brinson 

and Christian, 1999), and it is replaced by 

Spartina alterniflora or perhaps other species. 

Any disturbance that increases the strength of 

astronomical tides promotes this shift. Such a 

disturbance could be the breaching of barrier 

islands in which increased flow through new 

inlets may foster more dominant astronomical 

tides and the ecosystem state change. The 

projected disintegration of barrier islands as a 

consequence of intense storm damage acting 

from a higher base sea level has catastrophic 

implications (Riggs and Ames, 2003). Coastal 

barriers function to protect mainland shorelines 

from tidal energy, storm surge, and wave 

forces, such that loss of the protections implies 

catastrophic inundation, erosion, and loss of 

temperatures, the limits of climate-adap

habitats are expected to shift latitudin

Temperate herbaceous species that domi

tidal wetlands throughout many southern 

estuaries may be replaced by more trop

species such as mangroves (Harris and Cro

Jr., 1992). Salt marshes and mangroves 

not interchangeable, despite the fact 

both provide structure to support produc

ecosystems and perform many of the s

ecosystem functions. Mangroves store u

80% of their biomass in woody tissue, whe

salt marshes lose 100% of their abovegro

biomass through litterfall each year (Mitsch 

Gosselink, 2000). Production of litter facilit

detrital foodwebs and supports many ecolog

processes in wetlands, so this distinction 

implications for materials cycling suc

carbon sequestration (Chmura et al., 20

There are significant differences in struct

complexity and biological diversity betw

these wetland systems. These differen

will affect the capacity of the wetland

assimilate upland runoff, maintain t

vertical position, and provide flood con

Temperature-driven species redistribution 

be further complicated as sea level incre

and vegetation is forced landward.

Since pre-industrial times, the atmosph

concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) has r

by 35% to 379 ppm in 2005 (IPCC, 2007)

cores have proven that this concentratio

significantly greater than the natural ra

over the last 650,000 years (180–300 ppm

addition, the annual average growth rate in 

concentrations over the last 10 years is la

than the average growth rate since the begin

of continuous direct atmospheric measurem

an average of 1.9 ppm per year from 1995–2

compared with an average of 1.4 ppm per 

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 26 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 26 
that C3 species increase photosynthesis with 

higher CO2 levels, while C4 species generally 

do not (Drake et al., 1995). In wetland systems 

dominated by C3 plants (e.g., mangroves, many 

tidal fresh marshes), elevated CO2 will increase 

photosynthetic potential and may increase the 

related delivery of ecosystems services from 

these systems (Drake et al., 2005). Ongoing 

research is examining the potential for shifts 

in wetland community composition driven by 

elevated CO2. Data from one of these efforts 

indicate that despite the advantage afforded to 

C3 species at higher CO2 levels, CO2 increases 

alone are unlikely to cause black mangrove 

to replace cordgrass in Louisiana marshes.20

However, many important estuarine ecosystem 

effects from elevated CO2 levels have been 

documented, including increases in fluxes 

of CO2 and methane (Marsh et al., 2005), 

augmented nitrogen fixation by associated 

microbial communities (Dakora and Drake, 

2000), increased methanogenesis (Dacey, 

Drake, and Klug, 1994) and changes in the 

quantity and composition of root material 

(Curtis et al., 1990).

The joint effects of rising temperature and 

increased CO2 concentrations will influence 

composition and production of shoreline 

plants that are critical habitat providers and 

contributors to detrital food chains, thereby 

also affecting fish and wildlife production and 

provision of human values, and inducing need 

for management adaptations.

20 U.S. Geological Survey, 2006: Potential effects 

of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) on 

coastal wetlands. USGS, http://www.nwrc.usgs.

gov/factshts/2006-3074/2006-3074.htm, accessed 

on 4-1-2006.

and Wickett, 2003). The resulting decrease 

in pH will affect all calcifying organisms 

because as pH decreases, the concentration 

of carbonate decreases, and when carbonate 

becomes under-saturated, structures made of 

calcium carbonate begin to dissolve. However, 

dissolution of existing biological calcium 

carbonate structures is only one aspect of the 

threat of acidification; another threat is that as 

pH falls and carbonate becomes undersaturated 

it requires more and more metabolic energy 

for an organism to deposit calcium carbonate. 

The present lowered pH is estimated to have 

reduced the growth of reef-building by about 

20% (Raven, 2005). While corals get the 

most attention regarding acidification, a wide 

spectrum of ocean and estuarine organisms are 

affected, including coraline algae; echinoderms 

such as sea urchins, sand dollars, and starfish; 

as well as coccolithophores, foraminifera, 

crustaceans, and molluscan taxa with shells, of 

which pteropods are particularly important (Orr 

et al., 2005). The full ecological consequences 

of the reduction in calcification by marine 

calcifiers are uncertain, but it is likely that 

the biological integrity of ocean and estuarine 

ecosystems will be seriously affected (Kleypas 

et al., 2006).

Effects of climate change on estuarine 

acidification will influence water quality, 

provision of some biogenic habitat like coral 

reefs, fish and wildlife production, and human 

values, thus implying need for management 

adaptation.

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 27 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 27 
28

among models that increases in frequen

of extreme rainfall will occur (Scavia et 

2002), suggesting that there will be chan

in potential freshwater inflow amounts 

patterns (hydrographs). These inflows will 

be subjected to human modifications that d

across estuaries. For example, where d

are used in flood regulation, there is redu

variability within and among seasons, damp

for example, normally peak flows at snow

in temperate regions (Poff et al., 1997; A

2002). In some watersheds, increased re

of wastewater in agriculture, municipali

and industry may offset changes in suppl

reducing demand for “clean” freshwater. 

T he potent ial physical a nd chem 

consequences of altered freshwater fl

to estuaries include changes in salinity 

stratification regimes, loadings of nutri

Table 7.4. Factors that control the occurren

of estuarine hypoxia and the climate changerelated impacts that are likely to affect them.

Factor Climate-Related Forc

Water temperature ∆ T

River discharge ∆ precipitation

N&P loading ∆ T, ∆ precipitatio

Stratification ∆ T, ∆ precipitatio

∆ RSL*

Wind ∆ weather pattern

∆ tropical storms

Organic carbon 

source

∆ T, ∆ precipitatio

∆ RSL*

*RSL = relative sea level

bottom water hypoxia (e.g., DO concentration 

< 2.0 mg per L) results from interactions among 

meteorology and climate, the amounts and 

temporal patterns of riverine inflows, estuarine 

circulation, and biogeochemical cycling of 

allochthonous and autochthonous organic 

matter (Kemp et al., 1992; Boicourt, 1992; 

Buzzelli et al., 2002; Conley et al., 2002). Over 

time, the repeated bottom water hypoxia can 

alter biogeochemical cycling, trophic transfers, 

and estuarine production at higher trophic 

levels (Baird et al., 2004). Ecological and 

economic consequences of fish kills, bottom 

habitat degradation, and reduced production 

at the highest trophic levels in response to 

low DO have provided significant motivation 

to understand and manage hypoxia (Tenore, 

1970; Officer et al., 1984; Turner, Schroeder, 

and Wiseman, 1987; Diaz and Rosenberg, 1995; 

Hagy et al., 2004).

Various scenarios predict that climate change 

will influence the vulnerability of estuaries 

to hypoxia through changes in stratification 

caused by alterations in freshwater runoff, 

changes in water temperature, increases in sea 

level, and altered exchanges with the coastal 

ocean (Peterson et al., 1995; Scavia et al., 2002). 

Additionally, warmer temperatures should 

increase metabolism by the water-column 

and benthic microbial communities, whose 

activity drives the depletion of DO. Many of 

the factors that have been found to contribute to 

the formation of hypoxia (Borsuk et al., 2001; 

Buzzelli et al., 2002) will be affected by one 

or more predicted changes in climate (Table 

7.4). Because hypoxia affects valued resources, 

such as fish and wildlife production, reductions 

in hypoxia are a management target for many 

estuaries, and adaptations will be required as a 

consequence of climate change.

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 28 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 28 
stratification. For individual estuaries there is 

the potential for increased freshwater inflow to 

shift the degree of mixing along the gradient 

from the fully mixed toward the stratified state. 

Those estuaries that receive increased supplies 

of organic matter and nutrients and exhibit 

enhanced stratification may be particularly 

susceptible to enhanced hypoxia and the 

negative effects described in the previous 

section. However, at some level, increased 

freshwater delivery will reduce residence time 

and thus reduce the potential for hypoxia. This 

threshold will be specific to individual estuaries 

and difficult to predict in a generic sense.

In some estuaries, climate change may also 

lead to a reduction in freshwater inflow, which 

will generally increase salinity. This could 

lead to more salt-water intrusion upstream, 

negatively affecting species intolerant of 

marine conditions (Copeland, 1966; Alber, 

2002) and/or lengthening the estuary by 

extending the distance along the freshwaterto-full-seawater gradient (Alber, 2002). Water 

residence times within the estuary will likely 

increase with reduced freshwater inflow, 

potentially creating a more stable system in 

which phytoplankton can grow and reproduce 

(Cloern et al., 1983; Howarth et al., 2000). 

Thus, one might expect a greater response to 

nutrients—i.e., greater primary productivity 

and/or larger phytoplankton populations 

(Mallin et al., 1993)—than under baseline rates 

of freshwater discharge. This may be especially 

true for estuaries that are currently somewhat 

“protected” from eutrophication symptoms 

by high freshwater flow, such as the Hudson 

River (Howarth et al., 2000). However, reduced 

flushing times will also keep water in the 

estuary longer, potentially increasing the risks 

posed by pollutants and pathogens (Alber and 

Sheldon, 1999; Sheldon and Alber, 2002). 

Changes in freshwater delivery to the estuary 

will affect freshwater quantity, water quality, 

stratification, bottom habitats, fish and wildlife 

production, and human values, inducing needs 

for management adaptation.

7.3.4.2.10 Phenology Modifications and Match/

Mismatch

Estuaries are characterized by high temporal 

variability, on multiple time scales, and spatial 

variability, which includes sharp environmental 

gradients with distance upstream and vertically 

in the water column (Remane and Schlieper, 

1971). One mode of adaptation that many 

free-living estuarine species use to exploit the 

many resources of estuaries is to move in and 

out of the estuary, as well as upstream and 

downstream within the estuary, on a complex 

temporal schedule. A study in North Carolina 

found that the most abundant fish species in 

small tributaries of the upper estuary differed 

in 10 of the 12 months of the year (Kuenzler et 

al., 1977). Ten different species were dominant 

during the 12 months of the year. To accomplish 

such movements, many estuarine species have 

evolved behavior that uses various sensory 

cues to control the timing of their activities 

(Sims et al., 2004). The timing of behavior 

cued by environment information is referred 

to as “phenology” (Mullins and Marks, 1987; 

Costello, Sullivan, and Gifford, 2006). The 

best understood type of phenology that occurs 

in estuaries involves matching critical feeding 

stages with the timing of primary productivity 

blooms (Scavia et al., 2002). As many estuarine 

stressors are altered by climate change, we can 

expect that phenology will be one of the first 

biological processes to be seriously disrupted.

Changing phenology has large implications for 

fish and wildlife production because trophic 

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 29 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 29 
30

(, ; , ) y g

a broad suite of environmental conditions in 

coastal wetlands upon which salmon depend 

at several periods in their life histories. The 

University of Washington’s Climate Impacts 

Group (UW-CIG) has summarized current 

climate change in the Pacific Northwest to 

include region-wide warming of ~0.8oC in 

100 years, increased precipitation, a decline in 

snowpack, especially at lower elevations, and 

an earlier spring.21 The UW-CIG predictions 

for future climate change in the region include 

an increase in average temperatures on the 

order of 0.1–0.6oC (best estimate = 0.3oC) per 

decade throughout the coming century, with 

the warming occurring during all seasons 

but with the largest increases in the summer. 

Precipitation is also likely to increase in winter 

and decrease in summer, but with no net change 

in annual mean precipitation. As a consequence, 

the mountain snowpack will diminish and rivers 

that derive some of their flow from snowmelt 

will likely demonstrate reduced summer flow, 

increased winter flow, and earlier peak flow. 

Lower-elevation rivers that are fed mostly by 

rain may also experience increased wintertime 

flow due to increases in winter precipitation. 

Summer river flows in the Pacific Northwest 

are projected to decline by as much as 30% and 

droughts would become more common (Leung 

and Qian, 2003), implying significant changes 

in estuarine salinity distribution that has not 

yet been examined in any detail. Chapter 6, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, provides an expanded 

discussion of these and other climate change 

effects on rivers in the United States.

21 Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, 

2007: Climate Change. University of Washington, 

http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/cc.shtml,

accessed on 3-23-2007.

water and hydrocarbons, and rapid tect

events such as earthquakes and vulcanism

Because different anadromous species occ

estuarine wetlands according to their diver

life history strategies, impacts of these clim

changes vary among and within species

the case of Pacific salmon, the “ocean-ty

species and life history types would be the m

vulnerable because they occupy transiti

estuarine waters significantly longer t

“stream-type” salmon. For instance, juve

Chinook and chum salmon representing 

“ocean-type” life history strategy may occ

estuarine wetlands for more than 90 d

(Simenstad, Fresh, and Salo, 1982), seekin

refugia from predation at their small size

time to achieve physiological adaptation f

freshwater to marine salinities, and (3) h

densities of appropriate prey organisms. B

on our knowledge of the habitat requirem

and landscape transitions of migrating juve

ocean-type salmon (Simenstad et al., 20

Parson et al., 2001; Mote et al., 2003), 

present spatial coincidence of necess

physical habitats, such as marsh platforms 

tidal creeks, will change with the appropr

salinity regime as sea water penetrates fur

up the estuary. This would have potenti

large impacts on the ocean-type salm

performance. 

In the Pacific Northwest, shifts from snow

runoff to more winter storm precipita

will potentially disrupt the migration tim

and residence of juvenile salmon in estua

wetlands. For example, juvenile Chin

salmon in many watersheds migrat

estuaries coincident with the spring fre

of snowmelt, and occupy the exten

brackish marshes available to them du

that period. This opportunity often dimini

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 30 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 30 
The sustainability of estuarine wetlands under 

recent sea level rise scenarios is also of concern 

if estuarine habitat utilization by anadromous 

fish is density-dependent. Estuaries that are 

positioned in a physiographic setting allowing 

transgressive inundation, such as much of the 

coastal plain of the southeastern and Gulf 

of Mexico coasts, have a buffer that will 

potentially allow more inland development of 

estuarine wetlands. Other coasts, such as those 

of New England and the Pacific Northwest, have 

more limited opportunities for transgressive 

development of estuarine wetlands, and many 

estuaries are already confined by upland 

agricultural or urban development that would 

prevent further inland flooding (Brinson, 

Christian, and Blum, 1995). For one example, 

Hood22 found that a 45-cm sea level rise over 

the next century would result in a 12% loss, 

and an 80-cm rise would eliminate 22%, of 

the tidal marshes in the Skagit River delta 

(Puget Sound, Washington), which could be 

translated to an estimated reduction in estuarine 

rearing capacity for juvenile Chinook salmon 

of 211,000–530,000 fish, respectively. These 

estimates are based entirely on the direct 

inundation effects on vegetation and do not 

incorporate the potential response of existing 

marshes to compensate for the increased rate 

of sea level rise, which can include increased 

sediment accretion and maintenance of marsh 

plain elevation or increased marsh progradation 

due to higher sediment loads from the river 

(see section 7.2.4.2.15 below). Nor do these 

estimates take into account increased marsh 

erosion from greater winter storm activity or 

changes in salinity distribution due to declining 

summer river flows. Court cases have already 

22 Hood, W.G., Unpublished: Possible sea-level rise 

impacts on the Skagit River tidal marshes. Skagit 

River System Cooperative.

overturned general permits for shoreline 

armoring where salmon (an endangered species 

under ESA) would be harmed. With projected 

rises in sea level, the needs of salmon may come 

even more often into conflict with management 

policies that generally permit bulkheads and 

other shoreline armoring to protect private 

property.

Salmon represent such an iconic fish of great 

importance to fisheries, wildlife, subsistence 

uses, and human culture that climate-related 

impacts on salmon populations would require 

management adaptation.

7.3.4.2.12 Effects of Climate Change on 

Estuarine State Changes

The many direct and indirect inf luences 

of climate change may combine to cause 

fundamental shifts in ecosystem structure 

and functioning. Some shifts, such as those 

associated with transgression of wetlands, can 

be considered part of the normal responses to 

sea-level rise (Brinson, Christian, and Blum, 

1995; Christian et al., 2000). Of particular 

concern is the potential for ecosystems to 

cross a threshold beyond which there is a 

rapid transition into a fundamentally different 

state that is not part of a natural progression. 

Ecosystems typically do not respond to gradual 

change in key forcing variables in a smooth, 

linear fashion. Instead, there are abrupt, 

discontinuous, non-linear shifts to a new state 

(or “regime”) when a threshold is crossed 

(Scheffer et al., 2001; Scheffer and Carpenter, 

2003; Burkett et al., 2005). Particularly relevant 

here is the hypothesis that gradual changes in 

“slow” variables that operate over long time 

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 31 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 31 
32

drive the system into an alternative state.

Regime shifts can sometimes be catastrophic 

and surprising (Holling, 1972; Scheffer and 

Carpenter, 2003; Foley et al., 2005), and 

reversals of these changes may be difficult, 

expensive, or even impossible (Carpenter, 

Ludwig, and Brock, 1999). Moreover, the social 

and economic effects of discontinuous changes 

in ecosystem state can be devastating when 

accompanied by the interruption or cessation 

of essential ecosystem services (Scheffer et 

al., 2001; e.g., Foley et al., 2005). Recognizing 

and understanding the drivers of regime change 

and the inherent nonlinearities of biological 

responses to such change is a fundamental 

challenge to effective ecosystem management 

in the face of global climate change (Burkett et 

al., 2005; Groffman et al., 2006).

All the potential regime shifts described below 

have large implications for sustaining biogenic 

habitat, provision of fish and wildlife, and 

many human values, thereby implying need for 

management adaptation.

7.3.4.2.13 Climate Change Effects on 

Suspension-Feeding Grazers and Algal Blooms

The Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is a 

historically dominant species in estuaries along 

the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts of the 

United States. At high abundances, oysters play 

major roles in the filtration of particles from the 

water column, biodeposition of materials to the 

benthos, nutrient cycling, and the creation of 

hard substrate habitat in otherwise soft-bottom 

systems (Kennedy, 1996; Coen, Luckenbach, 

and Breitburg, 1999; Newell and Ott, 1999; 

Newell, Cornwell, and Owens, 2002). Dominant 

consumers (e.g., the schyphomedusan sea nettle, 

Chrysaora quinquecirrha) are dependent on 

oysters for habitat for sessile stages, and large 

have declined sharply during the past cent

with a precipitous decline in some syst

during the past two to three decades. 

primary stressors causing the recent dec

are likely overfishing and two pathog

Haplosporidium nelsoni—the non-na

protist that causes MSX—and Perkin

marinus, a protistan that causes Dermo an

native to the United States but has underg

a recent range expansion and possible incr

in virulence (Rothschild et al., 1994; Nati

Research Council, 2004). Both overfish

and disease cause responses in the relati

slow-responding (i.e., years to decades) a

oysters and oyster reefs, making recover

the oyster-dominant regime quite diffic

High sediment loading (Cooper and Br

1993), eutrophication (Boynton et al., 19

and blooms of ctenophores (Purcell et al., 1

may further contribute to oyster declin

prevent recovery to the high-oyster state. T

factors—all of which are likely to incr

with changes in climate—appear to act m

strongly on the larval and newly settled juve

stages, raising the possibility that this sys

will at best exhibit hysteretic recovery to 

high-oyster state.

7.3.4.2.14 N-Driven Shift from Vascular Plant

Planktonic Micro- and Benthic 

Macroalgae

Seagrasses are believed to be in the m

of a global crisis in which human activ

are leading to large scale losses (Orth et 

2006). Human and natural impacts have 

demonstrable detrimental effects on S

(Short and Wyllie-Echeverria, 1996). Enhan

loading of nutrients to coastal waters has b

found to alter primary producer communi

through shifts toward species with fa

growth-nutrient uptake rates (Duarte, 19

The shift is often toward phytoplankton, w

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 32 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 32 
et al., 2001). It is essential to understand 

the potential for thresholds in water quality 

parameters that may lead to loss of SAV 

through a state change. SAV is sensitive to 

environmental change, and thus may serve as 

a “coastal canary,” providing an early warning 

of deteriorating conditions (Orth et al., 2006). 

SAV also provides significant ecological 

services (Williams and Heck Jr., 2001) and its 

loss would have appreciable effects on overall 

estuarine function.

7.3.4.2.15 Non-linear Marsh Accretion with Sea 

Level Rise

Coastal inundation is projected to lead to land 

loss and expansion of the sub-tidal regions 

along estuarine shorelines (Riggs, 2002). 

Intertidal habitats that do not accrete or migrate 

landward proportionally to relative sea level 

rise are susceptible to inundation. Wetlands are 

often present in these areas, and have shown 

the ability to keep up with increases in sea 

level in some systems (Morris et al., 2002). 

However, the ability to maintain their vertical 

position is uncertain, and depends on a suite of 

factors (Moorhead and Brinson, 1995). Recent 

work in the Venice Lagoon found a bimodal 

distribution of marsh (higher elevation) and flat 

(lower elevation) intertidal habitats, with few 

habitats at intermediate intertidal elevations 

(Fagherazzi et al., 2006). The findings indicate 

that there may be an abrupt transition from one 

habitat type to another. Should this model hold 

true for a broad range of coastal systems, there 

are clearly significant implications for coastal 

geomorphology and the ecological services 

provided by the different habitat types.

under conditions of present and future climate 

change? In the short term of a few decades, 

the capability of estuarine organisms to 

migrate farther toward the poles in response to 

warming temperatures and farther up the shore 

in response to rising water levels has potential 

to maintain estuarine ecosystem processes 

and functioning that do not differ greatly from 

today’s conditions. However, over longer time 

frames, depending on the realized magnitude 

of climate changes, estuarine ecosystems may 

not be able to adapt biologically and thereby 

retain high similarity to present systems. The 

scope and pace of current and anticipated 

future climate change are too great to assume 

that management goals will be sustained by 

intrinsic biological adjustments, without also 

requiring management adaptation (Parmesan 

and Galbraith, 2004; Parmesan, 2006; Pielke

et al., 2007). 

The extremely high natural variability of 

estuarine environments has already selected 

for organisms, communities, and ecosystems 

with high capacity for natural physiological, 

behavioral, and perhaps also evolutionary 

adaptation (Remane and Schlieper, 1971; Wolfe, 

1986). Nevertheless, the current rapid rates of 

change in many variables, such as temperature, 

and the absolute levels of key environmental 

variables, such as CO2 concentration, that 

ultimately may be reached, could fall outside the 

historical evolutionary experience of estuarine 

organisms. The historical experience with 

environmental variability may not help much 

to achieve effective biological adaptation under 

these novel rates of change and conditions. 

While behavioral (e.g., migration, dispersal) 

adaptation of individual species may take 

place to some degree, the dramatic suite of 

projected changes in estuarine environments 

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 33 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 33 
34

and stressors that we summarized earlier poses 

complex challenges to individual species, 

including those of estuaries, on a timetable that 

is inconsistent with the capacity for evolutionary 

change to keep up (Pielke et al., 2007). Even if 

evolutionary change could proceed at a rapid 

pace, the diversity of environmental changes 

implies that conflicting demands may be placed 

on selection such that adaptation to the full suite 

of changes may be compromised. The success 

of individual species in adapting to climate 

change does not lead to intrinsic resilience 

at the community and ecosystems levels of 

organization. Because virtually all ecosystem 

processes involve some form of interaction 

between or among species, biological adaptation 

by individual species to climate-driven changes 

is not a process that will protect functioning 

estuarine ecosystems, because species adapt 

and migrate at differing rates (Sims et al., 2

Parmesan, 2006). 

Among the most important estuarine spe

that dictate overall community composi

and ecosystem dynamics are the struct

foundation species, namely intertidal m

plant and subtidal seagrass (SAV) vegetat

Donnelly and Bertness (2001) have assem

ecological evidence that, starting in the 

1990s, the low marsh plant Spartina alternif

has begun to move upslope and invade 

higher marshes of New England that 

typically occupied by a more diverse mi

Juncus gerardi, Distichlis spicata, and Spar

patens. Their paleontological assessm

revealed that in times of rapid sea level ris

the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Spar

alterniflora similarly grew upwards 

across the landscape.

• Conduct integrated management of nutrient sources and wetland treatment of nutrients to 

limit hypoxia and eutrophication.

• Manage water resources to ensure sustainable use in the face of changing recharge rates 

and saltwater infiltration.

• Maintain high genetic diversity through strategies such as the establishment of reserves 

specifically for this purpose.

• Maintain landscape complexity of salt marsh landscapes, especially preserving marsh edge 

environments.

• Support migrating shorebirds by ensuring protection of replicated estuaries along the flyway.

• Restore important native species and remove invasive non-natives to improve marsh characteristics that promote propagation and production of fish and wildlife.

• Direct estuarine habitat restoration projects to places where the restored ecosystem has 

room to retreat as sea level rises.

• Restore oyster reefs in replication along a depth gradient to provide shallow water refugia 

for mobile species, such as fish and crustaceans, to retreat to in response to climate-induced 

deep water hypoxia/anoxia, or to spread the risk of losses due to other climate-related 

environmental disturbances.

• Develop practical approaches to apply the principle of rolling easements, to prevent engineered barriers from blocking landward retreat of coastal marshes and other shoreline 

habitats as sea level rises.

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 34 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 34 
largely employ vegetative spread. Analogous 

to the marsh changes, if storm disturbance and 

rising water levels favor more opportunistic 

seagrass species, then the new SAV community 

may differ from the present one and provide 

different ecosystem services. Vascular plants 

of both intertidal and shallow subtidal estuaries 

possess characteristically few species relative 

to terrestrial habitats (Day, Jr. et al., 1989; Orth

et al., 2006), so these differences in behavior 

of important foundation species in the marsh 

and in SAV beds will have disproportionately 

large influences on function. Thus, the web 

of interactions among biotic and abiotic 

components of the estuarine ecosystem cannot 

be expected to be preserved through intrinsic 

biological adaptation alone, which cannot 

regulate the physical changes. Management 

adaptations must be considered to sustain 

ecosystem services of national estuaries. 

Examples of specific adaptation options are 

presented in Box 7.4 and elaborated further 

throughout the sections that follow. 

7.4.1 Potential for Adjustment 

of Traditional Management 

Approaches to Achieve 

Adaptation to Climate Change 

Three different time frames of management 

adaptation can be distinguished: (1) avoidance 

of any advance adaptation strategy (leading to 

ad hoc reactive responses); (2) planning only for 

management responses to climate change and its 

consequences (leading to coordinated, planned 

responses initiated either after indicators 

reveal the urgency or after emergence of 

impacts); and (3) taking proactive measures 

to preserve valuable services in anticipation 

of consequences of climate change. Rational 

grounds for choosing among these three 

options involve consideration of the risks and 

and ocean resources (Peterson and Estes, 2001; 

Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2003; 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004; 

Titus, 2004). Even if governance structures 

were developed that allow cooperation among 

agencies and among levels of government, 

successful application of ecosystem-based 

management of estuaries may not be a realistic 

expectation for estuarine management because 

of the intrinsic conflicts of interest among 

stakeholders, which include land users across 

the entire watershed and airshed as well as 

coastal interests.

Planning for adaptation to climate change, 

without immediate implementation, may 

represent the most prudent response to 

uncertainty over timing and/or intensity of 

negative consequences of global change on 

estuarine ecosystem services, provided that 

advance actions are not required to avoid 

irreversible damage. Issues of expense also 

deserve attention in deciding whether to delay 

management actions. An ounce of prevention 

may be worth a pound of cure. For example, 

by postponing repairs and vertical extensions 

of levees around New Orleans, the estimated 

expenditures for retroactive repair and all 

necessary restorations of about $54 billion 

following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita greatly 

exceed what proactive levee reconstruction 

would have cost (Kates et al., 2006). On the 

other hand, the protections provided against 

natural disasters are typically designed to 

handle more frequent events, such as storms 

and floods occurring more frequently than 

once a century, but inadequate to defend against 

major disasters like the direct hit by a category 

5 hurricane. Such management protections 

even enhance losses and restoration costs by 

promoting development under the false sense 

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 35 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 35 
36

policies relating to dikes, levees, and other such 

structural defenses makes the New Orleans 

experience relevant.

A decision to postpone implementation of 

adaptation actions may rely on continuing 

scientific monitoring of reliable indicators 

and modeling. Based on inputs from evolving 

ocean observing systems, model predictions 

could provide comfort that necessary actions, 

although delayed, may still be timely. Other 

important prospective management actions may 

be postponed because they are not politically 

pressures to expediently restore condition

their familiar pre-disaster state often lea

the loss of these opportunities (Mileti, 19

Therefore, decisions about whether and w

to rebuild after damage from major flo

and storms should be carefully examined 

planned in advance in order to avoid mak

poorer judgments during chaotic conditions 

follow these types of incidents. This stra

becomes more relevant as storm intensity 

flood damages increase.

Proactive intervention in anticipation 

consequences of climate change repres

rational management under several conditi

These conditions include irreversibilit

undesirable ecosystem changes, substant

higher costs to repair damages than 

prevent them, risk of losing important 

significant ecosystem services, and high le

of scientific certainty about the anticip

change and its ecological consequences (T

1998; 2000). Avoiding dramatic struct

(“phase”) shifts in estuarine ecosystem s

may represent a compelling motivation 

proactive management, because such sh

threaten continuing delivery of many traditi

ecosystem services and are typically diff

or exceedingly expensive to reverse (Groff

et al., 2006). Reversibility is especiall

issue in cases of potential transitionin

an alternative stable state, because posi

feedbacks maintain the new state and re

reversal (Petraitis and Dudgeon, 2004). 

example, the loss of SAV removes a ba

to water flow, thus increasing near-bot

currents. The faster currents in turn mean 

seagrass seeds are less likely to be depos

23 H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Econ

ics, and the Environment, 2002: Human Lin

Coastal Disasters. Washington, DC.

BOX 7.5. Storms as Opportunities for 

Management Change

Catastrophic events provide management opportunities 

that make difficult decisions more publicly acceptable for increasing ecological and human resilience to climate change. 

Comprehensive planning could be initiated at federal, tribal, 

state, and local levels before—and applied after—major 

storm events to avoid future loss of life and property, and at 

the same time protect many environmental assets and ecosystem services in the interest of the public trust. Examples 

of proactive management activities include:

• Planning to prevent rebuilding in hazardous areas of high 

flood risk and storm damage. 

• Establishing setbacks, buffer widths, and rolling easements 

based on reliable projections of future erosion and sea 

level rise, and implementing them rapidly after natural 

disasters.

• Prohibiting development subsidies (e.g., federal flood insurance and infrastructure development grants) to estuarine 

and coastal shorelines at high risk.

• Modifying local land use plans to influence redevelopment 

after storms and direct it into less risky areas. 

• Using funds from land trusts and programs designated to 

protect water quality, habitat, and fisheries, to purchase 

the most risky shorelines of high resource value.

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 36 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 36 
and seedlings are more likely to be uprooted by 

erosion; this feedback makes reestablishment of 

lost beds much more difficult. 

With adequate knowledge of the critical 

tipping point and ongoing monitoring of telling 

indicators, proactive intervention could in some 

cases be postponed and still be completed in 

time to prevent climate change from pushing 

the system over the threshold into a new phase. 

Nevertheless, many processes involved in 

ecosystem change possess substantial inertia 

such that even after adjusting levels of drivers, 

a memory of past stress will continue to modify 

the system, making postponement of action 

inadvisable. Climate change itself falls into 

this class of processes, in that if greenhouse gas 

emissions were capped today, the Earth would 

continue to warm for decades (IPCC, 2007).

Financial costs of climate change may be 

minimized by some types of proactive 

management. For example, enacting legislation 

that prohibits bulkheads and other engineered 

structures and requires rolling easements along 

currently undeveloped estuarine shores could 

preserve or at least delay loss of important 

shallow-water habitats, such as salt marsh, by 

allowing them to migrate inland as sea level 

rises (Box 7.6) (Titus, 1998). A law to require 

rolling easements is not likely to be ruled as a 

taking, especially if enacted before property 

is developed, because “the law of erosion has 

long held that the public tidelands migrate 

inland as sea level rises, legislation saying that 

this law will apply in the future takes nothing” 

(Titus, 1998). However, absent such a law and 

this interpretation of it, the value of habitat 

and associated ecosystem services may exceed 

the value of property losses that would occur 

Coastal marshes have generally kept pace with the slow rate of sea level rise that has characterized 

the last several thousand years. Thus, the area of marsh has expanded over time as new lands have 

been inundated. If, in the future, sea level rises faster than the ability of the marsh to keep pace, the 

marsh area will contract. Construction of bulkheads to protect economic development may prevent 

new marsh from forming and result in a total loss of marsh in some areas.

Beach nourishment may also contribute to the loss of salt marsh on coastal barriers, because it 

prevents natural processes of coastal barrier migration through overwash. Overwash of sediments 

to the estuarine shoreline is a process that extends and revitalizes salt marsh on the protected side 

of coastal barriers.

Today Future

Complete Wetland Loss Where House is Protected 

in Response to Rise in Sea Level

Current

Sea Level

Past

Sea Level

Future

Sea Level

Current

Sea Level

Sedimentation and 

Peat Formation

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 37 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 37 
38

sustained ecosystem services (Titus, 2000). 

Principles for environmental planning could 

be adopted that (1) prohibit actions that will 

exacerbate negative consequences of climate 

change, (2) allow actions that are climatechange neutral, and (3) promote actions that 

provide enhanced ecosystem resilience to 

climate change. Such principles may lead 

to many low-cost modifications of existing 

management plans that could be initiated 

today.

The scientific basis for predicting climate 

change and its ecosystem consequences must 

be especially compelling in order to justify 

any costly decisions to take proactive steps 

to enhance adaptation to climate change. 

Willingness to take costly actions should vary 

with the magnitude of predicted consequences, 

the confidence associated with the predictions, 

and the timing of the effects. The scientific basis 

re-evaluation of the science and publicatio

the consensus report plays an integral rol

public education. Scientific uncertainty a

the magnitudes and timetables of potent

important processes, such as melting of 

Greenland ice sheet (Dowdeswell, 20

Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2006), lead

their exclusion from IPCC projections. Fur

scientific research will allow inclusion of 

now uncertain contributions to change. 

7.4.2 Management Adaptations 

Sustain Estuarine Services

7.4.2.1 Protecting Water Quality

All national estuaries, and estuaries m

generally, include water quality as a prio

management target. The federal Clean W

Act serves to identify explicit targets 

estuarine water quality nationwide, but state 

local programs can also include other num

standards for explicit parameters. Some CCM

specify explicit, sometimes numeric, tar

for specific member estuaries. Parame

with federally mandated standards inc

chlorophyll concentration; turbidity; disso

oxygen; fecal coliform bacteria; nutr

loading where TMDLs apply; and condit

for NPDES discharge permits that main

balanced and indigenous communities of 

shellfish, and wildlife. In addition, coa

marsh and other riparian wetland buffers s

to treat non-point-source storm waters be

they enter the open waters of estuaries

preserving marsh extent and functionality 

important management target relating to w

quality (Mitsch and Day Jr, 2006).

Perhaps the greatest threat to estuarine w

quality from climate change derives f

the loss of water treatment of diffuse nutr

Climate change may lead to changes in estuarine water 

quality, which in turn would affect many of the vital 

ecosystem services offered by estuaries. 

• Changes in nutrient concentrations and light penetration into estuarine waters may affect productivity of 

submerged aquatic vegetation, which provides a range 

of services such as nursery habitat for fish species, 

sediment stabilization, and nutrient uptake. 

• Changes in water quality may affect oxygen demand as 

well as directly affecting availability of dissolved oxygen. An increase in freshwater discharge to estuaries 

may lead to increased frequency, scope, and duration 

of bottom-water hypoxia arising from stronger stratification of the estuarine water column and greater 

microbial oxygen demand at higher temperatures.

BOX 7.7. Estuarine Water Quality and 

Climate Change

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 38 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 38 
and Pizzuto, 2000), marsh will be lost and its 

functions eliminated over extensive portions of 

estuarine shorelines (Titus, 2000; Reed, 2002; 

Committee on Mitigating Shore Erosion along 

Sheltered Coasts, National Research Council, 

2006). The loss of salt marsh on coastal barriers 

is further facilitated by beach nourishment, 

which prevents natural processes of coastal 

barrier recession through overwash. Overwash 

of sediments to the estuarine shoreline is a 

process that extends and revitalizes salt marsh 

on the protected side of coastal barriers.

Estuarine shorelines differ in their susceptibility 

to erosion and recession under rising sea levels 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989). 

Relative sea level is rising at very different 

rates around the country and the globe. The 

subsiding shores of the Louisiana Gulf Coast 

are losing more salt marsh to sea level rise 

than any other region of the United States 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1989). Marsh losses on the Mississippi River 

Delta are enhanced by modification of river 

flows in ways that inhibit sediment delivery to 

the marshes, and by extraction of subsurface 

fluids (oil and gas). Extraction of groundwater 

from shallow aquifers also induces subsidence 

and enhances relative sea level rise along the 

shores of some estuaries, such as San Francisco 

Bay. For many estuaries, salt marsh does not 

currently face increased flooding and erosion 

from rising sea levels, either because relative 

sea level is not rising rapidly in these regions or 

because the accumulation of organic peat, along 

with the trapping and deposition of largely 

inorganic sediments by emergent marsh plants, 

is elevating the land surface at a rate sufficient 

to keep up with sea level rise (Reed, 2002). 

Despite the capability of salt marsh to rise 

with sea level, this gradual process produces 

a marsh on an elevated platform where the 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1989).

Maintaining present management policy 

allowing bulkheads will likely lead to the 

loss of marshes, and the development of 

walled estuaries composed only of subtidal 

habitats, wherever development exists on the 

shoreline. Only on undeveloped estuarine 

shorelines can marshes recede landward. 

But with the ongoing dramatic expansion of 

coastal human communities, little undeveloped 

estuarine shoreline is likely to remain except 

in public parks, reserves, and sanctuaries. 

Along estuarine salinity gradients, much more 

development takes place toward the ocean end 

and less up-estuary. Therefore, as sea level 

rises, an increasing fraction of remaining marsh 

habitat will be found along these undefended, 

up-estuary shores (see maps in SAP 4.1; 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program, in 

press). All specific water quality parameters 

for which standards exist will suffer under 

this scenario of current management without 

adaptation. Reactive management holds little 

promise of reversing impacts, because it would 

require dismantling or moving structures and 

infrastructure, which is expensive, unpopular, 

and increasingly infeasible as coastal land 

becomes increasingly developed. Reactive 

marsh restoration would require removals of 

at least some portion of the engineered walls 

protecting estuarine shoreline property, so 

as to allow flooding of the proper elevations 

supporting salt marsh restoration. Implementing 

any public policy that would lead directly to 

widespread private property loss represents a 

large challenge under the prevailing property 

rights laws, but one that should be decided in 

favor of retaining the estuarine habitats, if done 

in a way that can involve rolling easements to 

preserve the public tidelands (Titus, 1998).

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 39 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 39 
40

refers to deliberately realigning engineering 

structures affecting rivers, estuaries, and the 

coastline. The process could involve retreating 

to higher ground, constructing set-back levees, 

shortening the length of levees and seawalls, 

reducing levee heights, and widening river 

floodplains. The goals of managed realignment 

may be to:

• Reduce engineering costs by shortening the 

overall length of levees and seawalls that 

require maintenance;

• Increase the efficiency and long-term sustainability of flood and coastal levees by 

recreating river, estuary, or coastal wetlands, 

and using their flood and storm buffering 

capacity;

• Provide other environmental benefits through 

re-creation of natural wetlands; or

• Construct replacement coastal wetlands in 

or adjacent to a designated European site, 

to compensate for wetland losses resulting 

from reclamation or coastal squeeze.

Under this UK/EU perspective, the goods and 

services provided by wetland coastal defenses 

against sea level rise appear to outweigh 

anticipated costs under some scenarios.

Locally in the United States, proactive 

management to protect tidal marshes, on which 

water quality of estuaries so strongly depends, 

may have some notable success in the short 

term of a few decades, although prospects of 

longer-term success are less promising. Only 

Rhode Island and parts of Massachusetts have 

regulations in place that recognize the need to 

allow wetlands the capacity to migrate inland 

24 Department for Environment, Food and Rural 

Affairs (DEFRA) and the UK Environment 

Agency, 2002: Managed Realignment Review - 

Project Report. Policy Research Project FD 2008, 

DEFRA, Cambridge, UK.

Shore Erosion along Sheltered Coasts, Nati

Research Council, 2006). Such natural 

artificial breakwaters can induce sedim

deposition behind them, and thereby may 

sediments rise and marshes persist with grow

sea levels. As sea level rises, oyster reefs 

also grow taller and rock sills can be artific

elevated, thereby keeping up protection by 

breakwaters. Oysters are active suspen

feeders and help reduce turbidity of estua

waters. Rock breakwaters in the estuary 

also often colonized by oysters and o

suspension-feeding invertebrates. Restora

of oyster reefs as breakwaters, and e

installation of rock breakwaters, contri

to water quality through the oysters’ fee

and through protection of salt marshe

these alternatives to bulkheads and di

This proactive adaptation to sea level rise 

risk of damaging storms will probably 

to be sustainable over longer time fram

because such breakwaters are not likel

provide reliable protection against shore

erosion in major storms as sea level contin

to rise. Ultimately, the owners of valu

estuarine shoreline may not be satisfied w

breakwaters as their only defense against 

rising waters, and may demand permissio

install levees, bulkheads, or alternative form

shoreline armoring. This could lead to ero

of all intertidal habitats along the shoreline 

consequent loss of the tidal marsh in develo

areas. Some of these losses of marsh acre

would be replaced by progressive drown

of river mouths and inundation of f l

plains up-estuary as sea level rises, follo

by transgression and spread of wetlands 

those newly flooded areas. The most promi

suite of management adaptations on hig

developed shorelines down-estuary is li

a combination of rolling easements, setba

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 40 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 40 
its water treatment functions. Losses will be 

nearly total along estuarine shorelines where 

development is most intense, especially in 

the zone of high hurricane risk from Texas to 

New York (see SAP 4.1; U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program, in press). Although rapid 

global capping of greenhouse gas emissions 

would still result in decades of rising global 

temperatures and consequent physical climatic 

changes (IPCC, 2007), it may be possible 

in the short term (years to a few decades) to 

partially alleviate damage to tidal marshes 

and diminution of their water treatment role 

on developed shores by local management 

adaptations, such as installation of natural and 

artificial breakwaters. On undeveloped estuarine 

shorelines, implementation of rolling easements 

is a critical need before development renders 

this approach too politically and financially 

costly. However, much public education will 

be necessary for this management adaptation 

to be accepted. 

Estuarine water quality is also threatened by a 

combination of rising temperature, increased 

pulsing and, in many regions such as the 

East Coast, growing quantities of freshwater 

riverine discharge and more energetic upstream 

wedging of sea waters with rising sea level 

(Scavia et al., 2002). Temperature increases 

drive faster biochemical rates, including greater 

rates of microbial decomposition and animal 

metabolism, which inflate oxygen demand. 

When increased fresh water discharges into 

the estuary, this less-dense fresh water at the 

surface, when combined with stronger salt water 

wedging on the bottom, will enhance water 

column stability because of greater density 

stratification. Such conditions are the physical 

precursor to development of estuarine bottom 

water hypoxia and anoxia in warm seasons, 

because oxygen-rich surface waters are too light 

oxygen demand for its microbial decomposition. 

In regions such as the Pacific Northwest, where 

summertime droughts are predicted rather 

than summer increases in storm-driven pulses 

of rain, this scenario of greater water-column 

stability and higher oxygen demand at elevated 

temperature will not apply. Nevertheless, 

negative consequences of summertime drought 

also are likely.

Failing to act in advance of increases in 

incidence, scope, and duration of bottom water 

hypoxia implies widespread climate-related 

modifications of many estuaries, inconsistent 

with maintaining a balanced indigenous 

population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. 

Nutrient reduction in the watershed and airshed 

could limit algal blooms, and thereby reduce 

organic loading and oxygen demand (Conley et 

al., 2002). However, discharge limits for point 

sources are already close to what is technically 

feasible in many rivers. From an economic 

standpoint, further limiting atmospheric 

nitrogen deposition would affect many activities, 

such as electric power generation, industrial 

operations, and automobile use. It is possible 

that wetland restoration over the drainage 

basin could be greatly enhanced to reduce 

the fraction of diffuse nutrient loading that 

reaches the estuary, and to help counteract the 

increased estuarine stratification and warming 

temperatures that drive higher microbial 

decomposition and oxygen demand (Mitsch and 

Day Jr, 2006). Thus, integrated management 

of nutrient sources and wetland treatment of 

nutrients can play a role in management to limit 

eutrophication and hypoxia.

At state levels of management, recognition of 

the likelihood of climate change and anticipation 

of its consequences could lead to important 

proactive steps, some with potentially minimal 

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 41 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 41 
42

water quality would be to anticipate changes in 

sea level rise and storm intensity by modifying 

riparian buffer zones to maintain water quality. 

Permitting rules that constrain locations for 

construction of landfills, hazardous waste 

dumps, mine tailings, and facilities that store 

toxic chemicals could be modified to insure 

that, even under anticipated future conditions 

of sea level rise, shoreline recession, and 

intense storms, these facilities would remain 

not only outside today’s floodplains but also 

outside the likely floodplains of the future. 

Riverine floodplain maps and publicly run 

flood insurance coverage could be redrafted 

to reflect expectations of flooding frequency 

and extent under changing rainfall amounts 

and increasing flashiness of rainfall as it is 

delivered in more intense discrete storms. 

Such changes in floodplain maps would have 

numerous cascading impacts on development 

activities along the river edges in the entire 

watershed, many of which would help protect 

water quality during floods. Water quality 

transgressive expansion of sea level might o

with minimal human impact, so expand

protected areas of floodplains also helps b

resilience of the socioeconomic system. E

during the past two decades, many estua

watersheds have experienced multiple sto

that exceeded standards for “100-year floo

implying that recomputation and remappin

those hazardous riverine floodplains is alre

necessary.

7.4.2.2 Sustaining Fisheries and Wildlif

Populations

Sustaining fish production and wild

populations represent important managem

goals of most national estuaries and essent

all estuaries nationwide. Fisheries are like

suffer large declines from both of the m

processes that affect water quality: (1) los

tidal marshes associated with rising sea lev

and enhanced incidence of intense storm

these drivers interact with hardened shoreli

and (2) increased frequency, scope, and dura

of bottom-water hypoxia arising from stro

stratification of the estuarine water colu

and greater microbial oxygen demand at hi

temperatures. 

Marshes and other wetlands per fo

many valuable ecosystem services (

7.1) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessm

2005), several of which lead to enhan

fish production. Numerous studies h

demonstrated the high use of salt mar

by killifish, grass shrimps, and crabs, w

are important prey for larger commerci

important fishes, and for wading birds at hi

trophic levels. Salt marsh habitat supp

several endemic species of birds, such as s

rails, and small mammals, some of which 

Kevin Rosseel, EPA on federal or state threatened and endang

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 42 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 42 
an important determinant of fish, shellfish, and 

wildlife production, especially preserving marsh 

edge environments (e.g., Peterson and Turner, 

1994). Thus, marsh loss and modification in 

estuaries are expected to translate directly into 

lost production of fish and wildlife.

The climate-driven enhancement of bottom 

water hypoxia and anoxia will result in further 

killing of oysters and other sessile bottom 

invertebrates (Lenihan and Peterson, 1998), 

thereby affecting the oyster fishery directly and 

other fisheries for crabs, shrimp, and demersal 

fishes indirectly (Lenihan et al., 2001). These 

demersal consumers prey upon the benthic 

invertebrates of the estuary during their 

nursery use of the system, in the warm season 

of the year. When the benthic invertebrates are 

killed by lack of oxygen and resulting deadly 

hydrogen sulfide, fish production declines 

as energy produced by phytoplankton enters 

microbial loops and is thereby diverted from 

passing up the food chain to higher tropic levels 

(Baird et al., 2004). This enhanced diversion of 

energy away from pathways leading to higher 

trophic levels will not only affect demersal fish 

production, but also diminish populations of 

sea birds and marine mammals, such as bottlenosed dolphins. Because estuaries contribute 

so greatly to production of coastal fisheries 

generally, such reductions in fish and wildlife 

transcend the boundaries of the estuary itself.

Fish and wildlife suffer additional risks from 

climate change, beyond those associated with 

loss of marsh and other shoreline habitats 

and those associated with enhanced hypoxia. 

Higher temperatures are already having and 

will likely have additional direct effects on 

estuarine species. Increased temperature is 

associated with lower bioenergetic efficiency, 

and greater risk of disease and parasitism. 

flows—both amounts and temporal patterns—

may change estuarine physical circulation in 

ways that affect transport of larval and juvenile 

life stages, altering recruitment of fish and 

valuable invertebrates.

The challenges of adapting management to 

address impacts of climate change on fish 

and wildlife thus include all those already 

presented for water quality, because the goals 

of preventing loss of tidal marsh and other 

shallow shoreline habitats and of avoiding 

expansion of hypoxic bottom areas are held in 

common. However, additional approaches may 

be available or necessary to respond to risks 

of declines in fish and wildlife. For example, 

fisheries management at federal and state levels 

is committed to the principle of sustainability, 

which is usually defined as maintaining harvest 

levels at some fixed amount or within some 

fixed range. With climate-driven changes in 

estuarine ecosystems, sustainable fisheries 

management will itself need to become an 

adaptive process as changes in estuarine 

carrying capacity for target stocks occur 

through direct responses to warming and 

other physical factors, and indirect responses 

to changes in biotic interactions. Independent 

of any fishing impacts, there will be a moving 

target for many fish, shellfish, and wildlife 

populations, necessitating adaptive definitions 

of what is sustainable. This goal calls for 

advance planning for management responses 

to climate change, but not implementation until 

the ecosystem changes have begun. Absent 

any advance planning, stasis of management 

could conceivably induce stock collapses by 

inadvertent overfishing of a stock in decline 

from climate modifications.

Exter mination of injurious non-native 

species after their introduction into estuarine 

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 43 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 43 
44

characteristics that promote propagation and 

production of fish and wildlife. This type of 

action may best be applied to vascular plants of 

the salt marsh. Such actions taken now to reduce 

impacts of current stressors represent means of 

enhancing ecosystem resilience to impacts of 

climate change on fish and wildlife.

7.4.2.3 Preserving Habitat Extent and 

Functionality

All national estuaries and managers of estuarine 

assets nationwide identify preservation of 

habitat as a fundamental management goal. The 

greatest threat to estuarine habitat extent and 

function from climate change arises as sea level 

rise and enhanced incidence of intense storms 

interact with the presence of structural defenses 

against shoreline erosion. As explained earlier 

in the description of threats to water quality 

and fisheries, barriers that prevent horizontal 

migration of tidal marshes inland will result 

in loss of tidal marsh and other intertidal and 

then shallow subtidal habitats. This process 

will include losses to seagrass beds and other 

submerged aquatic vegetation down-shore of 

bulkheads, because if the grass cannot migrate 

upslope, the lower margin will die back from 

light limitation (Dennison et al., 1993; Short 

and Wyllie-Echeverria, 1996) as water levels 

rise. The presence of bulkheads enhances the 

rate of erosion below them because wave energy 

is directed downwards after striking a hard 

wall, excavating and lowering the sediment 

elevation faster than if no bulkhead were 

present (Tait and Griggs, 1990). As shoreline 

erosion below bulkheads continues along with 

rising water levels, all currently intertidal 

25 See, for example, National Ocean Service, 2005: 

Lionfish discovery story. NOAA Website, www.

oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/stories/lionfish/

lion03_blame.html, accessed on 7-25-2007.

will degrade its functions over wider area

“dead zones” of the nation’s estuaries as clim

change proceeds.

Adaptations to address impacts of clim

change on estuarine habitat extent and func

face the same challenges as those alre

presented for water quality, due to common g

of preventing loss of marsh and other sha

shoreline habitats and avoiding expansio

hypoxic bottom areas. However, there 

also be additional approaches availabl

necessary to respond to risks of areal 

functional declines in estuarine habitats

local levels, expanding the planning horiz

of land use planning created in respons

the federal Coastal Zone Management Ac

incorporate the predictions of consequence

global change over at least a few decades w

represent a rational proactive process. Su

longer view could inhibit risky developm

and simultaneously provide protections 

important estuarine habitats, especially 

marshes and mangroves at risk from barr

that inhibit recession. Land use plans themse

rarely incorporate hard prohibitions aga

development close to sensitive habitats. T

also have limited durability over time, as l

political pressure for development and des

for protection of environmental assets wax 

wane. Nevertheless, requiring planners to 

a longer-term view could have only pos

consequences in educating local deci

makers about what lies ahead under alterna

development scenarios. States run ecosys

restoration programs, largely targeted tow

riparian wetlands and tidal marshes. 

choice of sites for such restoration activ

can be improved by strategically selecting 

those where the restored wetland can m

up-slope as sea level rises. Thus, planning 

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 44 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 44 
easements represents a more far-reaching 

solution to preventing erection of permanent 

barriers to inland migration of tidelands. Rolling 

easements do not require predictions about the 

degree and rate of sea level rise and shoreline 

erosion. Purchasing development rights has 

the disadvantage that the uncertainty about 

rate of sea level rise injects uncertainty over 

whether enough property has been protected. 

In addition, rolling easements allow use of 

waterfront property until the water levels rise 

enough to require retreat, and thus represent 

a lower cost (Titus, 2000). Implementation of 

either solution should not be delayed, because 

delay will risk development of the very zone 

that requires protection.

At state and federal levels, environmental impact 

statements and assessments of consequences 

of beach nourishment do not sufficiently 

incorporate consideration of climate change 

and its impacts. Similarly, management policies 

at state and local levels for responding to 

the joint risks posed by sea level rise and 

increased frequencies or intensities of storms, 

including hurricanes, have not recognized 

the magnitude of growth in expenditures 

of present shoreline protection responses as 

climate change continues. Most state coastal 

management programs discourage hardening 

of shorelines, such as installation of sea walls, 

groins, and jetties, because they result in adverse 

effects on the extent of the public beach (Pilkey 

and Wright III, 1988). Beach nourishment, 

a practice involving repeated use of fill to 

temporarily elevate and extend the width of 

the intertidal beach, is the prevailing (Titus, 

2000), rapidly escalating, and increasingly 

expensive alternative. On average, the fill sands 

last three to five years (Leonard, Clayton, and 

Pilkey, 1990) before eroding away, requiring 

above their natural level relative to depth on the 

continental shelf, implies that wave energy will 

not be as readily dissipated by bottom friction 

as the waves progress towards shore. This 

process brings more and more wave energy to 

the beach, and increases risk of storm erosion 

and substantial damage to the land mass in 

major storms. 

Within less than a century, the rising sea may 

induce geomorphological changes historically 

typical of geological time scales (Riggs and 

Ames, 2003). These changes include predicted 

fragmentation of coastal barriers by new 

inlets, and even disintegration and loss of 

many coastal barriers (Riggs and Ames, 

2003). Such changes would cause dramatic 

modifications of the estuaries lying now in 

protected waters behind the coastal barriers, 

and would shift inland the mixing zone of fresh 

and salt waters. As climate change progresses 

and sea level continues to rise, accompanied 

by more intense hurricanes and other storms, 

the beach nourishment widely practiced today 

on ocean beaches (Titus, 2000) may become 

too expensive to sustain nationwide (Titus et 

al., 1991; Yohe et al., 1996), especially if the 

federal government succeeds in withdrawing 

from current funding commitments. Miami 

Beach and other densely developed ocean 

beaches are likely to generate tax dollars 

sufficient to continue beach nourishment with 

state and local funding. Demand for groins, 

geotubes, sand bags, and other structural 

interventions will likely continue to grow as 

oceanfront property owners seek protection of 

their investment. These come at a price of loss 

of beach, which is the public trust resource that 

attracts most people to such areas. Retreat from 

and abandonment of coastal barriers affected by 

high relative rates of sea level rise and incidence 

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 45 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 45 
46

of intense storms does not seem to represent a 

politically viable management adaptation.

7.4.2.4 Preserving Human Values

All national estuaries recognize that estuaries 

provide diverse ecosystem services to people 

living in close proximity and to others who 

benefit from the estuaries’ resources and 

functions, even passively. This category of 

human values relies on so many functions 

that the CCMPs vary widely in terms of the 

services they highlight and target for special 

management protection or restoration. Various 

consequences of climate change will modify 

these human values, and a complete assessment 

of how and by how much for each of the diverse 

values would be extensive. Nevertheless, it 

is clear that implications of many predictable 

climate-induced changes in the estuarine 

ecosystems are serious. Humans have a public 

trust stake in all other major management 

targets of the national estuaries, including 

water quality, fish and wildlife, and habitat, 

so to that extent we already address issues of 

perhaps the most importance to human interests 

in the estuary. However, other human values not 

expressly included deserve comment. Conflicts 

on estuarine shores. The houses and prope

at greatest risk are those on coastal barr

lying between the ocean and outer estu

because development on such coastal barr

is exposed during major storms to large w

in addition to storm surge and high wi

Economic and social costs of major st

events under conditions of elevated sea l

may be staggeringly high, as illustrated 

hurricane damage during the past dec

The management of such risks can alre

be considered proactive: on ocean beac

nourishment is practiced to widen and ele

the beach, and bulkheads are widely insta

on estuarine shorelines. However, each of t

defenses is largely ineffective against m

storms, and climate change models project m

such storms developing on a continually warm

Earth. Additional proactive management in 

future may involve construction of dikes 

levees, designed to withstand major sto

and capable of vertical extension as sea l

increases. Such intervention into nat

processes on ocean and estuarine shore

technically feasible, but probably afford

only where development is intense enoug

have created very high aggregate real es

values. It sacrifices public trust values 

private values. Long-term sustainability of 

barriers is questionable. In places experien

rapid erosion but lacking dense and expen

development, shoreline erosion is likely t

accepted; retreat and abandonment will oc

Even before extensive further storm-rel

losses of houses, businesses, and infrastruc

on ocean and estuarine shores, property va

may deflate as sea level and risks of st

and flood damage increase. Many prop

insurers are already cancelling coverage 

discontinuing underwriting activities al

wide swaths of the coast in the areas mo

Kevin Rosseel, EPA

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 46 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 46 
act proactively, or opportunistically after major 

storm events, to modify rules or change policies 

to restructure development along coastal barrier 

and estuarine shorelines to avoid future loss of 

life and property, and at the same time protect 

many environmental assets and ecosystem 

services in the interest of the public trust. For 

example, up-front planning to prevent rebuilding 

in hazardous areas of high flood risk and storm 

damage may be feasible. Establishing setbacks 

from the water and buffer widths, based on 

the new realities of shoreline erosion and on 

reliable predictions of shoreline position into the 

future, may be possible if advance planning is 

complete so that rules or policies can be rapidly 

implemented after natural disasters. Many 

programs, such as federal flood insurance and 

infrastructure development grants, subsidize 

development. For undeveloped coastal barriers, 

such subsidies were prohibited by the Coastal 

Barriers Resources Act, and these prohibitions 

could be extended to other estuarine and 

coastal shorelines now at high and escalating 

risk. Local land use plans could be modified 

to influence redevelopment after storms and 

direct it into less risky areas. Nevertheless, 

such plans would result in financial losses to 

property owners who cannot make full use of 

their land. Land trusts and programs to protect 

water quality, habitat, and fisheries may provide 

funding to purchase the most risky shorelines 

of high resource value.

7.4.2.5 Water Quantity

Many national estuaries, especially those on 

the Pacific coast where snowmelt is a large 

determinant of the hydroperiod, identify water 

quantity issues among their management 

priorities. These issues will become growing 

concerns directly and indirectly for all estuaries 

as climate continues to change. Projected 

measures. Thus, complex questions of adaptive 

management arise that would help smooth the 

transition into the predictably different rainfall 

future, whose direction of change is uncertain. 

Many of these questions will have site (basin)-

specific conditions and solutions; however a 

generic overview is possible.

As freshwater delivery patterns change and salt 

water penetration increases in the estuaries, 

many processes that affect important biological 

and human values will be affected. Where 

annual freshwater delivery to the estuary is 

reduced, and in cases where only seasonal 

reductions occur, salt water intrusion into 

groundwater will influence the potable yield 

of aquifers. In the Pacific Northwest, predicted 

patterns of precipitation change imply that 

increased salt water penetration up-estuary 

will be a summertime phenomenon when 

droughts are likely. Fresh water is already a 

limiting resource globally (Postel, 1992), and 

is a growing issue in the United States even 

in the absence of climate change. Failure to 

develop proactive management responses will 

have serious consequences on human welfare 

and economic activity. Proaction includes 

establishing or broadening “use containment 

areas” (where withdrawal is allocated and 

capped) in the managed allocation of aquifer 

yields, so that uses are sustainable even under 

predicted climate-related changes in recharge 

rates and salt water infiltration. This may 

result in the need to develop reverse osmosis 

plants to produce potable water and replace 

ground water sources currently tapped to supply 

communities around estuaries. Further actions 

may be needed to modify permitting procedures 

for affected development, plan for growing salt 

water intrusion as sea level rises, and maintain 

aquifer productivities. Proactive planning 

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 47 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 47 
48

sediment from estuarine shorelines, and thus 

reduce the area of shallow habitats along the 

shores. In the Pacific Northwest, rain-on-snow 

events are major sources of flood waters (Marks

et al., 1998; Mote et al., 2003) and are likely 

to become more frequent and intense under 

current climate change scenarios. These events 

have economic, health and safety, and social 

consequences for humans living or working 

in the newly enlarged f lood plain. Bank 

stability and riparian habitats are threatened 

by increased water velocities in flood flows, 

which would affect water quality and ultimately 

fish and wildlife. When these pulses of water 

reach the estuary, they bring pollutants from 

land as well as nutrient and organic loading that 

have negative effects on estuarine functions 

for relatively long periods of time—on the 

order of a year or more. In estuaries where 

freshwater runoff is increased by global 

climate change, and in all estuaries where salt 

water has penetrated further upstream as sea 

level rises, the specific locations of important 

zones of biogeochemical processes and biotic 

use will shift in location. These shifts may 

have the effects of moving those zones, such 

as the turbidity maximum zone, which could 

influence the performance of anadromous 

fishes that make use of different portions 

of the rivers and estuaries for completing 

different life history stages and processes. 

Accurate modeling of such position changes in 

estuaries could allow proactive management 

to protect fish and wildlife habitats along the 

rivers and estuaries that will become critical 

for propagation of important fish stocks as 

positional shifts occur.

al., 00; Gudesoet al., 00; Cape

and Kinne, 2003). The ability of a system 

maintain itself despite gradual changes i

controlling variables or its disturbance regi

is of particular concern for those intere

in predicting responses to climate cha

Importantly, resilience of a socioecolog

system results in part from appropr

management strategies. Human behav

can reduce resilience in a variety of w

including increasing flows of nutrients 

pollutants; removing individual species, w

functional groups (e.g., seagrasses, bivalv

or whole trophic levels (e.g., top predato

and altering the magnitude, frequency, 

duration of disturbance regimes (Carpe

et al., 2001; Folke et al., 2004). Importa

climate change has the potential to exacer

poor management and exploitation choices 

cause undesirable regime shifts in ecosyste

as seen in the North Sea cod fishery and re

declines in coral reefs (Walther et al., 20

It is critical that we pursue wise and ac

adaptive management in order to prev

undesirable regime changes in respons

climate change.

In recent years, basic research has dramatic

improved our understanding of the ecosys

characteristics that help promote resilience

example, the study of the roles of biodiversi

ecosystem dynamics has demonstrated sev

examples where productivity (Tilman 

Downing, 1994; Naeem, 2002), biogeochem

functioning (Solan et al., 2004), and commu

composition (Duffy, 2002; Bruno et 

2005) are stabilized under external stress

biodiversity is high. Worm et al. (2006) likew

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 48 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 48 
acting on the knowledge that higher biodiversity 

implies higher resilience represents a challenge 

for estuaries, where application of this concept 

is not necessarily appropriate and where any 

effectiveness may last only for a few decades 

given accelerating sea level rise.

Absent system-specific knowledge, some 

management actions are likely to preserve or 

enhance biodiversity (genetic, species, and 

landscape) and thus may support resilience, 

based upon current theory and some empirical 

evidence. Maintaining high genetic diversity 

provides high potential for evolutionary 

adaptation of species, and provides short-term 

resilience against fluctuating environmental 

conditions (Hughes and Stachowicz, 2004). 

This goal may be achieved by establishing 

diversity refuges, which in aggregate protect 

each of a suite of genotypes. Implementing 

this proactive management concept depends 

on knowledge of genetic diversity and spatial 

patterns of its genotypic distribution—a task 

most readily achieved for structural habitat 

providers, such as marsh and sea grasses and 

mangroves. Maintaining or restoring habitat and 

ecosystem diversity and spatial heterogeneity is 

another viable management goal, again most 

applicable to the important plants that provide 

habitat structure. Preserving or restoring 

landscapes of the full mix of different systems, 

and including structural corridors among 

landscape elements otherwise fragmented or 

isolated, can be predicted to enhance resilience 

by establishing replication of systems that 

can enable migrations to sustain biodiversity 

across the landscape (Micheli and Peterson, 

1999). Structural complexity of vegetation 

has been related to its suitability for use of 

some (endangered) species (Zedler, 1993), 

so preserving or restoring the vegetational 

oyster reefs along a depth gradient in the 

Neuse River Estuary, and showed that when 

persistent bottom-water hypoxia developed 

during summer, reef fishes were able to feed 

on reef-associated crustacean prey and survive 

the widespread mortality on reefs in deeper 

water by moving to shallow-water reefs, which 

were within the surface mixed layer. Thus, the 

creation of a system of reefs with representation 

in different environmental conditions protected 

against catastrophic loss of mobile fishes 

when eutrophication caused mass mortality 

of oysters and other benthic invertebrates in 

deeper waters.

Modifications of natural estuarine ecosystems, 

communities, and species populations through 

various forms of aquaculture represent human 

perturbations that may affect resilience of 

the estuarine ecosystem to climate change. 

For example, the modification and frequently 

the reduction in genetic diversity of cultured 

species can modify the gene pool of wild 

stocks, probably reducing their capacity for 

biological adaptation (Goldburg and Triplett, 

1997). Flooding a system with unnaturally 

high densities of a cultured species such as 

salmon in Maine and Washington, or Pacific 

oysters in Oregon and Washington, carries 

risks of promoting disease and of simplifying 

the natural species composition of the fish and 

benthic communities respectively, thereby 

losing the biodiversity and natural balance 

of the system, which may reduce resilience. 

On the other hand, culturing species that are 

currently depleted relative to natural baselines, 

such as oysters and other suspension-feeding 

bivalve mollusks, can serve to restore missing 

ecosystem functions and build resilience to 

eutrophication (Jackson et al., 2001). Similarly, 

culturing seaweeds can result in enhanced 

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 49 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 49 
50

social science and natural science monitoring 

may require expansion to track possible 

fragility, and to look for signs of cracks in the 

system, as a prelude to instigating adaptive 

management to prevent institutional and 

ecological disintegration. For example, more 

attention should be paid to tracking coastal 

property values, human population movements, 

demography, insurance costs, employment, 

unemployment, attitudes, and other critical 

social and economic variables, in order to 

indicate need for proactive interventions as 

climate change stresses increase. An analogous 

enhancement of in-depth monitoring of the 

natural ecosystem also has merit; this likely 

would require changes in indicators now 

monitored to be able to enhance resilience 

through active intervention of management 

when the need becomes evident. Thus, 

monitoring in a context of greater understanding 

of organizational process in socioeconomic and 

natural systems is one means of enhancing 

resilience.

Both managers and the general public need 

better education to raise awareness of how 

important management adaptation will be 

if negative impacts of climate change are to 

be averted or minimized. Surely, managers 

undergo continuing education almost daily as 

they conduct their jobs, but targeted training 

on expected changes within the ecosystem 

they are responsible for managing is an 

emerging necessity. Careful articulation of 

uncertainties about the magnitudes, timelines, 

and consequences of climate change will 

also be important. Such education is vital to 

induce the broad conversations necessary for 

public stakeholders and managers to rethink 

in fundamental ways how we have previously 

treated and managed estuaries to provide goods 

and services of value.

the status of the response variables prov

the data against which a management acti

effectiveness can be judged. This blendin

experimental design into management prov

perhaps the most rigorous means of tes

implications of management actions. Adap

management has the valuable character

that it continuously re-evaluates the basi

which predictions are made, so that as m

information becomes available to reduce 

uncertainties over physical and biolog

changes associated with climate change, 

framework of adaptive management is in p

to incorporate that new knowledge. Use of 

approach where feasible in testing managem

adaptations to global climate change 

provide much-needed insight in reduc

uncertainty about how to modify managem

to preserve delivery of ecosystem servi

Unfortunately, this approach is very com

and difficult to implement, in large part bec

of the multiple and often conflicting inter

of important stakeholders. 

Because its holistic nature includes the 

complexity of interactions among compone

the most promising new approach to a

estuarine management to global climate cha

is the further development and implementa

of ecosystem-based management (EBM

estuarine ecosystem services, in a way 

incorporates climate change expectat

(Peterson and Estes, 2001). The concept of E

has its origins among land managers, whe

is most completely developed (Grumbine, 1

Christensen et al., 1996). EBM is an appro

to management that strives for a holi

understanding of the complex of interact

among species, abiotic components, and hum

in the system and evaluates this complexit

pursuit of specific management goals (L

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 50 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 50 
preserving ecosystem services from the oceans. 

The dramatic potential impacts of climate 

change on estuarine ecosystems imply many 

transformations that simply developing and 

applying EBM cannot reverse, but development 

of synthetic models for management may help 

optimize estuarine ecosystem services in a 

changing world. Ecosystems are sufficiently 

complex that no practical management model 

could include all components and processes, 

so the more simplified representations of 

the estuarine system might best be used to 

generate hypotheses about the effectiveness of 

alternative management actions that are then 

tested through rigorous protocols of adaptive 

management. One widely advocated approach 

to implementing EBM is the use of marine 

protected areas, which does not require an 

elaborate understanding of ecosystem structure 

and dynamics (Halpern, 2003; Roberts et al., 

2003; Micheli et al., 2004). This approach may 

be applicable to solving important management 

challenges in estuaries, especially where fishery 

exploitation and collateral habitat injury exist; 

clearly, these issues apply to many estuarine 

systems.

7.4.4 Prioritization of 

Management Responses

Setting priorities is important to the development 

of management adaptations to respond to global 

climate change. Because responsibilities for 

managing estuaries are scattered among so 

many different levels of government and 

among so many different organizations within 

levels of government, building the requisite 

integrated plan of management responses 

will be difficult. EBM is designed to bring 

these disparate groups together to achieve the 

integration and coordination of efforts (Peterson 

and Estes, 2001). However, implementing EBM 

for national estuaries and other estuaries may 

require changes in governance structures and, 

even then, may prove politically impractical. 

The State of North Carolina has made progress 

in bringing together diverse state agencies 

with management authority for aspects of 

estuarine fisheries habitats in its Coastal 

Habitat Protection Plan, which approaches an 

EBM plan. However, this governance method is 

targeted toward producing fish, rather than the 

complete scope of critical estuarine functions 

and broad suite of estuarine goods and services. 

This model approach also lacks a mechanism 

to engage the relevant federal authorities. The 

national estuaries bring to the table a wider 

range of managers and stakeholders, including 

those from federal, tribal, state, and local levels, 

as are contemplated in the genesis of an EBM 

plan. However, the CCMPs that arise from the 

national estuaries do not carry any force of 

regulation and often lack explicit numerical 

targets, instead expressing wish lists and goals 

for improvements that are probably unattainable 

without substantially more resources and 

powers. Perhaps the national estuaries 

could provide the basis for a new integrative 

governance structure for estuaries that could 

Kevin Rosseel, EPA

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 51 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 51 
52

management response. Clearly, the processes 

that threaten to produce the greatest loss of 

both natural ecosystem services and human 

values are the rise of sea level and ascendancy 

of intense storms, with implications for land 

inundation, property loss, habitat loss, water 

quality degradation, declines in fisheries and 

in wildlife populations associated with shallow 

shoreline habitats, and salt water intrusion into 

aquifers. These issues attract the most attention 

in the media and from the public, but the global 

capping of greenhouse gases may not represent a 

feasible management response. Thus, removing 

and preventing engineered shoreline armoring 

such as bulkheads, levees, and dikes, combined 

with shoreline property acquisition, may be 

the focus of discussion if their costs are not 

an overwhelming impediment. Because the 

complexity of intermingled responsibilities 

for managing interacting components inhibits 

establishment of EBM, attention to modifying 

governance structures to meet this crisis would 

also rank high among priorities.

7.5 CONCLUSIONS

7.5.1 Management Response

(1) Maintaining the status quo in management of 

estuarine ecosystems would result in substantial 

losses of ecosystem services as climate change 

progresses.

(2) In the absence of effective management 

adaptation, climate-related failures will appear 

in all of the most important management goals 

identified in the CCMPs of national estuaries: 

maintaining water quality, sustaining fish 

and wildlife populations, preserving habitat, 

protecting human values and services, and 

fulfilling water quantity needs.

not be widely appreciated by policy mak

managers, stakeholders, and the public. 

magnitude of such interactive effects typic

declines as each stressor is better controlled

enhanced management of traditional estua

stressors has value as a management adapta

to climate change as well.

(5) Among the consequences of climate cha

that threaten estuarine ecosystem servi

the most serious involve interactions betw

climate-dependent processes and hum

responses to climate change. In particu

conflicts arise between sustaining public t

values and private property, in that cur

policies protecting private shoreline prop

become increasingly injurious to public t

values as climate changes and sea level r

further. 

(6) Many management adaptations to clim

change to preserve estuarine services ca

achieved at all levels of government at mo

expense. One major form of adaptation invo

recognizing the projected consequences of 

level rise and then applying policies that cr

buffers to anticipate associated consequen

An important example would be redefin

riverine flood hazard zones to match 

projected expansion of flooding freque

and extent.

(7) Other management adaptations can 

designed to build resilience of ecological 

social systems. These adaptations incl

choosing only those sites for habitat restora

that allow natural recession landward, 

providing resilience to sea level rise.

(8) Management adaptations to climate cha

can occur on three different time scales

reactive measures taken in response to obse

negative impacts; (b) immediate developm

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 52 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 52 
recognition and understanding of the problem 

by managers and the public; the uncertainty 

associated with the projected consequences of 

climate change; the timetable on which change 

is anticipated; and the extent of political, 

institutional, and financial impediments.

(9) A critical goal of monitoring is to establish 

and follow indicators that signal approach toward 

an ecosystem threshold that—once passed—

implies passage of the system into an alternative 

state from which conversion back is difficult. 

One example of such ecosystem conversions 

involves nitrogen-induced conversion from 

an estuary dominated by submersed benthic 

grasses to an alternative dominated by seaweeds 

and planktonic microalgae. Avoiding conversion 

into such alternative states, often maintained by 

positive feedbacks, is one major motivation 

for implementing proactive management 

adaptation. This is especially critical if the 

transition is irreversible or very difficult and 

costly to reverse, and if the altered state delivers 

dramatically fewer ecosystem services. Work to 

establish environmental indicators is already 

being done in national estuaries, and can be 

used to monitor climate change impacts. 

(10) One critically important management 

challenge is to implement actions to achieve 

orderly retreat of development from shorelines at 

high risk of erosion and flooding, or to preclude 

development of undeveloped shorelines at high 

risk. Such proactive management actions have 

been inhibited in the past by: (a) uncertainty over 

or denial of climate change and its implications; 

(b) failures to include true economic, social, and 

environmental costs of present policies allowing 

and subsidizing such risky development; and 

(c) legal tenets of private property rights. One 

possible proactive management option would 

be to establish and enforce “rolling easements” 

edge in eroding areas of highest risk with 

artificially low rates, subsidized by the flood 

insurance policies of people in relatively safe 

areas. Ending such subsidization of highrisk developments would represent a form 

of management adaptation to sea level rise. 

The federal Coastal Barriers Resources Act 

provides some guidance for eliminating such 

subsidies for public infrastructure and private 

development, although this act applies only to 

a list of undeveloped coastal barriers and would 

require extension to all barriers and to estuarine 

shorelines to enhance its effectiveness as an 

adaptation to climate change.

(12) Building upon ongoing effor ts to 

operationalize ecosystem-based management 

(EBM) for oceans, analogous research is required 

for estuarine ecosystems. This research needs to 

address a major intrinsic impediment to EBM 

of estuarine services, which is the absence of a 

synthetic governance structure that unites now 

disparate management authorities, stakeholders, 

and the public. The U.S. Commission on 

Ocean Policy appealed for just this type of 

modification of governance structure to serve 

to implement EBM. EBM is necessary to 

facilitate management of interacting stressors, 

an almost ubiquitous condition for estuaries, 

because under present governance schemes 

management authority is partitioned among 

separate agencies or entities. Although national 

estuaries lack regulatory authority, they do 

unite most, if not all, stakeholders and could 

conceivably be reconstructed as quite different 

entities to develop and implement EBM. Such 

coordination among diverse management 

authorities must involve land managers in 

order to incorporate a major source of inputs 

to estuaries. Under changing climate, scales 

of management actions ultimately extend 

upward to include need for international 

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 53 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 53 
54

ct 997), wcpoves a oeoppotuty otegatg cate cage to aecosystebasepa

for management adaptation.

Management context 

The Albemarle-Pamlico system is a large complex of rivers, tributary estuaries, extensive wetlands, coastal 

lagoons, and barrier islands. It became part of the National Estuary Program in 1987. Initial efforts focused on 

assessments of the condition of the system through the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study. Assessment results were used in the stakeholder-based development of a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 

(CCMP) in 1994. The CCMP presented objectives for plans in five areas: water quality, vital habitats, fisheries, 

stewardship, and implementation. Although long-term solutions to climate change are not specifically addressed 

the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan, it does contemplate several anticipated impacts of climate change and huma

responses to threats. 

Key climate change impacts

• Observed rise in mean sea level (current rate of relative sea level rise estimated at over 3 mm per year);

• Projected increase in interannual variability of precipitation;

• Projected increase in frequency of intense storms; 

• Observed increase and projected future increase in water temperatures.

Opportunities for adaptation 

• The Coastal Habitat Protection Plan ongoing process provides a means for adaptation planning across manag

ment authorities that can overcome historic constraints of compartmentalization.

• A recently established (2005) state commission on effects of climate change provides opportunity for educatio

and participation of legislators, in a forward-looking planning process that can address issues with time fram

that extend well beyond a single election cycle. 

• Sparse human populations and low levels of development along much of the interior mainland shoreline of th

Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary provide openings for implementation of policies that protect the ability 

the salt marsh and other shallow-water estuarine habitats to retreat as sea level rises. (Implementing the polici

required to achieve this management adaptation would be extremely difficult in places where development an

infrastructure are so dense that the economic and social costs of shoreline retreat are high.)

• Rolling easements and other management adaptations to climate change could be promoted by the Clean Wat

Management Trust Fund and the Ecosystem Enhancement Program of North Carolina.

Conclusions

Community education and continuous dialogue with stakeholders are critically important in this situation, where 

the most economically valuable part of the ecosystem (the coast) is also the most vulnerable to climate. In estuar

ies, the human interest in protecting the shoreline from change is in direct conflict with the need for the shallow 

marshlands to transgress. Thus, the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program’s stakeholder-driven process is 

well suited to catalyze necessary dialog on planning issues and thereby encourage legislative or regulatory actions 

to adapt to climate change.

The Coastal Habitat Protection Plan process provides a model on which to base further development and application of estuarine ecosystem-based management. Similarly, the North Carolina study commission established 

to report on the consequences of climate change and to make recommendations for management responses can 

serve as a model for other states and the National Estuary Program to synthesize information on climate change 

impacts and adaptation measures. 

Finally, even the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program, which is among the most sensitive estuaries to 

climate change and is equipped with an active management planning process, does not explicitly include climate 

change adaptation measures in its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. This highlights the need 

for increased attention to this issue by the National Estuary Program.

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 54 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 54 
analog to EBM, the Coastal Habitat Protection 

Plan, unifies state agencies to provide synthetic 

protection for fish habitats. This provides a 

model on which to base further development and 

application of estuarine EBM. The Legislature 

of the State of North Carolina established a study 

commission to report on the consequences of 

climate change and to make recommendations 

for management responses. This procedure too 

can form a model for other states and the federal 

government through the NEP. Although the 

Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary is among 

the estuaries most sensitive to climate change, 

in large part because of the huge area of lowlying wetlands along the estuarine shorelines, 

and has an active management planning process 

in place, the absence of explicit adaptive 

management consideration in its CCMP reflects 

a need for attention to this issue by all national 

estuaries. 

(14) Include climate change sensitivity, 

resilience, and adaptation responses as priorities 

on all relevant funding programs at state and 

federal levels. In the absence of such actions, for 

example, climate impacts on estuarine wetlands 

will likely violate the national “no-net-loss of 

wetlands” policy, which underwrites the current 

application of the Clean Water Act, in two ways: 

(a) wetland loss due to climate change will 

increasingly compound the continuing loss of 

wetlands due to development and inadequate 

mitigation; and; (b) measures used to protect 

human infrastructure from climate impacts will 

prevent wetland adaptation to climate change. 

(15) Review all federal and state environmental 

programs to assess whether projected 

consequences of climate change have been 

considered adequately, and whether adaptive 

management needs to be inserted to achieve 

programmatic goals. For example, Jimerfield 

be significant, but now remain so uncertain 

that they cannot yet be included in IPCC 

projections. This especially includes enhancing 

our understanding of processes and rates of 

melting of Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets 

as a function of changing temperature and other 

coupled climatic conditions. Furthermore, it is 

important to resolve uncertainties about the 

fate of water in liquid phase released from the 

Greenland ice sheet, which involves the ability 

to project how land surface levels will respond 

to release from the weight of ice cover.

(2) Our understanding of processes affecting 

elevation change in land masses needs to be 

enhanced generally, so that risk of flooding, 

shoreline erosion, and storm damage can 

be better based upon geography-specific 

predictions of change in relative sea level, which 

combines rate of eustatic sea level change with 

land subsidence or emergence rate.

(3) Quantitative monitoring and research 

should be established in some model estuarine 

systems to develop mechanistic understanding 

of changes projected as consequences of climate 

change. Many climate change drivers (e.g.,

CO2 concentration, ocean temperature at the 

surface and with depth, sea level) are currently 

monitored. However, projected consequences 

(e.g., shoreline erosion rates; estuarine physical 

circulation patterns; water column stratification 

and extent of hypoxia; species range extensions 

and subsequent consequences of interactions 

within these new combinations of predators, 

prey, and competitors; the incidence and 

impacts of disease and parasitism) require new 

targeted monitoring and research efforts to fill 

the many conceptual gaps in our understanding 

of these processes.

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 55 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 55 
56

in contribution of snowmelt and rain-on-snow 

to timing, magnitude and hydroperiod of river 

discharges (e.g., Mote, 2006), changes in storm 

tracks (e.g., Salathé, 2006), changes in sediment 

loading to and circulation within estuaries, and 

how river management and regulation will be 

a factor (Sanchez-Arcilla and Jimenez, 1997) 

Ultimately, these models will need to be tied to 

coastal management models and other tools that 

allow assessment of both climate change and 

human response and infrastructure response.

(5) Research is needed on alter native 

implementation mechanisms, costs, and 

feasibility of achieving some form of coastal 

realignment, probably involving rolling 

easements. This would include legal, social, and 

cultural considerations in alternative methods 

of resolving or minimizing conflicts between 

public trust and private property values, in 

context of building resilience to climate change 

by requiring rolling easements for development 

in now largely undeveloped waterfront and 

riparian areas at risk of flooding, erosion, and 

storm damage.

7.5.2.2 Data Gaps

There is great need for socioeconomic research 

and monitoring on how social and economic 

variables and systems are changing, and 

likely to change further, in coastal regions 

as sea level rises. This includes developing 

better information on economic, social, and 

environmental costs of estuarine-relevant 

management policies under global climate 

change. Economic and social impacts of the 

growing abandonment of risky coastal areas 

by property insurers, and the possible future 

challenges in finding mortgage loans in such 

regions, may be important inputs into decisions 

EBM.

(2) EBM of estuaries involves at minimum 

approach that considers the entire drainage b

Management plans to control estuarine w

quality parameters sensitive to eutrophicat

for example, must take a basin-wide appro

to develop understanding of how nutr

loading at all positions along the waters

is transferred downstream to the estu

Basin-scale management by its very na

thus prospers from uniting local governm

across the entire watershed to deve

partnerships that coordinate rule developm

and implementation strategies. Often tra

programs (e.g., non-point source pollu

“credits”) are available that allow economi

be realized in achieving management goals

this end of facilitating management adapta

to climate change, new ecologically ba

partnerships of local governments could 

promoted and supported.

7.5.2.4 Tool Needs

(1) New and enhanced research funds need t

invested in development and implementatio

estuarine observing systems that are curre

in a planning stage, such as NEON, ORION

IOOS, and others. These observing systems n

full integration with global coastal observ

programs and the Global Earth Observa

System of Systems. Whereas physical 

chemical parameters lend themselve

automated monitoring by remote sen

and observing system platforms, more b

technological research is also necessary to a

monitoring of key biological variables as 

of these observing systems. Furthermore, 

critical that current efforts to develop monito

systems in coastal ocean waters be brought 

estuaries and up into their watersheds, w

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 56 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 56 
management adaptations in response to climate 

change, including especially the ability to use 

alternative scenarios to produce more effective 

local land-use planning.

(4) New tools are not enough: older, wellaccepted tools must be used more effectively. 

Gover n ment agencies responsible for 

monitoring the environment have been reducing 

their commitment to this mission because of 

funding cuts. Extending historical records 

of environmental conditions is now even 

more urgent as a means of detecting climate 

change.

7.5.2.5 Education

(1) Urgent need exists to inform policy makers, 

managers, stakeholders, and the public about 

the specific evidence of climate change and 

its predicted consequences on estuaries. 

Education on the scale necessary will require 

new initiatives that make use of a variety of 

media tools, and that provide the public with 

accurate and unbiased information. Effective 

efforts must involve diverse suites of educational 

media including information delivery on 

evolving platforms such as the internet and 

move from managementasusual to adaptive 

management. Especially challenging is the 

process of reconsideration of developing and 

redeveloping shorelines at risk of flooding, 

erosion, and storm damage.

(3) Some countries and states provide periodic 

assessments of the state of their environment. 

Monitoring data from many national estuaries 

often now serve this goal when placed in 

a sufficiently long time frame that extends 

back before establishment of the NEP. Similar 

scoreboards relating the status of stressors 

associated with climate change and of the 

consequences of climate change might be 

valuable additions to websites for all national 

estuaries and for our country’s estuaries more 

broadly. To illustrate these aspects of climate 

change, longer-term records are required than 

those typically found in state of environment 

reports. One simple example would be provision 

of empirical data on sea level from local 

recording stations. Similarly, maps of historical 

shoreline movement would provide the public 

with a visual indication of site-specific risks. 

Historical hurricane tracks are similarly 

informative and compelling.

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 57 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 57 
58

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 58 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 58 
point and nonpoint sources of pollution.

Sec. 404 Permits 

for Dredged or Fill 

Materials (1987)

Authorizes the Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army) to issue permits 

for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable 

waters at specified disposal sites.

http://www.epa.gov/o

wetlands/

Sec. 601 State Water 

Pollution Control 

Revolving Funds (1987)

Authorizes EPA to capitalize state grants for water pollution 

control revolving funds for (1) for construction of public 

treatment facilities (2) for management program under section 

319 (nonpoint source), and (3) for conservation and management 

plans under section 320 (NEP).

http://www.epa.gov/o

cwfinance/

Coastal Zone 

Management Act (1972)

Provides grants to states that develop and implement federally 

approved coastal zone management plans; allows states with 

approved plans the right to review federal actions; authorizes the 

National Estuarine Research Reserve System.

http://www.legislati

noaa.gov/Legislation/c

html

National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA)

(1969)

Establishes national environmental policy for the protection, 

maintenance, and enhancement of the environment; integrates 

environmental values into decision making processes; requires 

federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their 

decision making processes by considering the environmental 

impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to 

those actions.

http://www.epa.go

compliance/nepa

Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act

(1996, amended)

Provides for the conservation and management of the fishery 

resources; ensures conservation; facilitates long-term protection 

of essential fish habitats; recognizes that one of the greatest 

long-term threats to the viability of fisheries is the continuing 

loss of marine, estuarine, and other aquatic habitats; promotes 

increased attention to habitat considerations.

http://www.nmfs.no

gov/sfa/

Endangered Species 

Act (1973)

Provides a means for ecosystems, upon which endangered 

species and threatened species depend, to be conserved; 

applicants for permits for activities that might harm endangered 

species must develop a Habitat Conservation Plan, designed to 

offset any harmful effects of the proposed activity.

http://www.fws.go

Endangered/

National Flood 

Insurance Program

(1968)

Component of FEMA that makes federally backed flood 

insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business 

owners in ~20,000 communities who voluntarily adopt floodplain 

management ordinances to restrict development in areas subject 

to flooding, storm surge or coastal erosion; identifies and maps 

the Nation’s floodplains.

http://www.fema.go

business/nfip/

Nonindigenous Aquatic 

Nuisance Prevention 

and Control Act (1990)

Provides means to prevent and control infestations of the 

coastal inland waters of the United States by nonindigenous 

aquatic nuisance species, control of ballast water, and allows 

for development of voluntary State Aquatic Nuisance Species 

Management Plans.

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/

control.asp

Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act (CBRA) 

(1982)

Designates various undeveloped coastal barrier islands for 

inclusion in the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Areas so 

designated are made ineligible for direct or indirect federal 

financial assistance that might support development, including 

flood insurance, except for emergency life-saving activities.

http://www.fws.go

habitatconservatio

coastal_barrier.ht

095220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 59 95220009318_SAP Ch 7.indd 59 
Miller, University of North Carolina at Wilmington; Robert S

Steneck, University of Maine; Christa Woodley, University of 

California at Davis

C

8.1 SUMMARY

Marine protected areas (MPAs) such as national marine sanctuaries provide place-based 

management of marine ecosystems through various degrees and types of protective actions. A 

goal of national marine sanctuaries is to maintain natural biological communities by protecting 

habitats, populations, and ecological processes using community-based approaches. Biodiversity 

and habitat complexity are key ecosystem characteristics that must be protected to achieve 

sanctuary goals, and biologically structured habitats (such as coral reefs and kelp forests) are 

especially susceptible to degradation resulting from climate change. Marine ecosystems are 

susceptible to the effects of ocean acidification on carbonate chemistry, as well as to direct and 

indirect effects of increasing temperatures, changing circulation patterns, increasing severity of 

storms, and other factors.

KEY FINDINGS

Implementing networks of MPAs may help spread the risks posed by climate change by 

protecting multiple replicates of the full range of habitats and communities within an 

ecosystem. Recognizing that the science underlying our understanding of resilience is developing and that climate change will not affect marine habitats and species equally everywhere, an 

element of risk spreading is needed in MPA design. To help avoid the loss of a particular habitat 

type, managers can protect multiple examples of all habitats. In designing networks, managers 

can consider information on areas that may represent potential refugia from climate change 

impacts as well as information on connectivity (current patterns that support larval replenishment and recovery) among sites that vary in sensitivity to climate change. Larger MPAs may be 

necessary for networking to achieve goals such as protecting multiple refugia and addressing 

variability in connectivity. 

Managers can increase resilience to climate change by managing other anthropogenic 

stressors that also degrade ecosystems and by protecting key functional groups. Examples 

of anthropogenic stressors that can be managed at the site level include overfishing and overexploitation; excessive inputs of nutrients, sediments, and pollutants; and habitat damage and 

destruction. Reduction of these stressors may boost the ability of species, communities, and 

ecosystems to tolerate climate-related stresses or recover after impacts have occurred. ResilChapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 1 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 1 
2

include: (1) providing opportunities for shared leadership roles within government and man

ment systems; (2) integrating MPAs and networks into broader coastal management initiat

to increase public awareness and support of management goals; (3) encouraging local econo

diversification so communities are better able to deal with environmental, economic, and so

changes; (4) encouraging stakeholder participation and incorporating stakeholders’ ecolo

knowledge in a multi-governance system; and (5) making culturally appropriate conflict res

tion mechanisms accessible to local communities. 

A range of case studies highlight various ecological issues and management challen

found across MPAs. Three case studies are based on coral reef ecosystems, which have ex

rienced coral bleaching events over the past two decades (see Case Study Summaries 8.1, 

and 8.3). They span a range of levels of protection, from relatively low (Florida Keys) to mo

ate (Great Barrier Reef) to complete (Northwestern Hawaiian Islands). The Great Barrier 

Marine Park is an example of an MPA with a relatively highly developed climate change prog

in place that can serve as an example to other MPAs. A Coral Bleaching Response Plan is pa

its Climate Change Response Program, which is linked to a Representative Areas Program a

Water Quality Protection Plan in a comprehensive approach to enhance resilience of the c

reef ecosystem. In contrast, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is developing a bleac

response plan but does not have a climate change response program. The Florida Reef Resilie

Program, led by The Nature Conservancy, is implementing a quantitative assessment of c

reefs before and after bleaching events. Finally, the recently established Papahānaumokuā

(Northwestern Hawaiian Islands) Marine National Monument is one of the largest MPAs in 

world and provides a unique opportunity to examine the effects of climate change on a ne

intact large-scale marine ecosystem that will soon be a highly protected marine reserve. 

A fourth case study (see Case Study Summary 8.4) examines the Channel Islands National Ma

Sanctuary, located off the coast of southern California. The Sanctuary Management Plan 

the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary mentions, but does not fully address, the i

of climate change. The plan describes a strategy to identify, assess, and respond to emer

issues through consultation with a stakeholder advisory committee and local, state, or fed

agencies. Emerging issues that are not yet addressed by the management plan include oc

warming, sea level rise, shifts in ocean circulation, ocean acidification, spread of disease, 

shifts in species ranges.

A number of opportunities exist for addressing barriers to implementation of adapta

options in MPAs. Barriers to implementation of adaptation options include lack of resour

varying degrees of interest in and concern about climate change impacts, and gaps in b

research on marine ecosystems and climate change effects. Opportunities include a grow

public concern about the marine environment, recommendations of two ocean commissi

and an increasing dedication of marine scientists to conduct research that is relevant to M

management. References to climate change as well as MPAs permeate both the Pew Oc

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 2 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 2 
The most effective configuration of MPAs may be a network of highly protected areas 

nested within a broader management framework. As part of this configuration, areas that 

are ecologically and physically significant and connected by currents, larval dispersal, and adult 

movements could be identified and included as a way of enhancing resilience to climate change. 

Connectivity is fundamental to ensuring larval exchange and the replenishment of populations 

in areas damaged by natural or human-related agents, and thus can enhance recovery following disturbance events. Critical areas to consider include nursery grounds, spawning grounds, 

areas of high species diversity, areas that contain a variety of habitat types in close proximity, 

and potential climate refugia. A high level of protection for these types of areas should help 

protect key ecological processes that enhance resilience such as larval production and recruitment, ecological interactions among full complements of species, and ontogenetic changes in 

habitat utilization. Management of the areas surrounding MPAs helps increase the likelihood of 

success of MPAs by creating a buffer zone between areas with high levels of protective actions 

and those with none.

8.2 BACKGROUND AND 

HISTORY

8.2.1 Introduction

Coastal oceans and marine ecosystems are 

central to the lives and livelihoods of a large 

and growing proportion of the U.S. population. 

They provide extensive areas for recreation and 

tourism, and support productive fisheries. Some 

areas produce significant quantities of oil and 

gas, and commercial shipping crosses coastal 

waters. In addition, coral reefs and barrier 

islands provide coastal communities with some 

protection from storm-generated waves. In 

their global analysis of the value of ecosystem 

services, Costanza et al. (1997) estimated 

that coastal marine ecosystem services were 

worth more than one-third the value of all 

terrestrial and marine ecosystem services 

combined ($12.5 of $33 trillion). Despite their 

value, coastal ecosystems and the services they 

provide are becoming increasingly vulnerable 

to human pressures, and management of 

coastal resources and human impacts generally 

is insufficient or ineffective (Millennium 

Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).

As a result of human activities, marine 

ecosystems are exposed to a long list of threats 

and stressors, including overexploitation 

of living marine resources, pollution, 

redistribution of sediments, and habitat damage 

and destruction. There is an equally long list 

of regulatory responses, including managing 

fisheries for sustainability, restricting ocean 

dumping, reducing loads of nutrients and 

contaminants, controlling dredge-and-fill 

operations, managing vessel traffic to reduce 

large-vessel groundings, and so on. These 

regulations are managed by coastal states and 

the federal government, with state jurisdiction 

extending three nautical miles (nm) offshore 

(9 nm in the Gulf of Mexico) and federal 

jurisdiction on out to 200 nm or the edge of the 

continental shelf (the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 3 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 3 
4

biogenic habitats are fundamental to ecosystem 

structure and function, and support a range of 

different community types (Bertness, Gaines, 

and Hay, 2001). In addition, there are significant 

deep-water coral formations about which we 

are just starting to increase our understanding 

(Rogers, 1999; Watling and Risk, 2002). 

Embedded within the general protections of 

the U.S. EEZ are hundreds of federal marine 

protected areas (MPAs) that are designed to 

provide place-based management at “special” 

places (Barr, 2004) and other areas that 

have been identified as meriting particular 

regulations. The term “marine protected area” 

has been used in many ways (e.g., Kelleher, 

Bleakley, and Wells, 1995; Agardy, 1997; 

Palumbi, 2001; National Research Council, 

2001; Agardy et al., 2003). We use the following 

definition: “Marine protected area” means any 

area of the marine environment that has been 

reserved by federal, state, territorial, tribal, 

within relatively small areas. It is also impor

to highlight at the onset that managem

of waters surrounding MPAs is critic

important both to the effectiveness of the M

themselves as well as to the overall resilienc

larger marine systems. By “resilience” we r

to the amount of change or disturbance that 

be absorbed by a system before the syste

redefined by a different set of processes 

structures (i.e., the ecosystem recovers f

the disturbance without a major phase s

see Glossary).

Federal MPAs have been established by 

Department of the Interior (National P

Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 

the Department of Commerce, National Oce

and Atmospheric Administration (Nati

Marine Fisheries Service, National Estua

Research Reserve System, and Natio

Marine Sanctuary Program) (Table 8.1). A 2

executive order established the National Ce

Type of MPA/MMA Number 

of Sites Administration Mandate

National Marine Sanctuary 13 NOAA/National Marine Sanctuary Program National Marine Sanctuaries Act

Fishery Management Areas 216 NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service Magnuson-Stevens Act, Endangered Spec

Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act

National Estuarine Research 

Reserve3 27 NOAA/Office of Ocean and Coastal 

Resource Management Coastal Zone Management Act

National Park 42 National Park Service NPS Organic Act

National Monument4 3 National Park Service NPS Organic Act

National Wildlife Refuge 109 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act

Table 8.1. Types of federal marine protected and marine managed areas, administration, and legislative mandates. MPA

are intended primarily to protect or conserve marine life and habitat, and are a subset of marine managed areas (MMAs

which protect, conserve, or otherwise manage a variety of resources and uses including living marine resources, cultura

and historical resources, and recreational opportunities.2

1 Executive Order 13158 quoted in: National Center for Marine Protected Areas, 2006: Draft Framework for Developing the Nat

System of Marine Protected Areas. National Center for Marine Protected Areas, Silver Spring, MD. 2 California Department of Fish and Game, 2007: Marine life protection act initiatives. California Department of Fish and G

Website, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/defs.html#mma, accessed on 7-27-2007. 3 The National Estuarine Research Reserve System is a state partnership program.

4 The Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument is included here. It is co-managed by NOAA/National Marine Sanct

Program and National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the State of Hawaii and was establishe

Presidential Proclamation 8031.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 4 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 4 
NERR 1 27 0 0%

South Atlantic

(North 

Carolina to 

Florida)

 525,627

NP 8 1,421 119 8% 

NWR 19 3,705 564 15% 

NMS 3 9,853 591 6% 

FMA 11 974,243 349 <0.1 % 

NERR 5 928 0 0%

Caribbean

 212,371

NP 2 27 1 2% 

NWR 0 0 0 0% 

NM8 2 128 76 59% 

NMS 0 0 0 0% 

FMA 6 168 55 33% 

NERR 1 7 0 0%

Gulf of Mexico

 695,381

NP 4 4,612 0 0% 

NWR 24 2,375 2 <0.1% 

NMS 1 146 0 0% 

FMA 7 368,446 0 0% 

NERR 5 2,195 0 0%

West Coast

 823,866

NP 6 595 0 0% 

NWR 15 226 16 7% 

NMS 5 30,519 257 1% 

FMA 56 386,869 0 0% 

NERR 5 57 0 0%

Alaska

 3,710,774

NP 3 29,795 0 0% 

NWR 3 212,620 0 0% 

NMS 0 0 0 0% 

FMA 17 1,326,177 0 0% 

NERR 1 931 0 0%

Pacific Islands

 3,869,806

NP 4 21 < 1 <1% 

NWR 10 281 158 56% 

NM8 1 352,754 352,754 100%

NMS 3 3,556 1 <1% 

FMA 6 1,467,614 0 0% 

NERR 0 0 0 0%

National Total

 10,413,230

NP 42 72,943 120 0.16% 

NWR 109 219,252 740 0.34% 

NM 3 352,882 352,882 100% 

NMS 13 46,264 591 1.3% 

FMA 216 5,422,826 488 0.01% 

NERR 27 4,606 0 0.00%

 TOTAL ALL FEDERAL MMAS9 410 6,118,773 354,820 5.8% 

5 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2006: Marine Protected Areas of the United States: marine managed are

inventory. Marine Protected Areas Website, http://www3.mpa.gov/exploreinv/AlphaSearch.aspx, accessed on 2006. 6 Total area includes only those sites for which data are available.

7 NERRs are state/federal partnership sites.

8 The Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument is scheduled to become a no-take area in five years when all fishing 

phased out. This site has been included in the no-take category and will be the largest no-take MPA in the United States. 9 This total is corrected for overlapping jurisdictions of Federal MMAs.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 5 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 5 
6

strengthening (IPCC, 2007c) 

against a background of longstanding alterations to ecological 

structure and function of marine 

ecosystems caused by fisheries 

exploitation, pollution, habitat 

degradation and destruction, 

and other factors (Pauly et al., 

1998; Jackson et al., 2001; Pew 

Ocean Commission, 2003; U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy, 

2004). Nowhere is the stress of 

elevated sea surface temperatures 

more dramatically expressed than 

in coral reefs, where local-scale coral bleaching 

has occurred in the Eastern Pacific and Florida 

for more than two decades (Glynn, 1991; Obura, 

Causey, and Church, 2006)11 prior to the first 

global mass bleaching event in 1998. Impacts 

of climate variability and change in temperate 

ecosystems have not been as dramatic as 

coral bleaching. Interestingly, the combined 

effects of climate change, regime shifts, and 

El Niño-Southern Oscillation events (ENSOs) 

can strongly affect kelp forests (Paine, Tegner, 

and Johnson, 1998; Steneck et al., 2002), 

but apparently not associated communities 

(Halpern and Cottenie, 2007).

The purpose of this chapter is to examine 

adaptation options for MPAs in the context of 

climate change. We will focus on the 14 MPAs 

that comprise the National Marine Sanctuary 

10 http://mpa.gov/

11 See also Causey, B.D., 2001: Lessons learned from 

the intensification of coral bleaching from 1980-2000 

in the Florida Keys, USA. In: Coral Bleaching and 

Marine Protected Areas. Proceedings of the Workshop on Mitigating Coral Bleaching Impact Through 

MPA Design, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI, 29-31 

May 2001 [Salm, R.V. and S.L. Coles (eds.)]. Asia 

Pacific Coastal Marine Program Report # 0102, The 

Nature Conservancy, Honolulu, HI, pp. 60-66.

Figure 8.1. Locations of the 14 MPAs that com

the National Marine Sanctuary System.12

The chapter provides background informa

about the historical context and origins of M

with National Marine Sanctuaries highlig

as an example of effectively managed M

(Kelleher, Bleakley, and Wells, 1995; Aga

1997). MPAs are managed by several fed

organizations other than the National Oce

and Atmospheric Administration (NOA

(Table 8.1), but it is beyond the scop

this chapter to cover all entities. Natio

Marine Sanctuaries were selected to illust

adaptation options for MPAs that apply bro

with respect to major anthropogenic and clim

change stressors.

It is also beyond the scope of this chapte

cover issues concerning marine ecosyst

from tropical to polar climates. This cha

highlights coral reef ecosystems, which h

12 National Marine Sanctuary Program, 2

National Marine Sanctuary system and field 

National Marine Sanctuaries Program Webp

http://www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov/visit/welc

html, accessed on 5-18-2007.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 6 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 6 
Schuttenberg, 2006).13

Site Location Region Year 

Designated Size (km2) Yr of First Mgt Plan Status of Mgt Plan Revision

Channel Islands CA PC 1980 4,263 1983 2008 planned publication

Cordell Bank CA PC 1989 1,362 1989 Central CA Joint Mgt Plan 

Review14

Fagatele Bay Amer. 

Samoa PI 1986 0.66 1984 Ongoing

Florida Keys FL SE 1990 9,844 1996 Published 2007

Flower Garden 

Banks TX SE 1992 2.0 In preparation

Gray's Reef GA SE 1981 58 1983 Published 2006

Gulf of the 

Farallones CA PC 1981 3,252 1983 Central CA Joint Mgt Plan Review

Hawaiian Islands 

HW15 HI PI 1992 3,548 1997 Published 2002

Monitor16 NC NE 1975 4.1 199717

Monterey Bay CA PC 1992 13,784 1992 Central CA Joint Mgt Plan 

Review

Olympic Coast WA PC 1994 8,573 1994 Ongoing

Papahãnaumokuãkea 

MNM18 HI PI 2006 ~360,000 In 

preparation

Stellwagen Bank MA NE 1992 2,188 1993 2009 planned publication

Thunder Bay16 MI NE 2000 1,160 1999 Ongoing

Key Largo19 FL 1975 353

Looe Key19 FL 1981 18

Table 8.3. Sites in the National Marine Sanctuary System.12

Regions: PC = Pacific Coast, PI = Pacific Islands, SE = Southeast, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean, NE = Northeast.

13 See also Salm, R.V. and S.L. Coles (eds.), 2001: Coral Bleaching and Marine Protected Areas. Proceedings of the Workshop 

on Mitigating Coral Bleaching Impact Through MPA Design, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI, 29-31 May 2001. Asia Pacific 

Coastal Marine Program Report # 0102, The Nature Conservancy, Honolulu, HI, 118 pp. 

 Marshall, P. and H. Schuttenberg, 2006: A Reef Manager’s Guide to Coral Bleaching. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, http://www.coris.noaa.gov/activities/reef_managers_guide/, pp.1-178. 14 The Central California Joint Management Plan Review is a coordinated process to obtain public comments on draft management plans, proposed rules, and draft environmental impact statements for the three Central California Sanctuaries. 15 HW = humpback whale.

16 The Monitor (http://monitor.noaa.gov/) and Thunder Bay (http://thunderbay.noaa.gov/) NMSs were designated for protection 

of maritime heritage resources. 17 This plan is a comprehensive, long-range preservation plan for the Civil War ironclad U.S.S. Monitor. 18 The Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument is co-managed by NOAA/National Marine Sanctuary Program and 

National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the State of Hawaii. 19 The Key Largo and Looe Key NMSs were subsumed within the Florida Keys NMS as Existing Management Areas.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 7 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 7 
8

8..stocaCotet ad 

Origins of National Marine 

Sanctuaries and Other Types of 

Marine Protected Areas

8.2.2.1 Mounting Environmental 

Concerns and Congressional Actions

In 1972 the United States acknowledged the 

dangers and threats of uncontrolled industrial 

and urban growth and their impacts on coastal 

and marine habitats through the passage of 

a number of Congressional acts that focused 

on conservation of threatened coastal and

of marine protected areas—national ma

sanctuaries (NMS)—administered by NO

(Fig. 8.2).

8.2.2.2. Types of Federal MPAs and Fo

on National Marine Sanctuaries

In addition to the 13 national marine sanctua

and one marine national monument, th

are hundreds of marine managed ar

(MMAs) under other, sometimes overlapp

jurisdictions (Table 8.2) (National Rese

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

located within the Department of Commerce, focuses on the 

condition of the ocean and the atmosphere.

NOAA’s National Ocean Service measures and predicts coastal 

and ocean phenomena, protects large areas of the oceans, works 

to ensure safe navigation, and provides tools and information to 

protect and restore coastal and marine resources. 

The National Marine Sanctuary Program manages and protects 13 

Sanctuaries and one Marine National Monument (co-managed with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) that together encompass over 

150,000 square miles of U.S. ocean. 

Each sanctuary maintains an on-site fi eld staff that conducts 

research and monitoring, resource protection, education projects 

and other activities. 

Level of Organization Jurisdiction

NOAA

National Ocean 

Service

National Marine Sanctuary 

Program

National Marine Sanctuary

Figure 8.2. Organizational chart of the National Marine Sanctuary Program.20

20 NOAA National Ocean Service, 2006: NOAA’s National Ocean Service: program offices. NOAA Web

http://www.oceanservice.noaa.gov/programs/, accessed on 7-29-2007.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 8 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 8 
s aeape oa ae potecteaea wta eatvey ow eveopotectousg otae a

reserves (6% of total area). 

Management context 

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary encompasses multiple areas with different degrees of protection and management histories, some going back to 1960. It was designated as a national marine sanctuary 

1990, but management regulations did not go into effect until 1997, once the final management plan was ap

proved. There are five types of management zones, with varying degrees of restrictions, including “no-take

limits on specific types of fishing or vessel access, and research-only access. In addition, a water quality pro

tection program is administered through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with the Stat

of Florida and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Enforcement efforts complement 

education and outreach programs; mooring buoys and waterway markers help minimize physical impacts 

from anchoring and vessel groundings. 

Key climate change impacts

• Projected increase in water temperatures by several degrees in the next 100 years;

• Projected reduction in rates of calcification associated with increased ocean acidification;

• Projected increase in intensity of storms; 

• Expected exacerbation of coral bleaching events;

• Potential increased prevalence of diseases;

• Potential changes in ocean circulation patterns;

• Potential geographic range shifts of individual species, and changes in reef community composition, in 

sponse to temperature increases.

Opportunities for adaptation 

• Bleaching-resistant sites could be targeted for priority protection as refugia and as larval sources for rec

ery; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coral Reef Watch program to predict m

bleaching events presents an opportunity for designing before-during-after sampling around bleaching eve

which will be crucial for site identification.

• The Florida Reef Resilience Program, led by The Nature Conservancy, is conducting surveys to iden

resilient areas and is promoting public awareness and education.

• In the short time since their establishment, no-take zones have been shown to enhance heavily fished po

lations, which in turn may support resilience through re-establishment of key predators. (Much additio

research is needed on the effects of community structure on resilience.)

• Protecting habitats similar to those that thrived during the middle Holocene, when coral reefs flouris

north of their current distribution, could allow for northward range migration. (This would be conting

on mitigation of existing stressors that may otherwise limit the ability of corals to migrate.)

• Mangrove restoration not only provides habitat and shoreline protection, but is also a source of dissol

organic compounds that have been shown to provide protection from photo-oxidative stress in corals.

Conclusions

Environmental problems that spurred the creation of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary are alrea

being exacerbated by climate change, in particular coral bleaching and disease. Some of the management 

protections to reduce other anthropogenic stressors may also increase coral reef resilience and allow rang

expansion northward in response to climate change. Monitoring and research can identify bleaching resist

and resilient sites, so that protection efforts can be adjusted for future climate conditions. 

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 9 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 9 
10

Management context 

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) Marine Park has been under a management regime since 1975. Marine park zonin

was revised in 2003 to increase no-take zones to 33% of the total area, with at least 20% protected in each hab

tat bioregion. Also in 2003, the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan was implemented to manage diffuse source

of pollution entering the GBR from the adjacent large catchment area. Tourism and fishing industries are highly 

regulated through the GBR Marine Park Authority and the Queensland Government, respectively. The GBR 

coast is one of the fastest growing regions in Australia, with different aspects of coastal development regulated 

at the local, state, and federal levels. The GBR Climate Change Response Program developed a Climate Change 

Action Plan in 2007 to facilitate: 1) targeted science; 2) a resilient GBR ecosystem; 3) adaptation of GBR industries and communities; and 4) reduced climate footprints.

Key climate change impacts

• Observed increase in regional sea surface temperatures (0.4°C since 1850) and projected further increase 

1–3°C by 2100, which will increase coral bleaching and disease, and will have implications for primary produ

tivity;

• Projected decrease in ocean pH of 0.4–0.5 units by 2100, which will limit calcification rates of corals, foram

some plankton and molluscs;

• Projected rise in sea level of 30–60 cm by 2100, which will affect seabird and turtle nesting, island and coast

habitats, light penetration, and connectivity;

• Projected increase in tropical cyclone intensities, with potentially greater damage to coastal and shallow habita

including coral reefs;

• Projected changes in rainfall, river flow, and El Niño Southern Oscillation regimes;

• Expected losses of coral reef habitat, with associated decreases in ecosystem diversity and changes in com

munity composition.

Opportunities for adaptation 

• Areas with high resilience factors (water quality, coral cover, community composition, larval supply, recruitme

success, herbivory, disease, and effective management) are being identified as priority areas to protect fro

other stresses; areas with low resilience are also being identified as candidates for more active management t

improve their condition.

• Landward areas could be conserved through land acquisition and removal of barrier structures to allow migr

tion of mangroves and wetlands as sea level rises. 

• Sites of specific importance could be protected from coral bleaching through artificial shading or water mixi

in summer months;

• Through partnerships with stakeholders to identify impacts on tourism, options for how the industry can r

spond, and strategies for becoming climate ready, the GBR has developed a Marine Tourism and Climate Chang

Action Strategy.

• By having a variety of management tools ready as new information becomes available, it may be possible to ma

age flexibly and respond rapidly to ongoing climatic changes. 

Conclusions

The GBR Climate Change Response Program has already documented observed climate change effects, identified likely vulnerabilities, and developed a Climate Change Action Plan. The combination of dramatic potential 

ecosystem effects and a strong national and international constituency for protection has made the GBR Marine 

Park an international leader in addressing climate change impacts on coral reefs. Management examples for 

other MPAs include initiatives that support local industries and communities in adapting to climate change, man

agement plans that are flexible in the face of uncertainty, and resilience-based management strategies.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 10 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 10 
The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) are an isolated, low lying, primarily uninhabited archipelago t

is relatively free from human impacts due to its remoteness. Eight of the 10 NWHI have been protected s

1909 as part of what is now the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge. The Papahānaumokuākea Marin

National Monument was designated in 2006 as the largest marine protected area in the world, managed jo

by the State of Hawaii, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm

istration. The new protections will phase out commercial fishing over five years, and already ban other typ

of resource extraction and waste dumping. The dominant stressors are natural ones, including large inter- 

intra-annual water temperature variations, seasonally high wave energy, and inter-annual and inter-decada

variability in ocean productivity. Marine debris is the largest anthropogenic stressor; a debris removal prog

between 1999 and 2003 resulted in a removal of historical debris accumulation, but the current level of eff

not sufficient to keep up with the annual rate of accumulation. The draft Monument Management Plan doe

address climate and ocean change management actions specifically, but many of the research, monitoring, 

education plans focus on climate, which will provide managers with tools for addressing climate change. 

Key climate change impacts

• Projected increase in the intensity of storm events, which will in turn intensify wave impacts on habitat

• Projected decreases in important habitat for sea turtles, endangered monk seals, and seabirds as sea lev

inundates low-lying emergent areas;

• Expected increase in temperature-related coral bleaching events like those observed in 2002 and 2004;

• Projected increases in ocean temperature that could lead to shifts in the distribution of corals and oth

ganisms; shallow-water species that are adapted to cooler water may see habitat loss, while those adapt

warmer water might extend their range.

Opportunities for adaptation 

• Monitoring and research provide an opportunity to evaluate the hypothesis that large, intact predator-dom

ecosystems are more resistant and resilient to stressors, including climate change, and expanded efforts wi

better understand how climate change affects an ecosystem in the absence of localized human stressor

• The Coral Reef Ecosystem Integrated Observing System (CREIOS) serves to alert resouce managers an

searchers to environmental events considered significant to the health of the surrounding coral reef ecosy

allowing managers to implement response measures in a timely manner and allowing researchers to inc

spatial or temporal sampling resolution, if warranted; with supplementary sensors, CREIOS can help to ca

climate change impacts at finer spatial and temporal scales than currently exist.

• The draft monument science plan includes several specific climate change research activities, including dete

ing habitat changes due to sea level rise; mapping areas that will be most affected by extreme wave event

determining how specific habitat, communities, and populations will be affected by climate change effec

• Beach nourishment could counter the effects of sea level rise on the habitats of critical endemic and prot

species.

Conclusions

The high level of protection, the healthy intact predator-dominated ecosystem, the limited human impact, 

the current ocean observing system present a unique research opportunity for studying adaptation to clim

change in the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (PMNM). An increased understanding of n

resistance and resilience in this system will inform management planning in other marine protected areas. 

date, management goals for adapting the PMNM to climate change have not looked beyond efforts to unde

stand the system, but as endangered species habitat becomes affected, more active management efforts w

necessary. 

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 11 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 11 
12

Management context 

The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary was designated in 1980 and was managed through overlapping state and federal jurisdictions. In 2003, 10 new fully protected marine reserves and two conservation areas that allow limited take were established to protect marine habitats and species of interest. The 

network of marine protected areas, which was designed with input from a broad array of stakeholders, offers 

additional protection to 10% of sanctuary waters. In 2007, the sanctuary implemented a second phase of 

the network of marine protected areas, by extending seven reserves and one conservation area into federal 

waters and adding a reserve to form a network of marine protected areas that includes 21% of sanctuary 

waters. The Sanctuary Management Plan includes a mechanism for addressing emerging issues; climate change 

has not yet been, but could be, explicitly identified as an emerging issue. 

Key climate change impacts

• Projected increases in storm intensity that may increase damage to kelp stocks and rip kelp holdfasts from 

rocky substrata;

• Projected increase in frequency of El Niño-like conditions, which may suppress kelp growth by lowering 

nutrient levels due to associated relaxation of coastal winds;

• Projected increase in water temperature, which will affect metabolism, growth, reproduction, rates of larval 

development, spread of non-native species, and outbreaks of marine disease;

• Projected changes in currents and upwelling that may affect the location of biogeographic boundaries, and 

change primary productivity and species assemblages.

Opportunities for adaptation 

• Marine reserves can be used as a management tool to increase resilience of kelp forest communities; in a 

marine reserve where fishing has been prohibited since 1978, kelp forests were less vulnerable to storms, 

ocean warming, overgrazing, lower nutrient concentrations, and disease compared with other areas of the 

sanctuary.

• With a slight adjustment, monitoring and research can be refocused to capture important information about 

climate and ocean change; observed changes associated with climate could be used to trigger more intensive 

observations.

• Outreach mechanisms such as the Sanctuary Naturalist Corps, Ocean Etiquette program, and sanctuary 

publications are well positioned to communicate information to the public on climate change impacts, mitigation, and adaptation options.

• Protection in reserves and more hands-on techniques, such as removal of non-indigenous species, could 

preserve the integrity of marine communities in the sanctuary. 

Conclusions

The high degree of natural environmental variability in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary supports remarkable biological diversity. Climate change, in concert with anthropogenic stressors, will likely 

intensify the range of variability of the system. A marine reserve within the sanctuary has allowed kelp 

forests to flourish and increased their resilience to environmental shifts, such as those associated with El 

Niño events. Similarly, marine reserves are likely to be effective tools for minimizing the negative ecological 

impacts of climate change. The Sanctuary Management Plan is an appropriate mechanism for identifying climate change as an emerging issue and developing a strategic plan for management of climate change impacts, 

and for research, education, and outreach about climate change. 

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 12 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 12 
for a number of years (Barr, 2004). The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, also under the 

Department of the Interior, manages more 

than 100 national wildlife refuges that include 

marine ecosystems (Table 8.2). In some cases, 

jurisdictions overlap. For example, there are 

four national wildlife refuges within the Florida 

21 See also National Center for Marine Protected 

Areas, 2006: Draft Framework for Developing 

the National System of Marine Protected Areas. 

National Center for Marine Protected Areas, Silver 

Spring, MD.

with coastal states that includes 27 sites.

This chapter is focused on NOAA’s National 

Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP), because 

it is dedicated to place-based protection and 

management of marine resources at nationally 

significant locations and has gained international 

Figure 8.3. Map of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The 1990 designation did not include the Tortugas Ecolo

Reserve, located at the western end of the sanctuary, which was implemented in 2001. The Key Largo NMS corresponde

the Existing Management Area (EMA) just offshore of the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park; the Looe Key NMS co

sponded to the EMA surrounding the Looe Key Sanctuary Preservation Area and Research Only Area.8

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 13 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 13 
14

NMSP is in a unique position to respond to 

challenges and recommendations in reports by 

the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004) and Pew 

Oceans Commission (Pew Ocean Commission, 

2003). Both reports encourage the use of 

ecosystem-based management, which is one of 

the hallmarks of the NMSP.

8.2.2.3 The National Marine Sanctuary 

Program

The NMSP was established to identify, 

designate, and manage ocean, coastal, and 

Great Lakes resources of special national 

significance to protect their ecological and 

cultural integrity for the use and enjoyment 

it is critical that sanctuary management poli

practices, and initiatives ensure that hu

activities in sanctuaries are compatible w

long-term protection of sanctuary resource

Thirteen national marine sanctuaries and 

marine national monument, representing a w

variety of ocean environments as well as 

cultural heritage site in the Great Lakes, h

been established since 1975 (Table 8.3; Fig

Fig 8.4). The national marine sanctua

encompass a wide range of temperate 

tropical environments: moderately deep ba

coral reef-seagrass-mangrove systems, w

migration corridors, deep sea canyons, 

underwater archaeological sites. The s

range in size from 0.66 km2 in Fagatele 

The Marine 

Protection, 

Research and 

Sanctuaries Act 

establishes a 

national marine 

sanctuary 

(NMS) program

Channel 

Islands NMS 

(CA)

Fagatele 

Bay NMS 

(American 

Samoa)

Cordell Bank NMS (CA) Flower Garden Banks 

NMS (TX) Olympic Coast 

NMS (WA)

Northwestern 

Hawaiian Island

declared a 

Marine National 

Monument

Monitor (NC) and Key 

Largo (FL) NMS

Gulf of the 

Farallones (CA), 

Gray’s Reef 

(GA), and Looe 

Key (FL) NMS

Florida 

Keys NMS 

(incorporates 

Looe Key and 

Key Largo 

NMS)

Monterey Bay (CA), 

Stellwagen Bank 

(MA), and Hawaiian 

Islands Humpback 

Whale (HI) NMS

Thunder Bay NMS and Underwater Preserve 

(MI) and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral 

Reef Ecosystem Reserve (HI) 

1972 1975 1980 1981 1986 1989 1990 1991 1992 1994 2000 2006

Figure 8.4. Timeline of the designation of the national marine sanctuaries in the National Marine Sanctuary Program

22 National Marine Sanctuary Program, 2006: Maritime heritage program. National Marine Sanctuaries Program Webp

http://www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov/maritime/welcome.html, accessed on 5-18-2007. 23 National Marine Sanctuary Program, 2006: History of the national marine sanctuaries. NOAA’s National Marine Sanctu

Website, http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/history, accessed on 7-29-2007.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 14 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 14 
regions are the Pacific Islands; West Coast; 

Northeast-Great Lakes; and the Southeast, Gulf 

of Mexico, and Caribbean. Boundaries for these 

regions are focused on physical and biological 

connectivity among sites, rather than political 

boundaries.

8.2.3 Enabling Legislation

8.2.3.1 Enabling Legislation for Different 

Types of MPAs

The U.S. National Park System Organic Act 

established the National Parks System in 1916. 

Several parks and national monuments have 

marine waters within their boundaries or are 

primarily marine; they were the earliest federal 

MPAs. Similarly, a large number of national 

wildlife refuges function as MPAs (Table 8.1) 

under the authority of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. The 1966 National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act was the 

first comprehensive legislation after decades 

of designations of federal wildlife reservations 

and refuges.24

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service 

implements and manages more than 200 

fishery management areas (Table 8.1) under 

several different statutory authorities, with 

four major categories: Federal Fisheries 

Management Zones, Federal Fisheries Habitat 

Conservation Zones, Federal Threatened and 

Endangered Species Protected Areas, and 

Federal Marine Mammal Protected Areas. 

The purposes of these fishery management 

areas include rebuilding and maintaining 

sustainable fisheries, conserving and restoring 

marine habitats, and promoting the recovery of 

24 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007: Origins of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Website, http://training.fws.gov/

history/origins.html, accessed on 5-18-2007.

Sanctuaries Act26 established both the NMSP 

and a regulatory framework for ocean dumping, 

which was a major issue at the time. In Title III of 

the Act, later to be known as the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act (NMSA),27 the Secretary of 

Commerce received the authority to designate 

national marine sanctuaries for the purpose of 

preserving or restoring nationally significant 

areas for their conservation, recreational, 

ecological, or esthetic values. The NMSA is 

reauthorized every four to five years, allowing 

for updating and adaptation as necessary.

8.2.3.3 Legislation Designating Particular 

National Marine Sanctuaries

On November 16, 1990, the Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act 

(FKNMS Act), P.L. 101-605, set out as a note to 

16 U.S.C. 1433, became law. The FKNMS Act 

designated an area of waters and submerged 

lands, including the living and nonliving 

resources within those waters, surrounding 

most of the Florida Keys (Fig. 8.3). This was the 

first national marine sanctuary to be designated 

by an act of Congress.

The FKNMS Act immediately addressed two 

major concerns of the residents of the Florida 

Keys. First, it placed an instant prohibition on 

oil drilling, including mineral and hydrocarbon 

leasing, exploration, development, or production, 

within the sanctuary. Second, the Act created 

an internationally recognized area to be avoided 

(ATBA) for ships greater than 50 m in length, 

with special designated access corridors into 

ports (Fig. 8.3). The ATBA provides a buffer 

25 16 U.S.C. 1451-1456 P.L. 92-583

26 33 U.S.C. 1401-1445, 16 U.S.C. 1431-1445 P. L. 

92-532 27 16 U.S.C. 1431-1445 P.L. 106-513

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 15 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 15 
16

support was to improve water quality. To address 

this challenge, the FKNMS Act brought together 

various agencies to develop a comprehensive 

Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP). 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) is the lead agency in developing and 

implementing the WQPP, the purpose of which 

is to “recommend priority corrective actions 

and compliance schedules addressing point 

and nonpoint sources of pollution to restore 

and maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the sanctuary, including 

restoration and maintenance of a balanced, 

indigenous population of corals, shellfish, fish, 

and wildlife, and recreational activities in and 

on the water” (U.S. Department of Commerce, 

1996).

The FKNMS Act called for an Interagency Core 

Group to be established to compile management 

issues confronting the sanctuary as identified 

by the public at scoping meetings, from written 

comments, and from surveys distributed 

by NOAA. The Core Group consisted of 

representatives from several divisions of 

NOAA, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, EPA, U.S Coast Guard, Florida 

Governor’s Office, Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, Florida Department 

of Community Affairs, South Florida Water 

Management District, and Monroe County. 

The FKNMS Act also called for the public 

to be a part of the planning process using a 

Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) to aid in the 

development of a comprehensive management 

plan. A 22-member SAC was selected by 

the Governor of Florida and the Secretary of 

Commerce. The council consisted of members 

of various user groups; local, state, and federal 

agencies; scientists; educators; environmental 

groups; and private citizens.

Papahãnaumokuãkea (Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands) Marine National 

Monument

In 2000 President William J. Clinton sig

Executive Orders that created the Northwes

Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Coral R

Ecosystem Reserve. The orders also initiat

process to designate the waters of the NWH

a national marine sanctuary. Scoping meet

for the proposed sanctuary were held in 2

In 2005 Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle sig

regulations establishing a state marine re

in the nearshore waters of the NWHI (ou

3 nautical miles, except Midway Atoll) 

excluded all extractive uses of the region, ex

those permitted for research or other purp

that benefited management. In 2006, a

substantial public comment in support of str

protections for the area, President George 

Bush issued Presidential Proclamation 8

creating the Northwestern Hawaiian Isla

Marine National Monument. The Preside

actions followed Governor Lingle’s lead 

immediately afforded the NWHI the hig

form of marine environmental protec

as the world’s largest MPA (360,000 k

Administrative jurisdiction over the islands 

marine waters is shared by NOAA/NMSP 

NMFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

State of Hawaii.

8.2.4 Interpretation of Goals

The mission of the NMSP is to identify, pro

conserve, and enhance natural and cult

resources, values, and qualities. The NM

has developed a draft strategic plan with a 

of goals (Box 8.1) to provide a bridge betw

the broad mandates of the NMSA and d

operations at the site level.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 16 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 16 
public. The NMSA stipulates that plans should 

be reviewed and revised on a five-year time 

frame, and various sanctuaries are at different 

phases of this process (Table 8.3). Three Central 

California sanctuaries are undergoing a joint 

management plan review, some revisions 

have been completed, and some are nearing 

completion. Sanctuary management plans are 

available via the internet (http://sanctuaries.

noaa.gov).

8.3 CURRENT STATUS OF 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

8.3.1 Key Ecosystem 

Characteristics on Which Goals 

Depend

In keeping with the goals of the National Marine 

Sanctuary Program (Box 8.1), sanctuaries 

within U.S. waters generally are set aside 

for the preservation of natural or maritime 

heritage resources. Sites such as the Florida 

Keys and Channel Islands NMS are of the 

former, while the Monitor NMS is of the 

latter. Sites designated to protect marine 

biological resources have their primary focus 

on maintaining biodiversity or preserving 

key species, and are therefore directly related 

to NMSP Goals 1 and 4. These sites are in 

particular need of management in response to 

climate change, yet have management plans that 

were designed to address local stressors, not to 

protect flora and fauna from climate change. 

Management options in the context of climate 

change will be discussed below (section 8.4).

8.3.1.1 Biodiversity

The extraordinary biodiversity of tropical and 

subtropical coral reef sites is well recognized 

(see Case Study Summaries 8.1–8.3), but 

recent findings underscore the fact that high 

been overlooked and under-studied primarily 

because of limited accessibility; they often 

occur in deeper or lower-visibility waters than 

those of tropical reefs. Recently, and primarily 

because of greater accessibility to deep-water 

ecosystems, the importance of temperate 

reefs as critical habitat has begun to be fully 

BOX 8.1. Draft Goals of the National Marine Sanctuary 

Program, 2005–2015.

Goal 1. Identify, designate, and manage sanctuaries to ma

tain the natural biological communities in sanctuaries and 

protect and, where appropriate, restore and enhance nat

ral habitats, populations, and ecological processes, throug

innovative, coordinated and community-based measures a

techniques.

Goal 2. Build and strengthen the nation-wide system of 

marine sanctuaries, maintain and enhance the role of the 

NMSP’s system in larger MPA networks and help provide 

both national and international leadership for MPA manag

ment and marine resource stewardship.

Goal 3. Enhance nation-wide public awareness, understa

ing, and appreciation of marine and Great Lakes ecosyste

and maritime heritage resources through outreach, educa

tion, and interpretation efforts.

Goal 4. Investigate and enhance the understanding of 

ecosystem processes through continued scientific researc

monitoring, and characterization to support ecosystembased management in sanctuaries and throughout U.S. 

waters.

Goal 5. Facilitate human use in sanctuaries to the extent 

such uses are compatible with the primary mandate of 

resource protection, through innovative public participati

and interagency cooperative arrangements.

Goal 6. Work with the international community to 

strengthen global protection of marine resources, investigate and employ appropriate new management approache

and disseminate NMSP experience and techniques.

Goal 7. Build, maintain, and enhance an operational capa

ity and infrastructure that efficiently and effectively suppo

the attainment of the NMSP’s mission and goals.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 17 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 17 
18

and distribution of fish (Fosså, Mortensen, and 

Furevik, 2002; Krieger and Wing, 2002).

8.3.1.2 Key Species

Key species within sanctuary boundaries may 

be resident as well as migratory, and may or may 

not represent species that are extracted by fishing 

(i.e., NMSP Goal 5; Box 8.1). For example, three 

adjacent sanctuaries off the California coast—

Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, and 

Monterey Bay—are frequented by protected 

species of blue (Balaenoptera musculus) and 

humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) whales. 

In contrast, during the spring of each year king 

mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) migrate 

through Gray’s Reef NMS off the coast of 

Georgia, representing a vibrant and soughtafter recreational fishery. Under various climate 

change scenarios, management strategies 

employed to protect these key species may 

differ. For example, marine zones with dynamic 

boundaries reflecting shifting areas for feeding 

or reproduction may need to be considered by 

MPA managers.

Key species within sanctuaries may not be 

limited to subtidal marine organisms but, 

depending on the sanctuary, may also include 

intertidal species (e.g., Mytilus californianus in 

Monterey Bay NMS) or sea- and shorebirds. It 

has been suggested that intertidal species are 

more likely to be stressed by climate change and 

may serve as a bellwether for change in other 

ecosystems (Helmuth, 2002).

8.3.1.3 Habitat Complexity

National marine sanctuary sites, especially 

subtidally, are characterized by habitat 

complexity that is either biologically or 

geologically structured; this complexity is an 

invaluable resource supporting biodiversity. 

Habitat complexity is a key ecosys

characteristic that must be protected in o

to achieve NMSP Goals 1 and 4 (Box 

Biologically structured habitats are m

susceptible to degradation resulting f

climate change than geologically structu

habitats. When habitat-building organisms 

as corals are killed by climate change and o

sources of mortality, skeletal material incre

in susceptibility to bioerosion that may lea

reduced habitat complexity. As indicate

section 8.3.2 (Stressors of Concern), excess 

absorbed by sea water lowers pH and resul

reduced calcification rates in organisms 

provide complex structure, such as arbores

bryozoans, bivalves, coralline algae, 

temperate and tropical corals (Hoegh-Guldb

1999; Kleypas et al., 1999; Kleypas 

Langdon, 2006). Non-calcifying biolog

structures, such as kelp, as well as all shal

water structures, are also at risk primarily f

changes in storm intensity, ocean warm

and reduced upwelling associated with clim

change (see Case Study Summary 8.4: Cha

Islands National Marine Sanctuary). 

8.3.1.4 Trophic Cascades

In addition to biodiversity and hab

complexity, trophic links between the ben

and water column help maintain ecosys

integrity within sanctuaries. In keeping w

NMSP Goal 5 (Box 8.1) regarding human 

the strength of these benthic-pelagic link

must be considered when designating fish

restrictions (Grober-Dunsmore, Wooni

and Wahle, forthcoming).28 Fishing regulat

often involve removal of top predators 

28 See also Wahle, C., R. Grober-Dunsmore, an

Wooninck, 2006: Managing recreational fishi

MPAs through vertical zoning: the importan

understanding benthic-pelagic linkages. MPA N

7(8), 5.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 18 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 18 
supporting scientific inquiry into this topic 

would do much to enhance understanding of 

ecosystem processes in marine sanctuaries 

(NMSP Goal 4, Box 8.1). Further research may 

also provide insight into how these processes 

might be affected by climate change.

8.3.1.5 Connectivity

The open nature of marine ecosystems means 

that they do not function, and likewise should 

not be managed, in isolation (Palumbi, 2003). 

Connectivity among marine ecosystems and 

across biological communities contributes 

to maintaining the biological integrity of 

all marine environments (Kaufman et al., 

2004). While NMS boundaries are well 

defined, the separation between ecosystems 

and communities is blurred because of export 

and import of resources. At the broadest scale 

these linkages are manifested as sources and 

sinks of nutrients and recruits (e.g., Crowder

et al., 2000).

8.3.1.6 Nutrient Fluxes

While excess nutrients can lead to degradation 

of offshore ecosystems (Rabalais, Turner, and 

Wiseman Jr, 2002), it is also hypothesized 

that the function of offshore ecosystems 

is dependent on nutrients that have their 

origins in upland productivity. Estuaries are 

thought to represent the conduit through which 

dissolved and particulate material from the 

continent passes to offshore areas through 

rivers (Gattuso, Frankignoulle, and Wollast, 

1998). This “outwelling” characteristic was first 

proposed by Odum29 and has since been applied 

to mangroves and seagrasses (Lee, 1995). 

29 Odum, E.P., 1969: A research challenge: evaluating 

the productivity of coastal and estuarine water. In: 

Proceedings of the Second Sea Grant Conference.

University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, 

pp. 63-64.

of entire ecosystems rather than management of 

single species. As such, a key characteristic of 

these ecosystems rests in their ability to serve as 

sources of recruits for both fish and invertebrate 

species and as foci for fish aggregations. Most 

benthic marine invertebrates and fish species 

have a planktonic larval stage that results 

from spawned gametes (Pechenik, 1999). 

Successful recruitment of planktonic larvae to 

the benthos depends on processes that function 

at multiple spatial scales in contrast to nonplanktonic larvae, which generally recruit at 

a small spatial scale. At the broadest scale, 

hydrodynamic forces may disperse passive 

larvae long distances, potentially delivering 

them to suitable settlement sites far from the 

source population (Williams, Wolanski, and 

Andrews, 1984; Lee et al., 1992). Alternatively, 

complex, three-dimensional secondary flows 

resulting from barriers, such as headlands, 

islands, and reefs, as well as cyclonic motion 

can retain passive larvae within estuaries, 

around islands, or within ocean basins, resulting 

in more settlement to natal populations (Black, 

Moran, and Hammond, 1991; Lee et al., 1992; 

Black et al., 1995; Lugo-Fernandez et al., 

2001).

Because of their small size and limited 

swimming ability, invertebrate larvae may 

be passively dispersed at a broad spatial scale 

(Denny, 1988; Mullineaux and Butman, 1991). 

Yet larvae of many marine invertebrates, 

including coral planulae, use swimming 

behavior, stimulated by chemical or physical 

cues, to control their position within the water 

column—thereby increasing the probability that 

they will be transported to suitable settlement 

substrata (Scheltema, 1986; Raimondi and 

Morse, 2000; Gleason, Edmunds, and Gates, 

2006; Levin, 2006). In contrast, researchers 

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 19 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 19 
20

While connectivity among ecosystems and 

among biological communities in terms of both 

nutrients and recruits is an important feature 

of marine sanctuaries, boundaries of protected 

areas rarely encompass the continuum of 

habitats (e.g., rivers to estuaries to mangroves to 

seagrasses to reefs) or the maximum dispersal 

distances of critical species. Recent information 

obtained for dispersal of fish and invertebrates 

suggests that sanctuaries must be managed 

for both self-recruitment and larval subsidies 

from upstream (Roberts, 1997b; Hughes et 

al., 2005; Cowen, Paris, and Srinivasan, 2006; 

Steneck, 2006). Effective exchange of offspring 

is facilitated by MPA networks that are in 

close proximity [10–50 km apart according 

to Roberts et al. (2001)]. This would allow 

larval exchange among populations and also 

buffer these populations from climate-driven 

changes in current regimes. The NMSP should 

be a critical player in the development of such 

an MPA network. NMSP Goal 2 (Box 8.1)

provides for the expansion of the nationwide 

system of MPAs and encourages cooperation 

among MPAs administered under a range of 

programs.

8.3.2 Stressors of Concern

Population growth and coastal development 

increasingly affect U.S. MPAs; an estimated 

153 million people (53% of the U.S. population) 

lived in coastal counties in 2003, and that 

number continues to rise (World Resources 

Institute, 1996; National Safety Council, 

1998; U.S. Census Bureau, 2001; Crossett

et al., 2004).30 Growing human impacts are 

30 See also National Ocean Service, 2000: Spatial 

patterns of socioeconomic data from 1970 to 2000: 

a national research dataset aggregated by watershed 

and political boundaries. http://cads.nos.noaa.gov/. 

 Hinrichsen, D., B. Robey, and U.D. Upadhyay, 

1998: Solutions for a Water-Short World. Population 

The purpose of this section is: (1) to out

major stressors on marine organisms 

communities resulting from climate cha

and (2) to introduce ways in which m

“traditional” stressors may interact with clim

change stressors. 

There are excellent, extensive review

impacts of climate change on marine organ

and communities (e.g., Scavia et al., 20

Walther et al., 2002; Goldberg and Wilkin

2004; Harley et al., 2006). By contrast, 

scientific knowledge required to reach gen

conclusions related to the impact of mul

stressors at community and ecosystem le

is for the most part absent for marine syste

Thus, information concerning interact

among stressors is limited and MPA mana

are faced with even higher levels of uncerta

about likely outcomes of management act

as climate change impacts have increasi

strong interactions with existing stressors.

8.3.2.1 Direct Climate Change Stresso

Ocean Warming

According to Bindoff et al. (2007), ther

high confidence that an average warm

of 0.1°C has occurred in the 0–700 m d

layer of the ocean between 1961 and 2

Increasing ocean temperatures, especially 

the surface, affect physiological processe

organisms ranging from enzyme react

to reproductive timing (Fields et al., 1

Report, Series M, No. 14, Population Inform

Program, Center for Communication Program

Johns Hopkins University School of Public He

Baltimore, MD, pp.1-60.

 World Resources Institute, 2000: Gridded Pop

tion of the World. Version 2, Center for Internat

Earth Science Information Network, Columbia 

versity, Palisades, NY.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 20 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 20 
congeners in temperature-stable conditions 

(Tomanek and Somero, 1999; Stillman, 2003; 

Harley et al., 2006). 

What is clear is that increasing sea temperatures 

will continue to influence processes such 

as foraging, growth, and larval duration 

and dispersal, with ultimate impacts on the 

geographic ranges of species. In fact, poleward 

latitudinal shifts in some zooplankton, fish, 

and intertidal invertebrate communities have 

already been observed along the California coast 

and in the North Atlantic (reviewed in Walther

et al., 2002). Within marine communities, 

these temperature changes and range shifts 

may result in new species assemblages and 

biological interactions that affect ecological 

processes such as larval dispersal, competitive 

interactions, and trophic interactions and webs 

(Barry et al., 1995; Roessig et al., 2004; Precht 

and Aronson, 2004; O’Connor et al., 2007). 

Species that are unable to shift geographic 

ranges (perhaps due to physical barriers) or 

compete with other species for resources may 

face local—and potentially global—extinction. 

Conversely, some species may find open niches 

and dominate regions because of release from 

competition or predation. 

Impacts at the ecosystem or community 

level are even more difficult to predict. For 

example, warmer waters stimulate increases 

in population sizes of the mid-intertidal sea 

star, Pisaster ochraceus, and its per capita 

consumption rates of mussels (Sanford, 1999). 

Continued warming may enable P. ochraceus

to clear large sections of mussel beds, indirectly 

affecting hundreds of species associated with 

these formations (Harley et al., 2006). How 

such an outcome affects trophic links and other 

biological processes within this community is 

not clear.

temperature is largely unknown (Berkelmans 

and van Oppen, 2006) and remains a research 

topic of paramount importance.

Consequences of coral bleaching, during which 

corals lose their symbiotic algae, depend on the 

severity and duration of the bleaching event. 

They range from minimal affects on growth 

and reproduction to widespread mortality. 

Coral bleaching at the ecosystem level is a 

relatively recent phenomenon, first receiving 

widespread attention in 1987 when abnormally 

high summer seawater surface temperatures 

throughout the Caribbean resulted in a mass 

bleaching event (Williams, Goenaga, and 

Vicente, 1987; Ogden and Wicklund, 1988; 

Williams and Bunkley-Williams, 1990). Soon 

after, coral reef scientists identified climate 

change as a major long-term threat to coral reefs 

(Glynn, 1991; Smith and Buddemeier, 1992) 

and determined that irradiance interacts with 

temperature to cause bleaching (Gleason and 

Wellington, 1993; see also Hoegh-Guldberg, 

1999; and Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). 

Reciprocity between these two parameters 

may provide MPA managers with options to 

alleviate stress during bleaching events (see 

section 8.4.2).

In 1997–1998, a mass bleaching event in 

association with an ENSO event caused 

worldwide bleaching and coral mortality 

(Wilkinson, 1998; 2000), and in 2005 the most 

devastating Caribbean-wide coral bleaching 

event to date occurred that, based on modeling, 

is highly unlikely to have occurred without 

anthropogenic forcing (Donner, Knutson, and 

Oppenheimer, 2007). Over the last 20 years, an 

extensive body of literature has conclusively 

identified anomalously high summer surface 

seawater temperatures as the major cause of 

coral bleaching (Wilkinson, 1998; 2000; Fitt et 

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 21 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 21 
22

biological, including lost biodiversity and 

other ecosystem services, and economic, 

resulting in the decline of fisheries and tourism 

(Buddemeier, Kleypas, and Aronson, 2004). 

Coral reefs affected by mass bleaching typically 

take decades or longer to recover and sometimes 

may not recover at all. In general, coral reef 

decline throughout the Caribbean region has 

been caused by a combination of bleaching, 

disease, die-off of the sea urchin Diadema 

antillarum, overfishing, pollution, hurricanes, 

and other factors (Gardner et al., 2003; Gardner

et al., 2005).

Ocean Acidification

Increased CO2 concentrations lower oceanic pH, 

making it more acidic. According to the most 

recent IPCC report, the total inorganic carbon 

content of the ocean increased by 118 (+19) 

billion metric tons of carbon from 1750–1994, 

and continues to increase through absorption of 

excess CO2 (Bindoff et al., 2007). Furthermore, 

time series data for the last 20 years show a trend 

of decreasing pH of 0.02 pH units per decade 

(Bindoff et al., 2007). Long-term exposures to 

low pH (-0.7 unit) have been shown to reduce 

metabolic rates, growth, and survivorship of 

both invertebrates and fishes (Michaelidis

et al., 2005; Shirayama and Thornton, 2005; 

Pane and Barry, 2007), but by far the greatest 

threat of reducing pH is to organisms that build 

their external skeletal material out of calcium 

carbonate (CaCO3). Calcifying organisms such 

as sea urchins, cold-water corals, coralline 

algae, and various plankton that reside in 

cooler temperate waters appear to be the most 

threatened by acidification, because CO2 has 

greater solubility in cooler waters (HoeghGuldberg, 1999; Kleypas et al., 1999; Hughes

et al., 2003; Feely et al., 2004; Kleypas and 

Langdon, 2006). 

suggest that net coral reef calcification r

will increase with future ocean warming 

exceed pre-industrial rates by the year 2

Additional research is needed to resolve 

issue. Because of the greater solubility of 

in cooler waters, reefs at the latitudinal mar

of coral reef development (e.g., Florida Keys 

Hawaiian Islands) may show the most rapid 

dramatic response to changing pH. 

Rising Sea Level

During the last 100 years, global average 

level has risen an estimated 1–2 mm per 

and is expected to accelerate due to ther

expansion of the oceans and melting ice-sh

and glaciers (Cabanes, Cazenave, and 

Provost, 2001; Albritton and Filho, 2001; Ri

and Kanagaratnam, 2006; Chen, Wilson, 

Tapley, 2006; Shepherd and Wingham, 2

Bell et al., 2007; IPCC, 2007c). Rates of 

level rise at a local scale vary from -2 to 10 

per year along U.S. coastlines (Nicholls 

Leatherman, 1996; Zervas, 2001; Scavia e

2002). Low-lying areas, especially intert

zones, along the eastern and Gulf coasts a

the greatest risk of damage from rising sea l

(Scavia et al., 2002). The consequences of 

level rise include inundation of coastal ar

erosion of vulnerable shorelines, and landw

shifts in species distributions. 

On undeveloped coasts with relatively ge

slopes, it is thought that plant commun

such as mangroves and Spartina salt mar

will move inland as sea level rises (Sc

et al., 2002; Harley et al., 2006). In cont

coastline development will interfere with t

plant migrations (see the National Estua

chapter, section 7.3.2, for further discuss

As a result, wetlands may become subme

and soils may become waterlogged, resul

in plant physiological stress due to chr

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 22 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 22 
reduce nesting grounds for key species such as 

sea turtles and birds as these critical habitats 

disappear (Scavia et al., 2002). 

Climatic Variability and Ocean Circulation

Natural climatic variability resulting from 

ocean-atmosphere interactions such as the El 

Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Pacific 

Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and the North 

Atlantic Oscillation/Northern Hemisphere 

Annular Mode result in changes in open 

ocean productivity, shifts in the distribution 

of organisms, and modifications in food webs 

that foreshadow potential consequences of 

accelerated climate change (e.g., Mantua et al., 

1997; McGowan et al., 1998). These recurring 

patterns of ocean-atmosphere variability have 

very different behaviors in time. For example, 

whereas ENSO events persist for 6–18 months 

and have their major impact in the tropics, the 

PDO occurs over a much longer time frame 

of 20–30 years and has primary effects in 

the northern Pacific (Mantua et al., 1997). 

Regardless of the temporal scale and region 

of impact, however, these natural modes of 

climate variability have existed historically, 

independent of anthropogenically driven 

climate change. These climate phenomena may 

act in tandem with (or in opposition to) humaninduced alterations, with consequences that are 

difficult to predict (Philip and Van Oldenborgh, 

2006). 

Ocean-atmosphere interactions on a warming 

planet may also result in long-term alterations 

in the prevailing current and upwelling patterns 

(Bakun, 1990; McPhaden and Zhang, 2002; 

Snyder et al., 2003; McGregor et al., 2007). 

While at present there is no clear indication 

that ocean circulation patterns have changed 

(Bindoff et al., 2007), modifications could have 

large effects within and among ecosystems 

through impacts on ecosystem and community 

will increase upwelling because of stronger 

alongshore winds (Bakun, 1990). In contrast, 

Gucinski, Lackey, and Spence (1990) proposed 

that warming at higher latitudes will reduce 

latitudinal temperature gradients, resulting in 

decreased wind strength and less upwelling; 

some models show potential for Atlantic 

thermohaline circulation to end abruptly if 

high-latitude waters are no longer able to sink 

(Stocker and Marchal, 2000). 

Storm Intensity

Whether or not storm frequency has changed 

over time is not clear, due to large natural 

variability resulting from such climate drivers 

as ENSO (IPCC, 2007c). However, since the 

mid 1970s there has been a trend toward longer 

storm duration and greater storm intensity 

(IPCC, 2007c). An increase in storm intensity 

generally has impacts on two fronts. First, it 

may increase pulses of fresh water to coastal 

and nearshore habitats (see below). Second, 

increasing storm intensity may cause physical 

damage to coastal ecosystems, especially those 

in shallow water (IPCC, 2007c). 

Recent hurricanes in the southern United 

States have caused extensive destruction 

to homes and businesses; altered nearshore 

water quality; scoured the ocean bottom; 

over-washed beaches; produced immense 

amounts of marine debris (wood, metals, 

plastics) and pollution (household hazardous 

wastes, pesticides, metals, oils and other toxic 

chemicals) from floodwaters; and damaged 

many mangrove, marsh, and coral reef areas 

(Davis et al., 1994; Tilmant et al., 1994; McCoy

et al., 1996; Lovelace and MacPherson, 1998; 

Baldwin et al., 2001).31 Even 30–60 days after 

31 See also U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service conducting initial damage assessments to wildlife and National Wildlife 

Refuges. http://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2005/

r05-088.html.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 23 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 23 
24

increasing storm intensity as well as higher 

sea levels in many areas, it is evident that lowlying and shallow marine ecosystems such as 

mangroves, salt marshes, seagrasses, and coral 

reefs are at greatest risk of long-term damage. 

Freshwater Influx

Observations indicate that changes in the 

amount, intensity, frequency, and type of 

precipitation are occurring worldwide (IPCC, 

2007c). Consistent with observed changes 

in precipitation and water transport in the 

atmosphere, large-scale trends in oceanic 

salinity have become evident for the period 

1955–1998 (Bindoff et al., 2007). These trends 

are manifested as lowered salinities at subpolar 

latitudes and increased salinities in shallower 

parts of the tropical and subtropical oceans.

In addition to altering salinity in major oceanic 

water masses, changes in precipitation patterns 

can have significant impacts in estuarine 

and other nearshore environments (see the 

National Estuaries chapter, section 7.3.4.2.9). 

For instance, in regions where climate change 

results in elevated rainfall, increased runoff 

may cause greater stratification of water layers 

within estuaries as fresh water floats out on 

top of higher salinity layers (Scavia et al., 

2002). One consequence of this stratification 

may be less water column mixing and thus 

lower rates of nutrient exchange among water 

layers. Combining this stratification effect with 

shorter water residence times stemming from 

higher inflow (Moore et al., 1997) may result 

in significantly reduced productivity because 

phytoplankton populations may be flushed from 

the system at a rate faster than they can grow 

and reproduce. On the other hand, estuaries that 

are located in regions with lower rainfall may 

also show decreased productivity due to lower 

nutrient influx. Thus, the relationship between 

8.3.2.2 Climate Change Interactions w

“Traditional” Stressors of Concern

Pollution

Marine water quality degradation and pollu

stem primarily from land-based sources, 

major contributions to coastal waters

and water quality deterioration falling 

two broad categories: point-source pollu

and non-point-source pollution. Point-so

pollution from factories, sewage treatm

plants, and farms often flows into nea

waters. In contrast, marine non-point-so

pollution originates from coastal urban ru

where the bulk of the land is paved or cov

with buildings. These impervious surfa

prevent soils from capturing runoff, resul

in the input of untreated pollutants (e.g., fu

oils, plastics, metals, insecticides, antibiotic

coastal waters. Increased terrestrial runoff 

to more intense storm events associated w

climate change may increase land-based w

pollution from both of these sources. In s

areas, increased groundwater outflows may 

contribute to coastal pollution.

Deterioration and pollution of coa

watersheds can have far-reaching effect

marine ecosystems. As an example, the Gu

Mexico “dead zone” that occurs each sum

and extends from the Mississippi River b

foot delta across the Louisiana shelf and 

the upper Texas coast can range from 1–

km offshore (Rabalais, Turner, and Wise

Jr, 2002). This mass of hypoxic (low-oxy

water has its origins in the increased nit

flux coincident with the exponential growt

fertilizer use that has occurred since the 19

in the Mississippi River basin. This hyp

results in changes in species diversity 

community structure of the benthos and 

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 24 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 24 
decreased pH, and greater fluctuations in 

salinity present greater challenges with regard 

to potentially deleterious effects of pollution 

(Coe and Rogers, 1997; Carpenter et al., 1998; 

Khamer, Bouya, and Ronneau, 2000; Burton, Jr. 

and Pitt, 2001; Sobel and Dahlgren, 2004; Orr et 

al., 2005; Breitburg and Riedel, 2005; O’Connor

et al., 2007; IPCC, 2007c). Also, in regions 

where climate change causes precipitation and 

freshwater influxes to increase, MPA managers 

may need to expand the scale at which they 

attempt to address issues of water quality, 

for example by forging stronger partnerships 

with organizations involved in watershed 

management both nearby and at more-distant 

locations.

For example, coral bleaching from the combined 

stresses of climate change and local pollution 

(e.g., high temperature and sedimentation) have 

already been observed (Jackson et al., 2001; 

Hughes et al., 2003; Pandolfi et al., 2003). 

Identifying those stressors with the greatest 

effect is not trivial. Research in coral genomics 

may provide diagnostic tools for identifying 

stressors in coral reefs and other marine 

communities (e.g., Edge et al., 2005).

Commercial Fishing and Aquaculture

Commercial fishing has ecosystem effects 

on three fronts: through physical impacts 

of fishing gear on habitat, overfishing of 

commercial stocks, and incidental take of nontargeted species. The use of trawls, seines, 

mollusk dredges, and other fishing gear can 

cause damage to living seafloor structures and 

alterations to geologic structures, reducing 

habitat complexity (Engel and Kvitek, 1998; 

Thrush and Dayton, 2002; Dayton, Thrush, 

and Coleman, 2002; Hixon and Tissot, 2007). 

Overfishing is also common in the United 

States, with a conservative estimate of 26% 

Aquaculture has sometimes been introduced to 

augment fisheries production. Unfortunately, 

experiences in countries such as Southeast 

Asia show that aquaculture can have negative 

environmental impacts, including extensive 

mangrove and coastal wetland conversion to 

ponds, changes in hydrologic regimes, and 

discharge of high levels of organic matter 

and pollutants into coastal waters (Eng, Paw, 

and Guarin, 1989; Iwama, 1991; Naylor et 

al., 2000). Furthermore, many aquacultural 

practices are not sustainable because farmed 

species consume natural resources at high 

rates and the intense culture environment (e.g., 

overcrowding) creates conditions for disease 

outbreaks (Eng, Paw, and Guarin, 1989; Iwama, 

1991; Pauly et al., 2002; 2003). 

Fishery populations that are overstressed and 

overfished exhibit greater sensitivity to climate 

change and other anthropogenically derived 

stressors than do healthy populations (Hughes

et al., 2005). Overfishing can reduce mean life 

span as well as lifetime reproductive success 

and larval quality, making fished species 

more susceptible to both short- and long-term 

perturbations (such as changes in prevailing 

current patterns) that affect recruitment success 

(Pauly et al., 1998; Jackson et al., 2001; Dayton, 

Thrush, and Coleman, 2002; Pauly et al., 2003; 

Sobel and Dahlgren, 2004; Estes, 2005; Law and 

Stokes, 2005; Steneck and Sala, 2005; O’Connor

et al., 2007). Changing climatic regimes can 

also influence species’ distributions, which are 

set by physiological tolerances to temperature, 

precipitation, dissolved oxygen, pH, and 

salinity. Because rates of climate change appear 

to exceed the capacity of many commercial 

species to adapt, species will shift their ranges in 

accordance with their physiological thresholds 

and may ultimately be forced to extend past 

the boundaries of their “known” native range, 

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 25 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 25 
26

grazing community on Caribbean coral reefs 

(e.g., Frank et al., 2005; Mumby et al., 2006; 

2007).

such arguments make. However, reserves 

protect predators, so declines in herbivo

BOX 8.2. The Western North Atlantic Food Web.

Marine carnivores of the western North Atlantic were both more abundant and larger in the past. In 

Maine, archaeological evidence indicates that coastal people subsisted on Atlantic cod for at least 4,000 

years (Jackson et al., 2001).32 Prey species such as lobsters and crabs were absent from excavated 

middens in the region, perhaps because large predators had eaten them (Steneck, Vavrinec, and Leland, 

2004; Lotze et al., 2006).

Today cod are ecologically extinct from western North Atlantic coastal zones due to overfishing. The 

abundant lobsters and sea urchins that had formerly been the prey of apex predators became the 

primary target of local fisheries. By 1993, the value of sea urchins harvested in Maine for their roe was 

second only to that of lobsters. As sea urchin populations declined, so too did communitywide rates of 

herbivory.32 In less than a decade, sea urchins became so rare that they could no longer be found over 

large areas of the coast (Andrew et al., 2002; Steneck, Vavrinec, and Leland, 2004).

These and other instances of “fishing down food webs” in the Gulf of Maine have resulted in hundreds 

of kilometers of coast now having dangerously low biological and economic diversity. Today, bloodworms used for bait are worth more to Maine’s economy than cod (see figure). The trophic level 

dysfunction (sensu Steneck, Vavrinec, and Leland, 2004) of both apex predators and herbivores leave a 

coastal zone suited for crabs and especially lobsters—the latter attaining staggering population densities exceeding one per square meter along much of the coast of Maine (Steneck and Wilson, 2001). The 

economic value of lobsters is high, accounting for 

nearly 80% of the total value of Maine’s fisheries as 

of 2004 (see figure). The remaining 42 harvested 

species account for the remaining 20%. If a disease 

such as the one that recently decimated Rhode Island’s lobster stocks (Glenn and Pugh, 2006) infects 

lobsters in the Gulf of Maine, there will be serious 

socioeconomic implications for the fishing industry. 

Prospects for such a disease outbreak may increase 

because of climate-induced changes in the environment such as temperature increases that favor 

pathogen growth (Harvell et al., 1999; 2002). The 

figure is adapted from Steneck and Carlton (2001).

32 See also Steneck, R.S., 1997: Fisheries-induced biological changes to the structure and function of the Gulf of Maine ecosys

In: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Dynamics Scientific Symposium and Workshop, RARGOM Report 91-1, Reg

Association for Research in the Gulf of Maine, Hanover, NH, pp. 151-165.

Coastal Fisheries of Maine

Fish Invertebrates

1927

Cod Haddock Hake Haddock Hake Cusk Pollock L obsters Halibut Pollock L obsters Halibut Herring Mackerel Herring Mackerel Flounder Flounder 0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Frequency of Occurrence

(% of all "inner" fishing grounds)

L obsters Softshell

Clams

Herring Sea 

Urchins

B lood 

Worms

A ngler

fish

Ocean 

Quahog

B lue 

Mussels

L obsters Softshell Cod Hakes 

Clams

Herring Sea 

Urchins

B lood 

Worms

A ngler

fish

Ocean 

Quahog

B lue 

Mussels

Cod Hakes 0

20

40

60

80

Harvested Species

% Harvested Fisheries Value

2004

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 26 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 26 
Micheli et al., 2004; Robertson et al., 2005). 

Further, there is widespread belief that the 

mass mortality of the sea urchin Diadema 

antillarum—a major grazer on reefs—in 

1983–1984 was a significant proximal cause of 

coral reef decline throughout the Caribbean. 

However, as reported in Aronson and Precht 

(2006), half the coral reef decline throughout 

the Caribbean reported by Gardner et al. (2003) 

occurred before the die-off of D. antillarum, 

and immediately after the die-off coral cover 

remained unchanged (Fig. 8.5) (Gardner et al., 

2003). Subsequent declines in cover throughout 

the region were due to coral bleaching (1987, 

1997–1998) and disease. It is important to 

highlight this complexity, because it emphasizes 

how much is unknown about basic ecological 

processes on coral reefs and consequently how 

much needs to be learned about whether no-take 

marine reserves work effectively to enhance 

resilience when disease and bleaching remain 

significant sources of coral mortality (Aronson 

and Precht, 2006).

Nonindigenous/Invasive Species

Invasive species threaten all marine and 

estuarine communities. Currently, an estimated 

2% of extinctions in marine ecosystems are 

related to invasive species while 6% are the 

result of other factors, including climate 

change, pollution, and disease (Dulvy, Sadovy, 

and Reynolds, 2003). Principal mechanisms 

of introduction vary and have occurred via 

both accidental and intentional release (Ruiz

et al., 2000; Carlton, 2000).33 Invasive species 

are often opportunistic and can force shifts 

in the relative abundance and distribution of 

33 See also Hare, J.A. and P.E. Whitfield, 2003: An 

Integrated Assessment of the Introduction of Lionfish 

(Pterois Volitans/Miles Complex) to the Western 

Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NOS NCCOS 2, pp.1-21.

models (IPCC, 2007c). These native species 

will likely have their competitive abilities 

compromised and be more susceptible to 

displacement by invasive species, and therefore 

should be considered for stronger protective 

Figure 8.5. Total observed change in coral cover (%) across the Car

bean basin over the past 25 years (From Gardner et al., 2003. Reprint

with permission from AAAS). A. Coral cover (%) 1977-2001. Ann

estimates (▲) are weighted means with 95% bootstrap confidence int

vals. Also shown are unweighted estimates (●), unweighted mean co

cover with the Florida Keys Coral Reef Monitoring Project (1996-20

omitted (x), and the number of studies each year (○). B. Year-on-ye

rate of change (mean ∆N ± SE) in coral cover (%) for all sites report

two consecutive years of data 1975-2000 (●) and the number of stud

for each two-year period (○).

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 27 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 27 
28

and P. miles) are now widely distributed off 

the southeastern coast of the United States and 

in the Bahamas less than 10 years after being 

first observed off Florida (Whitfield et al., 

2007; Snyder and Burgess, 2007). One of the 

few factors limiting their spread is intolerance 

to minimum water temperatures during winter 

(Kimball et al., 2004). Ocean warming could 

facilitate depth and range expansion in these 

species. 

Diseases 

Disease outbreaks alter the structure and 

function of marine ecosystems by affecting the 

abundance and diversity of vertebrates (e.g., 

mammals, turtles, fish), invertebrates (e.g., 

corals, crustaceans, echinoderms, oysters), 

and plants (e.g., seagrasses, kelps). Pathogen 

outbreaks or epidemics spread rapidly, due to 

the lack of dispersal barriers in some parts of the 

ocean and the potential for long-term survival 

of pathogens outside the host (Harvell et al., 

1999; Harvell et al., 2002). Many pathogens of 

marine taxa such as coral viruses, bacteria, and 

fungi are positively responsive to temperature 

increases within their physiological thresholds 

(Porter et al., 2001; Kim and Harvell, 2004; 

Munn, 2006; Mydlarz, Jones, and Harvell, 2006; 

Boyett, Bourne, and Willis, 2007). However, it 

is noteworthy that white-band disease was the 

primary cause (though not the only cause) of 

reduced coral cover on Caribbean reefs from the 

late 1970s through the early 1990s (Aronson and 

Precht, 2006). That outbreak did not correspond 

to a period of particularly elevated temperature 

(Lesser et al., 2007).

Exposure to disease compromises the ability of 

species to resist other anthropogenic stressors, 

and exposure to other stressors compromises 

species’ ability to resist disease (Harvell et 

al., 1999; Harvell et al., 2002). For example, 

warmer temperatures (reviewed in Harve

al., 2002), and some coral species may bec

more susceptible to disease after bleach

events (Whelan et al., 2007). The mechani

for pathogenesis, however, are largely unkno

Given that exposure to multiple stressors 

compromise the ability of marine spe

to resist infection, the most effective me

of reducing disease incidence under clim

change may be to minimize impacts of stres

such as pollution and overfishing. 

8.3.3 Management Approaches 

and Sensitivity of Management 

Goals to Climate Change

Marine protected area programs have b

identified as a critical mechanism for protec

marine biodiversity and associated ecosys

services (National Research Council, 2

Palumbi, 2002; Roberts et al., 2003a; S

and Dahlgren, 2004; Palumbi, 2004; Rob

2005; Salm, Done, and McLeod, 2006).34 M

networks are being implemented glob

to address multiple threats to the ma

environment, and are generally accepte

an improvement over individual MPAs (S

Clark, and Siirila, 2000; Allison et al., 2

Roberts et al., 2003a; Mora et al., 2006

Networks are more effective than single M

at protecting the full range of habitat 

community types because they spread the 

of losing a habitat or community type follow

a disturbance such as a climate-change im

across a larger area. Networks are better 

than individual MPAs to protect both short- 

long-distance dispersers, and thus have m

34 See also Ballantine, B., 1997: Design principle

systems of no-take marine reserves. Proceedin

the the design and monitoring of marine rese

Fisheries Center, University of British Colom

Vancouver.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 28 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 28 
large reserve, and can provide more inclusive 

representation of stakeholders (National 

Research Council, 2001; Hansen, Biringer, and 

Hoffman, 2003).

While MPA networks are considered a critical 

management tool for conserving marine 

biodiversity, they must be established in 

conjunction with other management strategies 

to be effective (Hughes et al., 2003). MPAs are 

vulnerable to activities beyond their boundaries. 

For example, uncontrolled pollution and 

unsustainable fishing outside protected areas 

can adversely affect species and ecosystem 

function within the protected area (Kaiser, 

2005). Therefore, MPA networks should 

be established considering other forms of 

fisheries management (e.g., catch limits and 

gear restrictions) (Allison, Lubchenco, and 

Carr, 1998; Beger, Jones, and Munday, 2003; 

Kaiser, 2005), as well as coastal management 

to control land-based threats such as pollution 

and sedimentation (Cho, 2005). In the long 

term, the most effective configuration would 

be a network of highly protected areas nested 

within a broader management framework 

(Salm, Done, and McLeod, 2006). Such a 

framework might include an extensive multipleuse area managed for sustainable fisheries as 

well as protection of biodiversity, integrated 

with coastal management regimes, where 

appropriate, to enable effective control of 

threats originating upstream and to maintain 

high water quality (e.g., Done and Reichelt, 

1998).

The National Marine Sanctuary Program 

has developed a set of goals (Box 8.1) to help 

clarify the relationship between operations at 

individual sanctuaries and the broad directives 

of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. A 

subset of these goals (Goals 1, 4, 5, and 6) are 

degraded water quality, and habitat damage and 

destruction. Sanctuary management plans are 

designed to address additional issues raised 

by local communities, such as user conflicts, 

needs for education and outreach, and interest 

in volunteer programs.

Highly protected marine reserves within 

national marine sanctuaries have been 

implemented at some sites (e.g., Channel Islands 

and the Florida Keys; Keller and Causey, 2005) 

to reduce fishing pressure, restore ecosystem 

structure and function, and protect biodiversity; 

the entire area of the Papahānaumokuākea 

Marine National Monument will become 

no-take within five years. These additional 

protective actions complement existing fishery 

regulations. Some sites, such as Monterey 

Bay and the Florida Keys, have Water Quality 

Protection Programs to address issues such as 

watershed pollution, vessel discharges, and, in 

the case of the Florida Keys, wastewater and 

stormwater treatment systems. Habitat damage 

may be addressed using waterway marking 

programs to reduce vessel groundings and 

mooring buoys to minimize anchor damage. 

Many of these activities are supported through 

education and outreach programs to inform the 

public, volunteer programs to help distribute 

information (e.g., Team OCEAN35), and law 

enforcement.

Sanctuary management plans are intended 

to be comprehensive, and may take years 

of community involvement to develop. For 

example, it took more than five years to develop 

the management plan for the Florida Keys 

35 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 

2003: Florida Keys NMS Team OCEAN. Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary Webpage, http://

floridakeys.noaa.gov/edu/ocean.html, accessed on 

5-21-2007.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 29 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 29 
30

through both internal and external mechanisms.

Objective 5. Anticipate, characterize, and mitigate threats to resources.

Objective 6. Assess and predict changes in the NMSP’s operating, natural, and social environments, and evolve sanctuary management strategies to address them through 

management plan reviews, reauthorizations, and program regulatory review.

Objective 7. Designate new sanctuaries, as appropriate, to ensure the nation’s marine ecosystems and networks achieve national expectations for sustainability.

Goal 4: Improve Sanctuary Science.

Objective 1. Expand observing systems and monitoring efforts within and near national marine 

sanctuaries to fill important gaps in the knowledge and understanding of the ocean 

and Great Lakes ecosystems.

Objective 2. Support directed research activities that support management decision making on 

challenges and opportunities facing sanctuary ecosystems, processes, and resources.

Objective 3. Develop comprehensive characterization products of ocean and Great Lakes ecosystems, processes, and resources.

Goal 5: Facilitate Compatible Use.

Objective 1. Work closely with partners, interested parties, community members, stakeholders, 

and government agencies to assess and manage human use of sanctuary resources.

Objective 2. Create, operate, and support community-based sanctuary advisory councils to assist and advise sites and the overall program in the management of their resources, 

and to serve as liaisons to the community.

Objective 3. Consult and coordinate with federal agencies and other partners conducting activities in or near sanctuaries.

Objective 4. Use other tools such as policy development, permitting, and regulatory review and 

improvement to help guide human use of sanctuary resources.

Goal 6: Improve International Work.

Objective 1. Develop multilateral program relationships to interact with, share knowledge and 

experience with, and learn from international partners to improve the NMSP’s 

management capacity, and bring new experiences to MPA management in the 

United States.

Objective 2. Investigate the use of international legal conventions and other instruments to help 

protect sanctuary resources, including those that are transboundary or shared.

Objective 3. Cooperate to the extent possible with global research initiatives in order to improve the overall understanding of the ocean.

Objective 4. Make NMSP education and awareness programs accessible through international 

efforts to increase the global population’s awareness of ocean issues.

* Additional goals of the NMSP are in Box 8.1.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 30 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 30 
change projections is relevant to achieving 

NMSP Goals 1, 2, 4, and 5 (Box 8.1). The NMSP 

is a leader in the use of stakeholders in the 

development of new management approaches 

(Sanctuary Advisory Councils and public 

scoping meetings at the site level). This model 

of public involvement should serve well as 

management strategies adapt under the stresses 

of climate change. Exporting lessons learned to 

the general public, managers of other MPAs, 

and the international community will further 

address NMSP Goals 2, 3, and 6.

An additional approach of the NMSP that should 

further efforts toward adaptive management in 

the context of climate change is the development 

of performance measures to help evaluate the 

success of the program (Box 8.4). Although 

climate change stressors are not yet explicitly 

addressed in these performance measures, 

attainment of a number of these measures 

clearly will be increasingly affected by climate 

change. The performance-measure approach 

should encourage sanctuary managers to 

address climate change impacts using the 

8.4 ADAPTING TO CLIMATE 

CHANGE

MPA managers can respond to challenges 

of climate change at two scales: actions at 

individual sites and implementing MPA 

networks. At particular MPAs, managers 

can increase efforts to ameliorate existing 

anthropogenic stressors with a goal of reducing 

the overall load of multiple stressors (Breitburg 

and Riedel, 2005). For example, the concept of 

protecting or enhancing coral reef resilience 

has been proposed to help ameliorate negative 

consequences of coral bleaching (Hughes et 

al., 2003; Hughes et al., 2005; Marshall and 

Shuttenberg, 2006). Under this approach, 

resilience is an ecosystem property that can 

be managed and is defined as the ability of 

an ecosystem to resist or absorb disturbance 

without significantly degrading processes 

that determine community structure, or if 

36 National Marine Sanctuary Program, 5-21-2007: 

National Marine Sanctuaries condition reports. 

NOAA Website, http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/

condition/, accessed on 7-27-2007.

BOX 8.4. Draft Natural Resource Performance Measures of the 

National Marine Sanctuary Program.

2015: 12 sites with water quality being maintained or improved.

2015: 12 sites with habitat being maintained or improved.

2015: 12 sites with living marine resources being maintained or improved.

2010: 100% of the System is adequately characterized.

2010: 6 sites are achieving or maintaining an optimal management rating on 

the NMSP Report Card.

2007: 100% of NMSP permits are handled in a timely fashion and correctly.

2010: 100% of sites with zones in place are assessing them for effectiveness.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 31 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 31 
32

In addition to the approach of ameliorating 

existing stressors, MPA managers can protect 

putatively resistant and potentially resilient 

areas, develop networks of MPAs, and integrate 

scenariobased planning is provided in 

National Parks chapter, sections 4.4.1 

4.4.2.

BOX 8.5. Marine Protected Areas: Adaptation Options for Resource Managers.

• Manage human stressors such as overfishing and excessive inputs of nutrients, sediments, and 

pollutants within MPAs.

• Improve water quality by raising awareness of adverse effects of land-based activities on marine 

environments, implementing integrated coastal and watershed management, and developing 

options for advanced wastewater treatment.

• Manage functional species groups necessary to maintaining the health of reefs and other ecosystems.

• Identify and protect areas that appear to be resistant to climate change effects or to recover 

from climate-induced disturbances.

• Identify and protect ecologically significant (“critical”) areas such as nursery grounds, spawning 

grounds, and areas of high species diversity.

• Identify ecological connections among ecosystems and use them to inform the design of MPAs 

and management decisions such as protecting resistant areas to ensure sources of recruitment 

for recovery of populations in damaged areas.

• Design MPAs with dynamic boundaries and buffers to protect breeding and foraging habits of 

highly migratory and pelagic species.

• Establish dynamic MPAs defined by large-scale oceanographic features, such as oceanic fronts, 

where changes in types and abundances of organisms often occur.

• Maximize habitat heterogeneity within MPAs and consider protecting larger areas to preserve 

biodiversity, ecological connections among habitats, and ecological functions.

• Include entire ecological units (e.g., coral reefs with their associated mangroves and seagrasses) 

in MPA design to help maintain ecosystem function and resilience.

• Ensure that the full breadth of habitat types is protected (e.g., fringing reef, fore reef, back reef, 

patch reef).

• Replicate habitat types in multiple areas to spread risks associated with climate change.

• Monitor ecosystems and have rapid-response strategies prepared to assess ecological effects of 

extreme events as they occur.

• Following extreme events, consider whether actions should be taken to enhance natural recovery 

processes through active restoration.

• Consider mangrove restoration for potential benefits including shoreline protection, expansion of 

nursery habitat, and release of tannins and other dissolved organic compounds that may reduce 

photo-oxidative stress in corals.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 32 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 32 
in marine reserves, where no fishing is allowed, 

are more resilient to ocean warming than those 

in areas where overfishing occurs (Behrens 

and Lafferty, 2004). This ecological response 

is a result of changes in trophic structure of 

communities in and around the reserves. When 

top predators such as spiny lobster are fished, 

their prey, herbivorous sea urchins, increase in 

abundance and consume giant kelp and other 

algae. When kelp forests are subjected to intense 

grazing by these herbivores, the density of kelp 

is reduced, sometimes becoming an “urchin 

barren,” particularly during ocean warming 

events such as ENSO cycles. In reserves where 

fishing is prohibited, lobster populations were 

larger, urchin populations were diminished, 

and kelp forests persisted over a period of 20 

years—including four ENSO cycles (Behrens 

and Lafferty, 2004). 

Managing water quality has been identified 

as a key strategy for maintaining ecological 

resilience (Salm, Done, and McLeod, 2006).37

In the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, water 

quality protection is recognized as an essential 

component of management (U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1996; The State of Queensland and 

Commonwealth of Australia, 2003; Grigg et al., 

2005, also see the Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary’s water quality agreements with 

land-based agencies).37 Strong circumstantial 

evidence exists linking poor water quality to 

increased macroalgal abundances, internal 

bioerosion, and susceptibility to some diseases 

in corals and octocorals (Fabricius and De’ath, 

2004). Addressing sources of pollution—

37 Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 2007: 

Water quality protection program for the MBNMS. 

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Website, 

http://www.mbnms.nos.noaa.gov/resourcepro/waterpro.html, accessed on 5-23-2007.

management, and developing options for 

advanced wastewater treatment (The Group 

of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine 

Environmental Protection, 2001).

Managers may be able to build resilience to 

climate change into MPA management strategies 

by protecting marine habitats such as coral reefs 

and mangroves from direct threats such as 

pollution, sedimentation, destructive fishing, 

and overfishing. Therefore, managers should 

continue to develop and implement strategies to 

reduce land-based pollution, decrease nutrient 

and sediment runoff, eliminate the use of 

persistent pesticides, and increase filtration 

of effluent to improve water quality. As noted 

above, the efficacy of these measures needs 

research in an adaptive-management context.

Another mechanism that may maintain 

resilience is the management of functional 

groups, specifically herbivores (Hughes et al., 

2003; Bellwood et al., 2004). Bellwood et al.

(2004) identified three functional groups of 

herbivores that assist in maintaining coral reef 

resilience: bioeroders, grazers, and scrapers. 

These groups work together to break down dead 

coral, providing sites for recruitment, graze 

macroalgae, and reduce the development of 

algal turfs to generate relatively bare substratum 

for coral settlement. Algal biomass must be kept 

low to maintain healthy coral reefs (Sammarco, 

1980; Hatcher and Larkum, 1983; Steneck and 

Dethier, 1994). Bellwood, Hughes, and Hoey 

(2006) identify the need to protect both the 

species that prevent phase shifts from coraldominated to algal-dominated reefs and the 

species that help reefs recover from algal 

dominance. They suggest that while parrotfishes 

and surgeonfishes appear to play a critical role 

in preventing phase shifts to macroalgae, their 

ability to remove algae may be limited if a 

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 33 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 33 
34

at a marine reserve in the Seychelles after the 

1998 mass coral bleaching event, despite the 

presence of abundant herbivorous fishes. Many 

herbivorous fishes avoid macroalgae, and more 

research on functional groups is needed.

Although protecting functional groups may be 

a component of MPA management to enhance 

resilience, understanding which groups should 

be protected requires a detailed knowledge 

of species and interactions that is not often 

available for all species. Therefore, managers 

should strive to maintain the maximum number 

of species in the absence of detailed data 

on ecological and species interactions. For 

example, for managing coral reefs, regional 

guidelines identifying key herbivores that 

reduce macroalgae and encourage coral reef 

settlement should be developed. For kelp 

forests, the opposite approach may apply—

managers may need to identify key predators on 

herbivores and limit fishing on those predators 

to reduce herbivory and promote growth of 

healthy kelp forests. These guidelines should 

be field tested at different locations to verify 

the recommendations. 

8.4.2 Protect Apparently Resistant 

and Potentially Resilient Areas

Marine ecosystems that contain biologically 

generated habitats face potential loss of habitat 

structure as climate change progresses (e.g., 

coral reefs, seagrass beds, kelp forests, and 

deep coral communities) (see Hoegh-Guldberg, 

1999; Steneck et al., 2002; Roberts, Wheeler, 

and Freiwald, 2006; Orth et al., 2006). As 

discussed earlier in this chapter, it is likely 

that climate change contributes to mass coral 

bleaching events (Reaser, Pomerance, and 

Thomas, 2000), which became recognized 

globally in 1997–1998 (Wilkinson, 1998; 2000) 

of past environmental stress― these patch-

environments might be good candidates 

additional protective measures because 

may have high potential to survive clim

stress.

Done38 (see also Marshall and Schuttenb

2006) presented a decision tree for identify

areas that would be suitable for MPAs und

climate change scenario. Two types of favor

outcomes included reefs that survived bleac

(i.e., were resilient) and reefs that were 

exposed to elevated sea surface temperat

(e.g., may be located within refugia suc

areas exposed to upwelling or cooler curre

This type of decision tree has already b

adapted to guide site selection for mangr

(McLeod and Salm, 2006), and it could 

extended further for other habitat types s

as seagrass beds and kelp forests.

In addition, thermally stressed corals exh

less bleaching and higher survival if they 

shaded during periods of elevated temperat

(Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). On a sm

scale, MPA managers may be able to sh

areas during bleaching events to reduce ov

stress. On a larger scale, managers sho

protect mangrove shorelines and supp

restoration of areas where mangroves have b

damaged or destroyed, because tannins 

dissolved organic compounds from decay

mangrove vegetation contribute to absorb

light and reducing stress (Hallock, 2005) 

38 Done, T., 2001: Scientific principles for estab

ing MPAs to alleviate coral bleaching and pro

recovery. In: Coral Bleaching and Marine Prot

Areas. Proceedings of the Workshop on Mitig

Coral Bleaching Impact Through MPA De

Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI, 29-31 May 

[Salm, R.V. and S.L. Coles (eds.)]. Asia Pa

Coastal Marine Program Report # 0102, The N

Conservancy, Honolulu, HI, pp. 60-66.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 34 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 34 
and research). This allows managers to target 

potential refugia for MPA design now, while 

also monitoring these areas over time so that 

management can be modified as circumstances 

and habitats change.

8.4.3 Develop Networks of MPAs

The concept of systems or networks of MPAs 

has considerable appeal because of emergent 

properties (i.e., representation, replication, 

sustainability, connectivity) (National Research 

Council, 2001; Roberts et al., 2003a),21 spreading 

the risk of catastrophic habitat loss (Palumbi, 

2002; Allison et al., 2003), and the provision of 

functional wilderness areas sufficient to resist 

fundamental changes to entire ecosystems 

(Kaufman et al., 2004). While MPA networks 

have been recognized as a valuable tool to 

conserve marine resources in the face of 

climate change, there have been a number 

of challenges to implementation (Pandolfi et 

al., 2005; Mora et al., 2006); nevertheless, a 

number of principles have been developed and 

are gradually being applied to aid MPA network 

design and implementation. These principles 

are described below.

8.4.3.1 Protect Critical Areas

Critical areas—areas that are biologically or 

ecologically significant—should be identified 

and included in MPAs. These critical areas 

include nursery grounds, spawning grounds, 

areas of high species diversity, areas that 

contain a variety of habitat types in close 

proximity to each other, and climate refugia 

(Allison, Lubchenco, and Carr, 1998; Sale et 

al., 2005).39 Coral assemblages that demonstrate 

39 See also Sadovy, Y., 2006: Protecting the spawning and nursery habitats of fish: the use of MPAs 

to safeguard critical life-history stages for marine 

life. MPA News, International News and Analysis 

on Marine Protected Areas, 8(2), 1-3.

currents, shading) afford them some protection 

from temperature anomalies. Reefs that are 

resistant and reefs that are located in refugia 

from climate extremes may play a critical role 

in reef survival by providing a source of larvae 

for dispersal to and recovery of affected areas.40

For coral reefs, indicators of potential refugia 

include a ratio of live to dead coral and a range 

of colony sizes and ages suggesting persistence 

over time. Refugia must be large enough to 

support high species richness to maximize their 

effectiveness as sources of recruits to replenish 

areas that have been damaged (Palumbi et al., 

1997; Bellwood and Hughes, 2001; Salm, Done, 

and McLeod, 2006).

Following extreme events, MPA managers 

should consider whether actions should be taken 

to enhance natural recovery processes through 

active restoration of biologically structured 

habitats. For example, damaged areas in 

seagrass beds may recover more rapidly if steps 

are taken to stabilize sediments (Whitfield et al., 

2002). Due to the loss of mangroves from many 

areas, mangrove restoration is another option for 

MPA managers that may have multiple benefits, 

including shoreline protection, expansion 

of nursery habitat (Nagelkerken, 2007), and 

release of tannins and other dissolved organic 

compounds that may reduce photo-oxidative 

stress in corals (Hallock, 2005).

8.4.3.2 Incorporate Connectivity in 

Planning MPA Networks

Connectivity is the natural linkage between 

marine habitats (Crowder et al., 2000; Stewart, 

40 Salm, R.V. and S.L. Coles, 2001: Coral Bleaching 

and Marine Protected Areas. Proceedings of the 

Workshop on Mitigating Coral Bleaching Impact 

Through MPA Design, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, 

HI, 29-31 May 2001. Asia Pacific Coastal Marine 

Program Report #0102, The Nature Conservancy, 

Honolulu, HI, 118 pp.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 35 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 35 
36

as mangroves, as well. For example, healthy 

mangroves could be selected up-current from 

areas that may succumb to sea level rise, and 

areas could be selected that would be suitable 

habitat for mangroves in the future following 

sea level rise. These areas of healthy mangroves 

could provide secure sources of propagules to 

replenish down-current mangroves following a 

disturbance event.

A suspected benefit of MPAs is the dispersal 

of larvae to areas surrounding MPAs, but there 

are few data that can be used to estimate the 

exchange of larvae among local populations 

(Palumbi, 2004). Understanding larval dispersal 

and transport are critical to determining 

connectivity, and thus the design of MPAs. 

The size of an individual MPA should be 

based on the movement of adults of species of 

interest (Hastings and Botsford, 2003; Botsford, 

Micheli, and Hastings, 2003) and be large 

enough to contain the different habitats used 

and daily movements. The distance between 

adjacent MPAs should take into account the 

potential dispersal distances of larvae of fish, 

invertebrates, and other species of interest.41

One approach in MPA design has been to 

establish the size of MPAs based on the spatial 

scale of movements of adults of heavily fished 

species, and to space MPAs based on scales 

of larval dispersal (Palumbi, 2004). However, 

guidelines for the minimum size of MPAs and 

no-take reserves, and spacing between adjacent 

MPAs, vary dramatically depending on the 

goals for the MPAs (Hastings and Botsford, 

2003). Friedlander et al. (2003) suggested 

that no-take zones should measure ca. 10 km2

41 California Department of Fish and Game, 2007: 

California Marine Life Protection Act: Master 

Plan for MPAs. California Department of Fish and 

Game.

recruitment from oceanographically conne

sites (Cowen, Paris, and Srinivasan, 20

Steneck, 2006). Palumbi (2003) concluded 

marine reserves tens of km apart may excha

larvae in a single generation. Shanks, Granth

and Carr (2003) similarly concluded that ma

reserves spaced 20 km apart would al

larvae to be carried to adjacent reserves. 

Science Advisory Team to California’s Ma

Life Protection Act Initiative recommen

spacing high protection MPAs, such 

marine reserves, within 50–100 km in o

to accommodate larval dispersal distance

a wide range of species of interest. Halper

al. (2006) corroborated these estimates u

an uncertainty-modeling approach.

No-take zones measuring a minimum o

km in diameter will accommodate sh

distance dispersers in addition to includ

a significant proportion of local benthic 

species, thus generating fisheries bene

(Shanks, Grantham, and Carr, 2003; Fernan

et al., 2005; Mora et al., 2006). While 

recommendation is likely to protect the majo

of small benthic fish and benthic invertebr

it is unlikely to protect large pelagic 

and large migratory species (Roberts et 

2003b; Palumbi, 2004). Recommendation

protect highly migratory and pelagic spe

include designing MPAs to protect predict

breeding and foraging habits, ensuring th

have dynamic boundaries and exten

buffers, and establishing dynamic MPAs 

are defined by the extent and location of la

scale oceanographic features, such as oce

fronts, where changes in types and abunda

of marine organisms often occur (Hyrenb

Forney, and Dayton, 2000).

A system-wide approach should be taken 

addresses patterns of connectivity am

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 36 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 36 
ecological units (e.g., coral reefs with their 

associated mangroves and seagrasses) should 

be included in MPA design where possible. If 

entire biological units cannot be included, then 

larger areas should be chosen over smaller areas 

to accommodate local-scale recruitment.

Although maintaining connectivity within 

and between MPAs may help maintain marine 

biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience, 

many challenges exist. For example, the same 

currents and pathways that allow for larval 

recruitment following a disturbance event 

can expose an ecosystem to invasive species, 

pathogens, parasites, or pollutants, which 

can undermine the resilience of a system 

(McClanahan, Polunin, and Done, 2002).

Numerous challenges also exist in estimating 

larval dispersal patterns. Although there have 

been detailed studies addressing dispersal 

potential of marine species based on their larval 

biology (e.g., Shanks, Grantham, and Carr, 

2003; Kinlan and Gaines, 2003), little is known 

about where in the oceans larvae go and how far 

they travel. A single network design is unlikely 

to satisfy the potential dispersal ranges for all 

species; Roberts et al. (2003b) recommended 

an approach using various sizes and spacing 

of MPAs in a network to accommodate the 

diversity of dispersal ranges. Larval duration 

in the plankton varies from minutes to years, 

and the more time that propagules spend in 

the water column, the farther they tend to be 

dispersed (Shanks, Grantham, and Carr, 2003; 

Steneck, 2006). Evidence from hydrodynamic 

models and genetic structure data indicates that, 

in addition to large variation of larval dispersal 

distances among species, the average scale 

of dispersal can vary widely—even within a 

given species—at different locations in space 

and time (e.g., Cowen et al., 2003; Sotka et 

al., 2004; Engie and Klinger, 2007). Some 

information suggests long-distance dispersal 

is common, but other emerging information 

suggests that larval dispersal may be limited

(Jones et al., 1999; Swearer et al., 1999; Warner, 

Swearer, and Caselle, 2000; Thorrold et al., 

2001; Palumbi, 2003; Paris and Cowen, 2004; 

Jones, Planes, and Thorrold, 2005). Additional 

research will be required to better understand 

where and how far larvae travel in various 

marine ecosystems.

8.4.3.3 Replicate Multiple Habitat Types 

in MPA Networks

Recognizing that the science underlying our 

understanding of resilience is developing and that 

climate change will not affect marine habitats 

and species equally everywhere, an element of 

risk spreading must be built into MPA design. 

To help avoid the loss of a particular habitat 

type, managers can protect multiple examples of 

all habitats (Hockey and Branch, 1994; Roberts

et al., 2001; Friedlander et al., 2003; Roberts

et al., 2003b; Salm, Done, and McLeod, 2006; 

Wells, 2006).21 For example, marine habitat 

types include coral reefs with varying degrees 

of exposure to wave energy (e.g., offshore, 

mid-shelf, and inshore reefs), seagrass beds 

dominated by various seagrass species and 

in different environments, and a range of 

mangrove communities (riverine, basin, and 

fringe forests in areas of varying salinity, tidal 

fluctuation, and sea level) (Salm, Done, and 

McLeod, 2006). Reflecting the current federal 

goal of protecting at least 30% of lifetime 

stock spawning potential (Ault, Bohnsack, 

and Meester, 1998; National Marine Fisheries 

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 37 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 37 
38

diversity, and species richness increases with 

habitat complexity; the greater the variety of 

habitats protected, the greater the biodiversity 

conserved (Friedlander et al., 2003; Carr et 

al., 2003). High species diversity may increase 

ecosystem resilience by ensuring sufficient 

redundancy to maintain ecological processes 

and protect against environmental disturbance 

(McNaughton, 1977; McClanahan, Polunin, 

and Done, 2002). This is particularly true in 

the context of additive or synergistic stressors. 

Maximizing habitat heterogeneity is critical 

for maintaining ecological health; thus MPAs 

should include large areas and depth gradients 

(Hansen, Biringer, and Hoffman, 2003; Roberts

et al., 2003a).38 By protecting a representative 

range of habitat types and communities, MPAs 

have a higher potential to protect a region’s 

biodiversity, biological connections between 

habitats, and ecological functions (Day et al., 

2002).

Replication of habitat types in multiple areas 

provides a further way to spread risks associated 

with climate change. If a habitat type is 

destroyed in one area, similar habitat in another 

area may provide larvae for recovery. While the 

number of replicates will be determined by a 

balance of desired representation and practical 

concerns such as funding and enforcement 

capacity (Airamé et al., 2003), generally at 

least three to five replicates are recommended 

to effectively protect a particular habitat or 

community type (Airamé et al., 2003; Roberts

et al., 2003b; Fernandes et al., 2005). Wherever 

possible, multiple examples of each habitat 

type should be included in MPA networks 

or larger management frameworks such as 

multiple-use MPAs or areas under rigorous 

integrated management regimes (Salm, Done, 

and McLeod, 2006). This approach has the 

due to limited monitoring and enforcem

resources, conflicting needs of resource u

and existence of certain habitat types wi

an MPA.

8.4.4 Integrate Climate Change 

into MPA Planning, Managemen

and Evaluation

A number of tools exist to help managers add

climate impacts and build resilience into M

design and management. Ecological chan

that are common in marine reserves worldw

and guidelines for marine reserve de

are summarized in an educational boo

for policymakers, managers, and educat

entitled “The Science of Marine Reserve

The Reef Resilience toolkit43 provides ma

resource managers with strategies to add

coral bleaching and conserve reef fish spaw

aggregations, helping to build resilience 

coral reef conservation programs. “A R

Manager’s Guide to Coral Bleaching” prov

information on the causes and consequence

coral bleaching and management strategie

help local and regional reef managers red

this threat to coral reef ecosystems (Mars

and Shuttenberg, 2006).The application of s

of these strategies is discussed in a recent re

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Age

which applies resilience theory in a case st

for the reefs of American Samoa and prop

climate adaptation strategies that can 

leveraged with existing local management pl

42 Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studi

Coastal Oceans, 2005: The science of marin

serves. Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studi

Coastal Oceans Website, http://www.piscoweb

outreach/pubs/reserves, accessed on 5-23-200

43 The Nature Conservancy and Partners, 2

R2 - Reef Resilience: Building Resilience into C

Reef Conservation; Additional Tools for Mana

Volume 2.0. CD ROM Toolkit, The Nature Co

vancy, http://www.reefresilience.org/.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 38 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 38 
oceans, possible acclimatization or evolution 

of organisms in response to changes in ocean 

chemistry, and how management might respond 

(The Royal Society, 2005).

Determining management effectiveness is 

important for gauging the success of an MPA 

or network, and also can inform adaptive 

management strategies to address shortcomings 

in a particular MPA or network. To help 

managers improve the management of MPAs, 

the IUCN World Commission on Protected 

Areas and the World Wide Fund for Nature 

developed an MPA management effectiveness 

guidebook. This guidebook, “How is Your 

MPA Doing? A Guidebook of Natural and 

Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine 

Protected Area Management Effectiveness,”

helps managers and other decision-makers 

assess management effectiveness through the 

selection and use of biophysical, socioeconomic, 

and governance indicators.44 The goal of 

the guidebook is to enhance the capability 

for adaptive management in MPAs. The 

“Framework for Measuring Success” (Parks and 

Salafsky, 2001) also provides a suite of tools to 

analyze community response to an MPA, and 

replicable methodologies to assess both social 

and ecological criteria.

National marine sanctuaries are preparing a 

series of Condition Reports for each site, which 

provide a summary of resources, pressures 

on those resources, current condition and 

trends, and management responses to the 

44 Pomeroy, R.S., J.E. Parks, and L.M. Watson, 2004: 

How Is Your MPA Doing? A Guidebook of Natural 

and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness. http://

effectivempa.noaa.gov/guidebook/guidebook.html, 

International Union for Conservation of Nature and 

Natural Resources, The World Conservation Union, 

Gland, Switzerland.

(2) share knowledge about climate change 

impacts and response options; (3) encourage and 

support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; 

(4) maximize resilience of the Great Barrier 

Reef ecosystem; and (5) encourage and support 

Great Barrier Reef communities and industries 

to adapt to climate change. To further several 

of these objectives, GBRMPA has published 

a thorough assessment of vulnerabilities to 

climate change (Johnson and Marshall, 2007). 

This approach is a model for MPAs to consider 

worldwide.

8.4.4.1 MPA Monitoring and Research

MPAs must be effectively monitored to ensure 

the success of MPA design and management. 

If MPA design and management are not 

successful, then adaptations need to be made to 

meet the challenges posed by anthropogenic and 

natural stresses. As the number of pristine areas 

is decreasing rapidly, establishing baseline data 

for marine habitats is urgent and essential. Once 

baseline data are established, managers should 

monitor to determine the effects of climate 

change on local resources and populations. 

Retrospective testing of resistance to climate 

change impacts is difficult, so rapid response 

strategies should be in place to assess ecological 

effects of extreme events as they occur. For 

coral reefs, coral bleaching patterns either 

disappear with time or become confounded 

with other causes of mortality, such as predation 

by the crown-of-thorns starfish, disease, or 

multiple other stressors (Salm, Done, and 

McLeod, 2006). Therefore, response strategies 

must be implemented immediately following a 

45 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2007: 

Management responses. Great Barrier Reef Marine 

Park Authority Website, http://www.gbrmpa.gov.

au/corp_site/key_issues/climate_change/management_responses, accessed on 12-24-2007.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 39 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 39 
40

introducing large numbers of coral larvae, and 

increasing densities of herbivores such as 

the sea urchin Diadema antillarum (in the 

Caribbean) or herbivorous reef fishes.

Monitoring also can be an effective way 

to engage community members and raise 

awareness of impacts of climate change on 

marine systems. For example, the Reef Check 

program enables community volunteers to 

collect coral reef monitoring data to supplement 

other monitoring data from researchers and 

government agencies. Programs that engage 

coral reef users (such as local fishermen and 

tourism operators) in monitoring can help raise 

awareness of impacts on marine systems and 

can help support the need to manage for local 

threats. The Nature Conservancy is managing 

the Florida Reef Resilience Program to develop 

strategies to improve the condition of Florida’s 

coral reefs and support human dimensions 

investigations.46 The program includes annual 

46 The Nature Conservancy, 2007: Florida Keys 

reef resilience program. The Nature Conservancy 

Website, http://www.nature.org/wherewework/

northamerica/states/florida/preserves/art17499.html, 

accessed on 7-27-2007.

as Palmyra Atoll, is wellsuited for this. S

an analysis could help determine the effic

of MPA management in the context of clim

change that is relatively independent of o

anthropogenic effects, similar to the situa

in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (see C

Study Summary 8.3).

NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch program47 prov

products that can warn managers of pote

impending bleaching events. In addit

Coral Reef Watch is developing bleach

forecasts that will provide outlooks of bleac

potential months in advance. These tools 

help managers prepare for bleaching event

that when the event occurs, managers can h

the necessary capacity in place to resp

In addition to a number of guides to h

managers understand resilience and incorpo

the concept in management actions, gl

information databases exist that consoli

climate change impacts on marine syst

such as coral reefs. Reefbase48 is a gl

information system and is the database of 

Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network 

the International Coral Reef Action Netw

Coral bleaching reports, maps, photogra

and publications are freely available on 

website, and bleaching reports can be subm

for inclusion in the database. Reefbase prov

an essential mechanism for collecting bleac

data from around the world, thus help

researchers and managers to identify pote

patterns in reef vulnerability.

47 http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/

48 www.reefbase.org 

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 40 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 40 
2000). MPAs that reinforce social resilience 

can provide communities with the opportunity 

to strengthen social relations and political 

stability, and diversify economic options 

(Corrigan, 2006). A variety of management 

actions have been identified to reinforce social 

resilience (Corrigan, 2006) including: (1) 

provide opportunities for shared leadership 

roles within government and management 

systems (Adger et al., 2005; Cinner et al., 

2005; McClanahan et al., 2006); (2) integrate 

MPAs and networks into broader coastal 

management initiatives to increase public 

awareness and support of management goals 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2007; Marshall and Shuttenberg, 2006); 

(3) encourage local economic diversification 

so that communities are able to deal with 

environmental, economic, and social changes 

(Adger et al., 2005; Marschke and Berkes, 

2006); (4) encourage stakeholder participation 

and incorporate their ecological knowledge 

in a multi-governance system (Tompkins and 

Adger, 2004; Granek and Brown, 2005; Lebel et 

al., 2006); and (5) make culturally appropriate 

conflict resolution mechanisms accessible to 

local communities (Christie, 2004; Marschke 

and Berkes, 2006).

Some MPA managers may feel that engaging 

in supporting human adaptive capacity to 

climate change impacts is beyond the scope 

of their work. However, it is important to 

recognize that resource use patterns will 

change in response to changing environmental 

conditions. For example, recent studies suggest 

that when fishers are meaningfully engaged in 

decision-making processes for management 

of natural resources, their confidence and 

social resilience to changes in resource access 

can be increased (Marshall, forthcoming). 

Furthermore, as management is adapted to 

need to ameliorate existing stressors in coastal 

waters. Such programs should be strengthened 

in national marine sanctuaries and all agencies 

that manage MPAs.

8.5 CONCLUSIONS

8.5.1 Management Considerations

Adaptive management of MPAs in the context 

of climate change includes the concept that 

intact marine ecosystems are more resistant 

and resilient to change than are degraded 

systems (Harley et al., 2006). Marine reserves 

develop less-disrupted community structure 

as populations of heavily fished species 

recover and abundance patterns and size 

structures return to states reflecting lower 

fishing mortality. Implementing networks 

of MPAs, including large areas of the ocean, 

will help “spread the risk” posed by climate 

change by protecting multiple representatives 

of habitats and communities within ecosystems 

(Soto, 2001; Palumbi, 2003; Halpern, 2003; 

Halpern and Warner, 2003; Roberts et al., 

2003b; Palumbi, 2004; Kaufman et al., 2004; 

Salm, Done, and McLeod, 2006).

The most effective configuration of MPAs may 

be a network of highly protected areas and 

other types of zones nested within a broader 

management framework (Botsford, 2005; 

Hilborn, Micheli, and De Leo, 2006; Crowder 

et al., 2006; Almany et al., 2007; Young et al., 

2007). As part of this configuration, areas that 

are ecologically and physically significant and 

connected by currents should be identified and 

included as a way of enhancing resilience in 

49 National Marine Sanctuary Program, 2-6-2007: 

National Marine Sanctuaries advisory council’s 

information. NOAA Website, http://sanctuaries.

noaa.gov/management/ac/welcome.html, accessed 

on 7-27-2007.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 41 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 41 
42

the ecosystem, the greater the potential will be 

for resistance to—and recovery from—climaterelated disturbances. 

In designing networks, managers should 

consider information on areas that may be 

refugia from climate change impacts, as well 

as information on connectivity (current patterns 

that support larval replenishment and recovery) 

among sites that vary in their sensitivities to 

climate change. Protection of seascapes creates 

areas sufficiently large to resist basic changes 

to entire ecosystems (Kaufman et al., 2004). 

Large reserves may benefit individual species 

by enabling entire adult phases of life cycles 

to be completed without fishing mortality, 

with concomitant increases in reproductive 

output (Sobel and Dahlgren, 2004) and quality 

(Berkeley, Chapman, and Sogard, 2004).

A key issue for MPA managers concerns 

achieving the goals and objectives of a localscale management plan in the context of largerscale stressors from atmospheric, terrestrial, and 

marine sources (Jameson, Tupper, and Ridley, 

2002). Another issue concerns maintaining 

a focus on immediate, deleterious effects 

of overexploitation, coastal pollution, and 

nonindigenous species as climate change 

impacts increase in magnitude or frequency 

over time (Paine, 1993). A conclusion of this 

report is that this focus is in fact an important 

element of adaptation to climate change. Within 

sites, managers can increase resilience to climate 

change by managing other anthropogenic 

stressors that also degrade ecosystems, such 

as overfishing and overexploitation; excessive 

inputs of nutrients, sediments, and pollutants; 

and habitat damage and destruction. Efforts 

by MPA managers to enhance resilience and 

resistance of marine communities may at least 

“buy some time” against threats of climate 

previously maintained the original state (

Bellwood, Hughes, and Hoey, 2006). T

highlights the need to provide broad protec

of species to maintain resilience and the nee

further research on key species and ecolog

processes. However, abundant herbivores 

not prevent shifts in algal-coral dominanc

coral reef ecosystems (Ledlie et al., 2007), 

management for reduced levels of grazing 

be necessary in plant-dominated systems 

as kelp forests.

The challenges of climate change req

creative solutions and collaboration am

a variety of stakeholders to generate 

necessary finances and support to respon

climate change stress. Global, regional, 

local partnerships across a range of sec

such as agriculture, tourism, water resou

management, conservation, and infrastruc

development can help alleviate the finan

burdens of responding to climate chang

MPAs. Finally, effective implementatio

the above strategies in support of ecolog

resilience will only be possible in the prese

of human social resilience.

8.5.2 Research Priorities

The scientific knowledge required to re

general conclusions related to the impac

multiple stressors at community and ecosys

levels is for the most part absent for ma

systems, and this gap impedes the abilit

MPA managers to take management act

that have predictable outcomes. Existing le

of uncertainty will only increase as imp

of climate change strengthen. Within ma

communities, temperature changes may re

in new species assemblages and biolog

interactions that affect ecological processes 

as productivity, nutrient fluxes, energy f

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 42 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 42 
The ability of corals to adapt or acclimatize 

to increasing seawater temperature is largely 

unknown (Berkelmans and van Oppen, 

2006). Further, corals are sensitive to light 

and ultraviolet radiation, and thermal stress 

exacerbates this sensitivity (Hoegh-Guldberg

et al., 2007). The roles of temperature, light, 

holobiont characteristics and history, and other 

factors in coral bleaching are research topics of 

paramount importance.

Because of the greater solubility of CO2

in cooler waters and at depth, reefs at the 

latitudinal margins of coral reef development 

(e.g., Florida Keys and Hawaiian Islands) and 

deep-water coral formations may show the most 

rapid and dramatic response to changing pH. 

Further research is needed on impacts of high 

concentrations of CO2 in the oceans, possible 

acclimatization or evolution of organisms in 

response to changes in ocean chemistry, and 

how management might respond (The Royal 

Society, 2005).

scope, it historically could be managed within 

individual MPAs; however, the addition of 

climate change stressors such as increased 

oceanic temperature, decreased pH, and 

greater fluctuations in salinity present greater 

challenges. Research in coral genomics may 

provide diagnostic tools for identifying stressors 

in coral reefs and other marine communities 

(e.g., Edge et al., 2005). MPA managers could 

benefit greatly from such tools, both in terms of 

distinguishing sources of stress and as potential 

“early-warning” signs for some factors such as 

thermal stress.

Research on marine ecosystems and climate 

change impacts continues to be a high-priority 

need, particularly in the context of using 

management actions as experiments in an 

adaptive-management framework. Although 

there is considerable research on physical 

impacts of climate change in marine systems 

(IPCC, 2007a), research on biological effects 

and ecological consequences is not as well 

developed.

Chapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 43 hapter 8_Marine Protected Areas.indd 43 
C

9.1 SUMMARY

The Nation’s public lands and waters traditionally have been managed using frameworks and 

objectives that were established under an implicit assumption of stable climate and the potential 

of achieving specific desirable conditions. Climate change implies that past experience may not 

apply and that the assumption of a stable climate is in some regions untenable. Previous chapters 

in this report examine a selected group of management systems (National Forests, National Parks, 

National Wildlife Refuges, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Estuaries, and Marine Protected 

Areas) and assess how these management systems can adapt to climate change. Using these 

chapters and their case studies, as well as more general scientific literature concerning adaptive 

management and climate change, this chapter presents a synthesis of suggested principles and 

management approaches for federal management agencies as well as other resource managers.

KEY FINDINGS

A useful starting point for adaptation is to analyze management goals, assess impacts, 

and characterize uncertainty. To inform adaptation decisions, the first step is to clarify the 

management goals that have been established for the system being studied. This information may 

then be used to define the boundaries of the impact assessment, including geographic scope, focal 

species, and other parameters. Within these boundaries, components of the assessment may 

then include developing conceptual models, assessing available ecological data and establishing 

current baseline information on system functioning, assessing available climate data, selecting 

impacts models, conducting scenario and sensitivity analyses that depict alternative futures, 

and characterizing uncertainty. Information from impact assessments helps determine whether 

existing monitoring programs need to be adjusted, or new ones established, to track changes 

in variables that represent triggers for threshold changes in ecosystems or that reflect overall 

resilience. Such monitoring programs can inform the location and timing of needed adaptation 

actions as well as the effectiveness of such actions once they are implemented. However, because 

of the high degree of uncertainty about the magnitude and temporal/spatial scale of climate 

change impacts, managers may find it difficult to translate results from impact assessments into 

practical management actions. The solution is not to view a scenario result as a “prediction” that 

supports planning for “most likely” outcomes. Rather, it is to select a range of future scenarios 

that capture the breadth of plausible outcomes and develop robust adaptation responses that 

address this full range.

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 1 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 1 
2

Reducing anthropogenic stresses is an approach for which there is considerable scientific confide

in its ability to promote resilience for virtually any situation. The effectiveness of the o

approaches—including protecting key ecosystem features, representation, replication, restora

identifying refuges, and especially relocation—is much more uncertain and will depend on a c

understanding of how the ecosystem in question functions, the extent and type of climate ch

that will occur, and the resulting ecosystem impacts. One method to implement adaptation 

proaches under such conditions of uncertainty is adaptive management. Adaptive managem

is a process that promotes flexible decision making, such that adjustments are made in decis

as outcomes from management actions and other events are better understood. This met

requires careful monitoring of management results to advance scientific understanding an

help adjust policies or operations as part of an iterative learning process.

Barriers to implementing existing and new adaptation practices may be used as opp

tunities for strategic thinking. Providing information on adaptation approaches and spe

strategies may not be enough to assist managers in addressing climate change impacts. Actu

perceived barriers may inhibit or prevent implementation of some types of adaptation. Iden

ing and understanding those barriers could facilitate critical adjustments to increase succe

implementation and adaptive capacity of organizations. Four main types of barriers that af

implementation are (1) interpretation of legislative goals, (2) restrictive management procedu

(3) limitations on human and financial capital, and (4) gaps in information. Identifying a pote

barrier, such as gaps in information or expertise necessary for implementing adaptation str

gies, provides the basis for finding a solution, such as linking with other managers to coo

nate training and research activities or sharing data and monitoring strategies to test scien

hypotheses. The challenge of turning barriers into opportunities may vary in the amount 

degree of effort required, the levels of management necessary to engage, and the length of t

needed. For example, re-evaluating management capabilities in light of existing authorities 

legislation to expand their breadth may require more time, effort, and involvement of high 

decision makers compared with altering the timing of management activities to take advantag

seasonal changes. Nevertheless, it should be possible to undertake strategic thinking and resh

priorities to convert barriers into opportunities to successfully implement adaptation.

Beyond the adaptation options reviewed in this report, key activities to ensure the 

tion’s capability to adapt include applying triage, determining appropriate scale

response, and reassessing management goals. Our capability to respond appropriatel

climate change impacts will depend on (1) developing systematic approaches for triage (i.

form of prioritizing adaptation actions), (2) determining the appropriate geographic and tem

ral scales of response to climate change, and (3) assessing whether current management g

will continue to be relevant in the future, or whether they need to be adjusted. Triage invo

maximizing the effectiveness of existing resources by re-evaluating current goals and managem

targets in light of observed and projected ecological changes. The goal is to determine th

management actions that are worthwhile to continue and those that may need to be abando

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 2 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 2 
challenge.

to a highly dynamic, uncertain, and variable 

framework, major advances in managing for 

change can be made, and thus adaptation is 

possible. 

As resource managers become aware of 

climate change and the challenges it poses, 

a major limitation is lack of guidance on 

what steps to take, especially guidance that 

is commensurate with agency cultures and 

the practical experiences that managers have 

accumulated from years of dealing with other 

stresses such as droughts, fires, and pest and 

pathogen outbreaks. Thus, it is the intent in 

this chapter to synthesize the lessons learned 

from across the previous chapters together with 

recent theoretical work concerning adaptive 

management and resource management under 

uncertainty, and discuss how managers can 

(1) assess the impacts of climate change on 

their systems and goals (Section 9.3), (2) 

identify best practice approaches for adaptation 

(Section 9.4), and (3) evaluate barriers and 

opportunities associated with implementation 

(Section 9.5). When it comes to management, 

the institutional mandates and objectives 

determine the management constraints and 

in turn the response to changing climate. As 

a result, this discussion and synthesis are 

framed around the institutions that manage 

lands and waters, as opposed to the ecosystems 

9.2 INTRODUCTION

Today’s natural resource planning and 

management practices were developed 

under relatively stable climatic conditions 

in the last century, and under a theoretical 

notion that ecological systems tend toward a 

natural equilibrium state for which one could 

manage. Most natural resource planning, 

management, and monitoring methodologies 

that are in place today are still based on the 

assumption that climate, species distributions, 

and ecological processes will remain stable, 

save for the direct impacts of management 

actions and historical interannual variability. 

Indeed, many government entities identify 

a “reference condition” based on historical 

ranges of variability as a guide to future desired 

conditions (Dixon, 2003). 

Although mainstream management practices 

typically follow these traditional assumptions, 

in recent years resource managers have 

recognized that climatic inf luences on 

ecosystems in the future will be increasingly 

complex and often outside the range of historical 

variability and, accordingly, more sophisticated 

management plans are needed to ensure that 

goals can continue to be met. By transforming 

management and goal-setting approaches from 

a static, equilibrium view of the natural world 

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 3 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 3 
4

from helpful comments received during the 

public and and expert review periods.

9.3 ASSESSING IMPACTS TO 

SUPPORT ADAPTATION

9.3.1 Mental Models for Making 

Adaptation Decisions

Within the context of natural resource 

management, an impact assessment is a means 

of evaluating the sensitivity of a natural system 

to climate change. Sensitivity is defined by the 

IPCC (2001) as “the degree to which a system 

is affected, either adversely or beneficially, by 

climate-related stimuli.” An impact assessment 

is part of a larger process to understand the risks 

posed by climate change, including those social 

and economic factors that may contribute to or 

to the climate community’s model, but addre

them in a different sequence of evaluatio

planning. The managers’ process begins w

estimating potential impacts, reviewing 

possible management options, evaluating 

human capacity to respond, and finally deci

on specific management responses. 

resource management community impli

combines the information on potential imp

with knowledge of their capacity to resp

during their planning processes. Since 

primary audience for this report is the reso

management community, the remainde

this discussion will follow their concep

approach to decision making.

The following sub-sections lay out in gre

detail some of the key issues and element

an impact assessment, which must necessa

Figure 9.1. Two conceptual models for describing different processes used by (a) the climate comm

and (b) the resource management community to support adaptation decision making. Colors are use

represent similar elements of the different processes.

Climate 

Community 

(a) 

Assess 

Impacts 

Evaluate 

Adaptive 

Capacity 

*Assess 

Vulnerability 

Evaluate 

Adaptation 

Options 

Develop 

Adaptation 

Actions 

Resource 

Management 

Community 

(b) 

* Vulnerability is the sum of projected impacts and adaptive capacity; this step is done by managers when they evaluate 

the projected impacts and their capacity to respond during their planning process 

** Assessing the capacity to respond in the management community is equivalent to assessing adaptive capacity in the 

climate community 

**Determine 

Capacity to 

Respond

Assess 

Impacts 

Evaluate 

Management 

Section 9.2 Options 

Section 9.3 Section 9.4 

Management 

Planning Process 

Develop 

Management 

Responses 

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 4 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 4 
9.3.eets oapact 

Assessment

I mpact assessment s combi ne (1) ou r 

understanding of the current state of the 

system and its processes and functions with (2) 

drivers of environmental change in order to (3) 

project potential responses to future changes in 

those drivers. Knowledge of the current state 

of the system, including its critical thresholds 

and coping ranges, provides the fundamental 

basis for understanding the implications of 

changes in future conditions. A coping range 

is the breadth of conditions under which a 

system continues to persist without significant, 

observable consequences, taking into account 

the system’s natural resilience (Yohe and Tol, 

2002). Change is not necessarily “bad,” and 

the fact that a system responds by shifting to 

a new equilibrium or state may not necessarily 

be a negative outcome. Regardless of the 

change, it will behoove managers to adjust to 

or take advantage of the anticipated change. 

Several examples of approaches to conducting 

impact assessments are provided below along 

with a discussion of the types of tools needed 

and key issues related to conducting impact 

assessments.

9.3.2.1 A Guiding Framework for Impact 

Assessments

The aim of a framework to assess impacts is to 

provide a logical and consistent approach for 

eliciting the information needs of a decision 

maker, for conducting an assessment as 

efficiently as possible, and for producing 

credible and useful results. While impact 

assessments are routinely done to examine the 

ecological effects of various environmental 

stressors, the need to incorporate changes in 

climate variables adds significantly to the spatial 

BOX 9.1. An example framework for incorporating 

climate change information into impact assessments.

Step 1 – Define decision context: Clarify managemen

goals and endpoints of concern, as well as risk preference

tradeoffs, time horizons for monitoring and management, 

planning processes related to established endpoints.

Step 2 – Develop conceptual model: Develop a conc

al model linking the spatial and temporal scales of interact

between and among drivers and endpoints to determine t

most important dependencies, sensitivities, and uncertain

in the system.

Step 3 – Assess available climate data: Determine 

whether available information about climate change is adequate for achieving the specified goals and endpoints. Da

sources that may be used include historical weather obser

tions, palaeoclimate data, and data from climate model ex

ments.

Step 4 – Downscale climate data: Where necessary, 

develop finer resolution datasets from coarser scale data, 

e.g., using statistical relationships (“statistical” downscaling

computer models (“dynamical” downscaling), to drive imp

models. For guidance on downscaling techniques, see IPC

TGICA (2007). 

Step 5 – Select impact assessment models: Review 

select impact assessment models that capture the process

and causal pathways represented in the conceptual model

Step 6 – Conduct sensitivity analyses and scenario 

planning: Conduct analyses to evaluate the basic sensitiv

in the system. Specify a number of climate scenarios that 

consistent with associated global-scale scenarios, physical

plausible, and sufficiently detailed to support an assessme

of the specified endpoints of concern. Use these scenario

learn the potential ranges of the system’s response to cha

in the climate drivers.

Step 7 – Manage risks through adaptation: Evaluate 

information generated to determine potential managemen

responses, recognizing that the consequences of decisions 

generally not known and hence decisions are made to red

the net negative effects of risk.

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 5 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 5 
6

An additional step would be to analyze data 

on indicators to decide whether a change 

in management is required. The steps 

were further refined by the Conservation 

Measures Partnership,1 which includes the 

African Wildlife Foundation, Conservation 

International, The Nature Conservancy, the 

Wildlife Conservation Society, and the World 

Wide Fund for Nature/World Wildlife Fund. By 

melding these steps with an assessment of the 

costs of any management response (including 

“no response” as one option), it should be 

possible to offer practical guidance.

9.3.2.2 Tools to Assess Impacts

The example frameworks described in the 

previous section reference two key types 

of tools: models that represent the climate 

system as a driver of ecological change and 

models that embody the physical world to 

trace the effect of climate drivers through 

relevant pathways to impacts on management 

endpoints of concern. There are numerous 

tools that begin to help managers anticipate 

and manage for climate change (see Appendix), 

although characterization of uncertainty 

could be improved in these tools, along with 

“user friendliness” and the ability to frame 

management endpoints in a manner that more 

closely meshes with the needs of decision 

makers. Fortunately, tool development for 

impact analysis is one of the most active areas 

of climate research, and greatly improved tools 

can be expected within the next few years.

1 Conservation Measures Partnership, 2007: Open 

Standards for the Practice of Conservation, Version 2.0, http://conservationmeasures.org/CMP/

Site_Docs/CMP_Open_Standards_Version_2.0.pdf, 

accessed on 4-11-2008.

projections can be downscaled using meth

that take local topography and local clim

patterns into account (Wilby et al., 19

Although relatively coarse climate project

may be useful for anticipating general tre

the effects of local topography, large w

bodies, and specific ecological systems 

make coarse predictions highly inaccurate

be more useful to managers, projections 

need to be downscaled using methods 

account for local climate patterns. In addit

climate-change projections will need to 

summarized in a way that takes their inhe

uncertainty into account. That uncerta

arises from the basic model structure, the m

parameters, and the path of global emiss

into the future. Useful future projections 

provide summaries that take this uncerta

into account and inform managers where 

projections are more and less certain a

specifically, how confident we can be in a g

level of change. Several different approa

exist for capturing the range of proje

future climates (see comparison of approa

in Dettinger, 2005). It also will be impor

to work with climate modelers to ensure 

they provide the biologically relevant ou

variables from the model results.

There are various methods of downsca

GCM data, including dynamical downsca

using regional climate models, statist

downscaling, and the change factor appro

(a type of statistical downscaling). Dynam

downscaling uses physically based regi

climate models that originate from nume

weather prediction and generate result

a scale of 50 km, although some gene

results at 10km and finer scales (Geo

Hewitson, and Christensen, 2001; Christen

et al., 2007). As their name implies, t

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 6 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 6 
relationship between the “predictors” and 

“predictands,” most studies that use statistical 

downscaling only use the results from one 

GCM (e.g., Shongwe, Landman, and Mason, 

2006; Spak et al., 2007; Benestad, HanssenBauer, and Fairland, 2007). The change factor 

approach to downscaling involves subtracting 

the modeled future climate from the control 

run at the native coarse resolution of the GCM. 

These modeled climate “anomalies” are then 

interpolated to create a seamless surface of 

modeled change at a finer resolution. These 

interpolated data are then added to the current 

climate to provide an estimate of future climate. 

Researchers use the change factor approach 

when a rapid assessment of multiple GCMs and 

emissions scenarios is required (e.g., Mitchell

et al., 2004; Wilby et al., 2004; Scholze et al., 

2006; Malcolm et al., 2006).

It is becoming increasingly possible to examine 

multiple GCMs and look for more robust 

results. As this approach becomes widespread, 

the consequences of choosing one particular 

GCM will become less important. Moreover, 

all GCMs are undergoing refinement in models 

and parameter estimates. At this point, the key 

to applying any climate modeling technique is 

understanding the sensitivity of results to model 

selection before results are used to conduct 

impact assessments.

Impact Models to Assess Endpoints of Concern

Climate change impacts may be defined by two 

factors, (1) the types and magnitude of climate 

changes that are likely to affect the target in a 

given location, and (2) the sensitivity of a given 

As another example, to support managing 

coastlines, a detailed sea level rise assessment 

was undertaken by the USGS for the lower 

48 states, and specifically for coastal national 

parks.2 More accurate projections of coastal 

inundation and saltwater intrusion, such as 

those based on LIDAR conducted for the 

Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, will 

require more detailed elevation data and 

targeted hydrological modeling (Chapter 5, 

National Wildlife Refuges). One report that 

provides information on ongoing mapping 

efforts by federal and non-federal researchers 

related to the implications of sea level rise 

is Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1 (in 

press), produced by the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program. Various data layers are 

overlaid to develop new results, focusing on 

a contiguous portion of the U.S. coastal zone 

(New York to North Carolina).

Sensitivity of target organisms to climate change 

depends on several aspects of the biology of a 

species or the ecological composition and 

functioning of a system. For example, species 

that are physiologically sensitive to changes in 

temperature or moisture; species that occupy 

climate-sensitive habitats such as shallow 

wetlands, perennial streams, and alpine areas; 

and species with limited dispersal abilities will 

all be more sensitive to climate change (Root 

and Schneider, 2002). Populations with slow 

growth rates and populations at a species range 

boundary are also likely to be more sensitive 

to climate change (Pianka, 1970; Lovejoy 

and Hannah, 2005). Species, communities, 

2 U.S. Geological Survey, 2007: Coastal vulnerability 

assessment of National Park units to sea-level rise. 

U.S. Geological Survey Website, http://woodshole.

er.usgs.gov/project-pages/nps-cvi/, accessed on 

6-11-2007.

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 7 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 7 
8

organized, catalogued and standardized. Even 

when built with finer-scale data, these speciesdistribution models have their limitations 

(Botkin et al., 2007). They should not be seen 

as providing accurate projections of the future 

ranges of individual species, but instead should 

be viewed as assessments of the likely responses 

of plants and animals in general. They can be 

useful for identifying areas that are likely to 

experience more or less change in flora or fauna 

in a changing climate. In addition, as with the 

climate projections, all projections of climatechange impacts will need to include estimates 

of the inherent uncertainty and variability 

associated with the particular model that is 

used (e.g., Araújo and New, 2007). For example, 

recent analyses of range shift models indicate 

that some models perform better than others. A 

model-averaging approach (e.g., random forest 

models) was compared with five other modeling 

approaches and was found to have the greatest 

potential for accurately predicting range shifts 

in response to climate change (Lawler et al., 

2006). 

An important consideration for impact analyses 

is to provide information on endpoints that are 

relevant to managers (e.g., loss of valued species 

such as salmon) rather than those that might 

come naturally to ecologists (e.g., changes 

in species composition or species richness). 

An exemplary impact analysis in this regard 

was a study of climate change impacts in 

California funded by the Union of Concerned 

Scientists.3 The UCS study used a statistically 

downscaled version of two GCMs to consider 

future emissions conditions for the state. It 

3 Union of Concerned Scientists, 2006: Union of 

Concerned Scientists homepage. Website, http://

www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Our-Changing-Climate-final.pdf, accessed on 

6-11-2007.

stations (Tallis and Kareiva, 2006).

There are many new ecological models 

would help managers address climate cha

but the most important modeling tools 

be those that integrate diverse informa

for decision making and prioritize areas 

different management activities. Planners 

managers need the capability to evaluate 

vulnerability of each site to climate change 

the social and economic costs of addres

those vulnerabilities. One could provide 

help with models that allow the exploratio

alternative future climate-change scena

and different funding limitations that coul

used for priority-setting and triage decisi

Comprehensive, dynamic, priority-setting t

have been developed for other managem

activities, such as watershed restoration (L

et al., 2002). Developing a dynamic too

priority-setting will be critical for effecti

allocating limited resources.

9.3.2.3 Establishing Baseline Informatio

Collecting Information on Past and Current 

Condition

To estimate current and potential fu

impacts, a literature review of expec

climate impacts may be conducted to pro

a screening process that identifies “w

trends to worry about.” The next step beyo

literature review is a more focused elicita

of the ecological properties or compon

needed to reach management goals for la

and waters. For each of these propertie

components, it will be important to determ

the key to maintaining them (see Table 

for examples). If the literature review rev

that any of the general climate trends 

influence the ecological attributes or proce

critical to meeting management goals, then 

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 8 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 8 
next steps are to identify baselines, establish 

monitoring programs, and consider specific 

management tools and models. For example, 

suppose the management goal is to maintain 

a particular vegetation type, such as classical 

Mediterranean vegetation. Mediterranean 

vegetation is restricted to the following five 

conditions (Aschmann, 1973):

• at least 65% of the annual precipitation 

occurs in the winter half of the year (November–April in the northern hemisphere 

and May–September in the southern hemisphere);

• annual precipitation is greater than 275 

mm;

• annual precipitation is less than 900 mm;

• the coldest month of the year is below 15°C; 

and 

• the annual hours below 0°C account for less 

than 3% of the total. 

If the general literature review indicates that 

climate trends have a reasonable likelihood of 

influencing any of these defining features of 

Mediterranean plant communities, there will 

be a need for deeper analysis. Sensitivity to 

current or past climate variability may be a 

good indicator of potential future sensitivity. 

In the event that these analyses indicate that it 

will be very unlikely that the region will be able 

to sustain Mediterranean plant communities 

in the future, it may be necessary to cease 

management at particular sites and to consider 

protecting or managing other areas where these 

communities could persist. Triage decisions like 

this will be very difficult, and should be based 

not only on future predictions but also on the 

outcome of targeted monitoring.

Once the important ecological attributes or 

processes are identified, a manager needs to 

have a clear idea of the baseline set of conditions 

for the system. Ecologists, especially marine 

ecologists, have drawn attention to the fact that 

the world has changed so much that it can be 

hard to determine an accurate historical baseline 

for any system (Pauly, 1995). The reason that 

an understanding of a system’s long history 

can be so valuable is that the historical record 

may include information about how systems 

respond to extreme stresses and perturbations. 

When dealing with sensitive, endangered, or 

stressed systems, experimental perturbation is 

not feasible. Where available, paleoecological 

records should be used to examine past ranges 

of natural environmental variability and past 

organismal responses to climate change (Willis 

and Birks, 2006). Although in an experimental 

sense “uncontrolled,” there is no lack of both 

y

• Water quality

g 

• Altered precipitation and runoff

National estuaries

• Sediment filtration

• Elevation and slope

• Community composition

• Altered stream flow

• Sea level rise

• Salt water intrusion/species shifts

Wild and scenic rivers

• Anadromous fish habitat

• Water quality

• “Natural” flow

• Increased water temperatures

• Changes in runoff

• Altered stream flow

National parks

• Fire tolerance

• Snow pack

• Community composition

• Vegetation shifts

• Changes in snow pack amount

• Temperature-related species shifts

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 9 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 9 
10

management decisions and understanding 

potential effects of climate change include 

species composition and distribution of trees 

in forests; rates of freshwater discharge into 

estuaries; river flooding regimes; forest fire 

regimes; magnitude and timing of anadromous 

fish runs; and home ranges, migration patterns, 

and reproductive dynamics of sensitive 

organisms.

However, baselines also have the potential to be 

misleading. For example, in Chapter 3 (National 

Forests), it is noted that historic baselines are 

useful only if climate is incorporated into those 

past baselines and the relationship of vegetation 

to climate is explored. If a baseline is held up 

as a goal, and the baseline depends on historic 

climates that will never again be seen in a 

region, then the baseline could be misleading. 

Adjusting baselines to accommodate changing 

conditions is an approach that would require 

caution to avoid unnecessarily compromising 

ecosystem integrity for the future and losing 

valuable historical knowledge.

Monitoring to Inform Management Decisions

Monitoring is needed to support a manager’s 

ability to detect changes in baseline conditions 

as well as to facilitate timely adaptation actions. 

Monitoring also provides a means to gauge 

whether management actions are effective. 

Some monitoring may be designed to detect 

general ecological trends in poorly understood 

systems. However, most monitoring programs 

should be designed with specific hypotheses 

in mind and trigger points that will initiate a 

policy or management re-evaluation (Gregory, 

Ohlson, and Arvai, 2006). For instance, using 

a combination of baseline and historical data, a 

monitoring program could be set up with predefined thresholds for a species’ abundance 

or growth rate, or a river’s flow rate, which, 

management. Sometimes managers seek 

aggregate indicator—the risk in this is tha

indicator is harder to interpret because so m

different processes could alter it. 

Some systems will require site-spec

monitoring programs, whereas others 

be able to take advantage of more gen

monitoring programs (see Table 9.2 

examples of potential monitoring targ

For example, the analysis of National For

(Chapter 3, National Forests) highlights the n

for monitoring both native plant species 

non-native and invasive species. In addit

the severity and frequency of forest fires 

clearly linked to climate (Bessie and John

1995; Fried, Torn, and Mills, 2004; Wester

et al., 2006). Thus, managing for chang

fire regimes will require assessing fire ris

detecting changes in fuel loads and wea

patterns. Detecting climate-driven chan

in insect outbreaks and disease prevale

will require monitoring the occurrence 

prevalence of key insects, pathogens, 

disease vectors (Logan, Regniere, and Pow

2003). Detecting early changes in forests 

also require monitoring changes in hydro

and phenology, and in tree establishm

growth, and mortality. Some key monito

efforts are already in place. For example

Forest Service conducts an extensive inven

through its Forest Inventory and Anal

program, and the collaborative Natio

Phenology Network collects data on the tim

of ecological events across the countr

inform climate change research.4

4 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2007: Na

al phenological network. University of Wisco

Milwaukee Website, http://www.uwm.edu/D

Geography/npn/, accessed on 6-11-2007.

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 10 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 10 
In the National Wildlife Refuge System, 

monitoring might include targets associated 

with sea level rise, hydrology, and the 

dynamics of sensitive species populations. 

Monitoring of marine protected areas should 

address coral bleaching and disease, as well 

as the composition of plankton, seagrass, 

and microbial communities. In the national 

estuaries, the most effective monitoring will 

be of salinity, sea level, stream flow, sediment 

loads, disease prevalence, and invasive species. 

Wild and scenic rivers should be monitored for 

changes in flow regimes and shifts in species 

composition. Finally, national parks, which 

encompass a diversity of ecosystem types, 

should be monitored for any number of the 

biotic and abiotic factors listed for the other 

federal lands.

Although developing directed, intensive 

monitoring programs may seem daunting, 

there are several opportunities to build on 

existing and developing efforts. In addition 

to the Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and 

Analysis program and the National Phenology 

Network mentioned above, other opportunities 

include the National Science Foundation’s 

National Ecological Observation Network and 

the Park Service’s Vital Signs program (e.g., 

Mau-Crimmins et al., 2005). Some federal 

lands have detailed species inventories (e.g., the 

national parks are developing extensive species 

inventories for the Natural Resource Challenge) 

or detailed stream flow measurements. Despite 

the importance of monitoring, it is critical to 

recognize that monitoring is only one step in 

the management process and that monitoring 

alone will not address the affects of climate 

change on federal lands.

9.3.3 Uncertainty and How to 

Incorporate It into Assessments

The high degree of uncertainty inherent in 

assessments of climate change impacts can 

make it difficult for a manager to translate 

results from those assessments into practical 

management action. However, uncertainty 

is not the same thing as ignorance or lack of 

information—it simply means that there is more 

than one outcome possible as a result of climate 

change. Fortunately, there are approaches for 

dealing with uncertainty that allow progress.

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

(Chapter 6) River flow

evaporation, changing the timing 

and amount of flows (Poff, 

Brinson, and Day, Jr., 2002).

• Increase connectivity

National Estuaries 

(Chapter 7)

Ecosystem 

functioning 

and species 

composition

As sea level rises, marshes 

will be lost and uplands will be 

converted to marshes (Moore et 

al., 2003).

• Facilitate upland conversion, 

species translocation

Marine Protected Areas 

(Chapter 8) Water quality

Changes in temperature and 

runoff will affect acidity, oxygen 

levels, turbidity, and pollutant 

concentrations (Behrenfeld et 

al., 2006; Guinotte et al., 2006; 

Portner and Knust, 2007).

• Address pollution sources

• Inform coastal watershed 

policies

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 11 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 11 
12

direct outputs are typically not very useful to 

managers because they lack the resolution at 

local and regional scales where environmental 

impacts relevant for nat ural resource 

management can be evaluated. However, as 

mentioned above, GCM model outputs derived 

at the very coarse grid scales of 2.5 ̊ x 3.25 ̊

(roughly 200–500 km2, depending on latitude) 

can be downscaled (Melillo et al., 1995; Pan et 

al., 2001; Leung et al., 2003; Salathé, Jr., 2003; 

Wood et al., 2004; IPCC, 2007). But when GCM 

output data are downscaled, uncertainties are 

amplified. In Region 6 of the Forest Service, 

the regional office recommended that the 

National Forest not model climatic change as 

a part of a management plan revision process 

after science reviewers acknowledged the 

high degree of uncertainty associated with the 

application of climate change models at the 

forest level (Chapter 3, National Forests). In 

the Northwest, management of rivers in the 

face of climate change is complicated by the 

fact that the uncertainty is so great that 67% 

of the modeled futures predict a decrease in 

runoff, while 33% predict an increase. Thus the 

uncertainty can be about the direction of change 

as well as the magnitude of change (Chapter 6, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers).

Changes in temperature, precipitation, and 

CO2 will drive changes in species interactions, 

species distributions and ranges, community 

assemblages, ecological processes, and, 

therefore, ecosystem services. To understand 

the implications of these changes on species 

and/or vegetation distribution, models have 

been designed to assess the responses of 

biomes to climate change—but this of course 

introduces more uncertainty, and therefore 

management risk, into the final analysis. For 

terrestrial research, dynamic global vegetation 

models (DGVM) and Species Distributions 

Where vegetation cover is more natural 

the impacts of other global changes are 

prominent, the model simulations are like

have a higher probability of providing us

information of future change. For regions w

there is low percentage of natural cover, w

fragmentation is great, and large areas are u

some form of management, the models 

provide limited insight into future vegeta

distribution. It is unclear how climate cha

will interact with these other global and l

changes, as well as unanticipated evolution

changes and tolerance responses, and 

models do not address this.

9.3.3.2 Using Scenarios as a Means of 

Managing Under Uncertainty

It is not possible to predict the changes that 

occur, but managers can get an indication o

range of changes possible. By working w

range of possible changes rather than a si

projection, managers can focus on develo

the most appropriate responses based on 

range rather than on a “most likely” outco

To develop a set of scenarios—e.g., intern

consistent views of reasonably plausible fut

in which decisions may be explored (adapted f

Porter, 1985; Schwartz, 1996)—quantitativ

qualitative visions of the future are develo

or described. These scenarios explore cur

assumptions and serve to expand viewpoin

the future. In the climate change impacts a

approaches for developing scenarios may ra

from using a number of different realizat

from climate models representing a rang

emissions growths, to analog scenarios

informal synthetic scenario exercises t

for example, perturbate temperature 

precipitation changes by percentage increm

(e.g., -5% change from baseline condition

+5%, +10%).

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 12 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 12 
precluding any unambiguous conclusions. 

Where there is a high level of agreement, 

statements may be made such as, “for 80% of 

the different model runs, peak daily summer 

temperatures are expected to rise by at least x 

degrees.” When downscaled and multiple runs 

are available (see the Appendix for possible 

sources), managers can use them to explore 

the consequences of different management 

options. For instance, Battin et al. (2007) were 

able to identify specific places where habitat 

restoration was likely to be effective in the 

face of climate change if the goal was recovery 

of salmon populations, and in specific places 

where restoration efforts would be fruitless 

given anticipated climate change.

Analog scenarios use historical data and 

previously observed sensitivity to weather and 

climate variability. When developing analog 

scenarios, if historical data are incomplete or 

non-existent for one location, observations from 

a different region may used. Synthetic scenarios 

specify changes in particular variables and 

apply those changes to an observed time series. 

For example, an historic time series of annual 

mean precipitation for the northeastern United 

States would be increased by 2% to create a 

synthetic scenario, but no other characteristics 

of precipitation would change. Developing 

a synthetic scenario might start by simply 

stating that in the future, it is possible that 

summers will be hotter and drier. That scenario 

would be used to alter the sets of historic time 

series, and decision makers would explore how 

management might respond.

Along with developing multiple scenarios 

using the methods described above, it may be 

helpful to do sensitivity analyses to discover a 

system’s response to a range of possible changes 

in drivers. In such analyses, the key attributes 

wedding, family reunion), it is likely that an 

alternate plan would be prepared in case of 

rain. Scenario planning has become a scientific 

version of this common sense approach. It is 

appropriate and prudent when there are large 

uncertainties that cannot be reduced in the 

near future, as is the case with climate change. 

The key to scenario planning is limiting the 

scenarios to a set of possibilities, typically 

anywhere from two to five. If sensitivity 

analyses are performed, those results can be 

used to select the most relevant scenarios that 

both address managers’ needs and represent 

the widest possible, but still plausible, futures. 

The strategy is to then design a variety of 

management strategies that are robust across 

the whole range of scenarios and associated 

impacts. Ideally scenarios represent clusters 

of future projections that fit together as one 

bundled storyline that is easy to communicate 

to managers (e.g., warmer and wetter, warmer 

and drier, negligible change). When used 

deftly, scenario planning can alleviate decisionmakers’ and managers’ frustration at facing so 

much uncertainty and allow them to proactively 

manage risks. For detailed guidance on using 

scenario data for climate impact assessments, 

see IPCC-TGICA (2007).

9.4 BEST PRACTICES FOR 

ADAPTATION

Another element essential to the process of 

adaptation decision making is to know the 

possible management options (e.g., adaptation 

options) available to address the breadth of 

projected impacts, and how those options may 

function to lessen the impacts. As defined in 

this report, the goal of adaptation is to reduce 

the risk of adverse environmental outcomes 

through activities that increase the resilience of 

ecological systems to climate change (Scheffer 

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 13 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 13 
14

different ecosystems and regions determine 

the potential for successful adaptation to 

support resilience. This section begins with 

a description of resilience theory, including 

examples of some types of biological and 

physical factors that may confer resilience to 

climate change. This is followed by a review 

of seven major adaptation approaches gleaned 

from across the chapters of this report, a 

discussion of the confidence levels associated 

with these approaches, and an examination of 

adaptive management as an effective means of 

implementing adaptation strategies. 

9.4.1 Resilience

Management of ecosystems for any objective 

will be made easier if the systems are resilient 

to change—whether it is climate change or 

any other disturbance. Resilience is the ability 

of a system to return to its initial state and 

function in spite of some major perturbation. 

For example, a highly resilient coral reef might 

bleach but would be able to recover rapidly. 

Similarly, a resilient forest ecosystem would 

quickly re-establish plant cover following a 

major forest fire, with negligible loss of soils 

or fertility. An important contributing factor 

to overall resilience is resistance, which is the 

ability of an organism or a system to remain unimpacted by major disturbance or stress. “Unimpacted,” in this sense, means that the species 

or system can continue to provide the desired 

ecosystem services. Resistance is derived 

from intrinsic biological characteristics at the 

level of species or genetic varieties. Resistance 

contributes to resilience since ecosystems that 

contain resistant individuals or communities 

will exhibit faster overall recovery (through 

recruitment and regrowth) after a disturbance. 

It is certainly possible that if systems are not 

resilient, the change that results could produce 

more importantly, common sense indic

that healthier ecosystems will generally 

more resilient to disturbances. Activities 

promote overall ecosystem health, whe

they are restorative (e.g., planting trees, cap

breeding, and reintroduction) or protective (

restrictive of destructive uses) will tend to b

resilience.

On the broadest level, working from 

assumption that more intact and pris

ecosystems are more resilient to disturba

such as climate change, there are a numbe

ways to manage for resilience. The appropr

approach depends largely on the cur

state of the area being protected and 

available resources with which to execute 

protection. Options include (1) protecting in

systems (e.g., Papahānaumokuākea Ma

National Monument), (2) restoring system

more pristine states (e.g., restoring mar

and wetlands), and (3) preventing fur

degradation (e.g., control of invasive speci

Beyond simply managing for pristine syste

which can be hard to identify, a quantifi

objective is to manage for biodiversity 

key structural components or features. 

important challenge associated with resilie

is what might be called a “timescale mismat

Resilience can be destroyed quickly, but o

is “derived from things that can be resto

only slowly, such as reservoirs of soil nutrie

heterogeneity of ecosystems on a landsc

or a variety of genotypes and species” (F

et al., 2002). This implies that while tak

the necessary steps to prevent extincti

management should worry most about spe

that have long generation times and 

reproductive potential. 

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 14 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 14 
resource managers may not explicitly use these 

terms, examples of both concepts may be found 

in their decision-making.

Biodiversity Concept

Much academic research on managing for 

resilience invokes the precautionary principle. 

In this context, the precautionary principle 

calls for ensuring that ecosystems have all 

the biotic building blocks (functional groups, 

species, genes) that they need for recovery. 

These building blocks can also be thought 

of as ecological memory: the “network of 

species, their dynamic interactions among 

each other and with the environment, and 

the combination of structures that make 

reorganization after disturbance possible” 

(Bengtsson et al., 2003).

A recent meta-analysis of ocean ecosystem 

services provides support for the biodiversity 

approach with its conclusion that in general, 

refuges, and marine protected areas all manage 

for maintaining as many native species as 

possible, and in so doing promote diversity as a 

resilience factor. The call for ecosystem-based 

management in the chapter on national estuaries 

represents a move toward a multi-species focus 

that could also enhance resilience. Although 

the detailed dynamics of the connection 

between biodiversity and resilience are not yet 

understood, evidence previously cited indicates 

that it is both practical and sensible as a 

precautionary act to protect biodiversity as a 

means of promoting resilience.

Biodiversity exists at multiple levels: genetic, 

species, function, and ecosystem. Table 9.3 

briefly provides definitions and examples of 

management options for each of these four 

levels of biodiversity. It is worth noting that 

national parks, national wildlife refuges, 

and marine protected areas are all aimed at 

Table 9.3. Levels of biodiversity and associated management options.

Levels of Biodiversity Definition Management Activities That 

Support Diversity

Genetic diversity

Allelic diversity and the presence/absence 

of rare alleles (foundation for all higher level 

diversity)

• Gene banks

• Transplantation: re-introduction of lost 

genes (e.g., transplanting and/or releasing 

hatchery-reared larvae/juveniles)

• Protected areas and corridors

Species diversity Quantity of species in a given area

• Ex situ conservation measures such as captive breeding programs

• ESA listings

• Protected areas

Functional diversity Full representation of species within functional groups. 

• Special protections for imperiled species 

within functional groups (e.g., herbivorous 

fishes)

• Protected areas

Ecosystem/landscape 

diversity

All important habitats represented 

as well as appropriately large scale of 

metapopulations

• Large protected areas

• Networks of protected areas

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 15 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 15 
16

ep ep oess, ad gasses opaes. 

These structure-providing groups represent 

the successional climax of their respective 

ecosystems—a climax that often takes a 

long time to reach. Logically, managers are 

concerned with loss of these species (whether 

due to disease, overharvesting, pollution, or 

natural disturbances) because of consequent 

cascading effects.

One approach to managing for resilience is to 

evaluate options in terms of what they mean 

for the recovery rate of fundamental structural 

aspects of an ecosystem. For example, the 

fishing technique of bottom trawling and the 

forestry technique of clear-cutting destroy 

biological structure, thus hindering recovery 

because the ecosystem is so degraded that either 

succession has to start from a more barren 

state or the community may even shift into an 

entirely new stable state. Thus, management 

plans should protect these structural species 

whose life histories dictate that if they are 

damaged, recovery time will increase.

It is important to note that while structural 

species are often representative of the ecosystem 

state most desirable to humans in terms of 

production of ecosystem services, they are 

still only representative of one of several 

states that are natural for that system. The 

expectation that these structural organisms will 

always dominate is unreasonable. In temperate 

forests, stand-replacing fires can be critical to 

resetting ecosystem dynamics; in kelp forests, 

kelp is periodically decimated by storms. Thus 

maintaining structural species does not mean 

management for permanence—it simply means 

managing for processes that will keep structural 

species in the system, albeit perhaps in a 

shifting mosaic of dominant trees in a forest, 

for example.

adaptation.

The seven approaches discussed below—

protection of key ecosystem features, 

reduction of anthropogenic stresses, 

representation, (4) replication, (5) restorat

(6) refugia, and (7) relocation—invo

techniques that manipulate or take advan

of ecosystem properties to enhance t

resilience to climatic changes. All of th

adaptation approaches ultimately contri

to resilience as defined above, whether at 

scale of individual protected area units, o

the scale of regional/national systems. W

different chapters vary in their perspect

and terminologies regarding adaptation, 

seven categories presented are inclusive o

range of adaptation options found throug

this report.

9.4.2.1 Protect Key Ecosystem Feature

Within ecosystems, there may be partic

structural characteristics (e.g., thr

dimensional complexity, growth patter

organisms (e.g., functional groups, na

species), or areas (e.g., buffer zones, migra

corridors) that are particularly impor

for promoting the resilience of the ove

system. Such key ecosystem features coul

important focal points for special managem

protections or actions. For example, mana

of national forests may proactively prom

stand resilience to diseases and fires by u

silviculture techniques such as widely spa

thinnings or shelterwood cuttings (Chapte

National Forests). Another example would b

aggressively prevent or reverse the establishm

of invasive non-native species that thre

native species or impede current ecosys

function (Chapter 4, National Parks). Preser

the structural complexity of vegetation in t

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 16 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 16 
(y) pggp(g, p

treatments) that shorten regeneration times and promote interspecific competition.

• Promote connected landscapes to facilitate species movements and gene flow, sustain key ecosystem processe

pollination and dispersal), and protect critical habitats for threatened and endangered species.

National Parks 

• Remove barriers to upstream migration in rivers and streams.

• Reduce fragmentation and maintain or restore species migration corridors to facilitate natural flow of genes, 

and populations.

• Use wildland fire, mechanical thinning, or prescribed burns where it is documented to reduce risk of anomalously 

fires.

• Minimize alteration of natural disturbance regimes, for example through protection of natural flow regimes in riv

removal of infrastructure that prohibits the allowance of wildland fire.

• Aggressively prevent establishment of invasive non-native species or diseases where they are documented to th

native species or current ecosystem function.

National Wildlife Refuges 

• Manage risk of catastrophic fires through prescribed burns.

• Reduce or eliminate stressors on conservation target species.

• Improve the matrix surrounding the refuge by partnering with adjacent owners to improve/build new habitats.

• Install levees and other engineering works to alter water flows to benefit refuge species.

• Remove dispersal barriers and establish dispersal bridges for species.

• Use conservation easements around the refuge to allow species dispersal and maintain ecosystem function.

• Facilitate migration through the establishment and maintenance of wildlife corridors.

Wild & Scenic Rivers

• Maintain the natural flow regime through managing dam flow releases upstream of the wild and scenic river (t

option agreements with willing partners) to protect flora and fauna in drier downstream river reaches, or to p

losses from extreme flooding. 

• Use drought-tolerant plant varieties to help protect riparian buffers.

• Create wetlands or off-channel storage basins to reduce erosion during high flow periods.

• Actively remove invasive species that threaten key native species.

National Estuaries

• Help protect tidal marshes from erosion with oyster breakwaters and rock sills and thus preserve their water fil

and fisheries enhancement functions.

• Preserve and restore the structural complexity and biodiversity of vegetation in tidal marshes, seagrass meadow

mangroves.

• Adjust protections of important biogeochemical zones and critical habitats as the locations of these areas chang

climate. 

• Connect landscapes with corridors to enable migrations to sustain wildlife biodiversity across the landscape.

• Develop practical approaches to apply the principle of rolling easements to prevent engineered barriers from b

landward retreat of coastal marshes and other shoreline habitats as sea level rises.

Marine Protected Areas

• Identify ecological connections among ecosystems and use them to inform the design of MPAs and management de

such as protecting resistant areas to ensure sources of recruitment for recovery of populations in damaged area

• Manage functional species groups necessary to maintaining the health of reefs and other ecosystems.

• Design MPAs with dynamic boundaries and buffers to protect breeding and foraging habits of highly migratory and 

species.

• Monitor ecosystems and have rapid-response strategies prepared to assess ecological effects of extreme events 

occur.

• Identify and protect ecologically significant (“critical”) areas such as nursery grounds, spawning grounds, and a

high species diversity.

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 17 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 17 
18

inputs of nutrients, sediments, and pollutants 

both inside the protected area and outside the 

protected area on adjacent land and waters 

Species include locally adapted population

opposed to one monotypic taxon, and m

BOX 9.3. Examples of adaptation actions that focus on reduction of anthropogenic stresses as 

a means of supporting resilience.

Adaptation Approach: Reduce Anthropogenic Stresses

National Forests 

• Reduce the impact of current anthropogenic stressors such as fragmentation (e.g., by creating larger management units and migration corridors) and uncharacteristically severe wildfires and insect outbreaks (e.g., by 

reducing stand densities and abating fuels).

• Identify and take early proactive action against non-native invasive species (e.g., by using early detection and 

rapid response approaches).

National Parks 

• Remove structures that harden the coastlines, impede natural regeneration of sediments, and prevent natural 

inland migration of sand and vegetation after disturbances.

• Reduce or eliminate water pollution by working with watershed coalitions to reduce non-point sources and 

with local, state and federal agencies to reduce atmospheric deposition. 

• Manage Park Service and visitor use practices to prevent people from inadvertently contributing to climate 

change.

National Wildlife Refuges 

• Reduce human water withdrawals to restore natural hydrologic regimes.

Wild & Scenic Rivers 

• Purchase or lease water rights to enhance flow management options. 

• Manage water storage and withdrawals to smooth the supply of available water throughout the year.

• Develop more effective stormwater infrastructure to reduce future occurrences of severe erosion.

• Consider shifting access points or moving existing trails for wildlife or river enthusiasts.

National Estuaries 

• Conduct integrated management of nutrient sources and wetland treatment of nutrients to limit hypoxia and 

eutrophication.

• Manage water resources to ensure sustainable use in the face of changing recharge rates and saltwater infiltration. 

• Prohibit bulkheads and other engineered structures on estuarine shores to preserve or delay the loss of 

important shallow-water habitats by permitting their inland migration as sea levels rise.

Marine Protected Areas 

• Manage human stressors such as overfishing and excessive inputs of nutrients, sediments, and pollutants 

within MPAs.

• Improve water quality by raising awareness of adverse effects of land-based activities on marine environments, implementing integrated coastal and watershed management, and developing options for advanced 

wastewater treatment.

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 18 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 18 
habitat types or community types include 

variations on a theme with different species 

compositions, as opposed to one invariant 

community. The idea behind representation 

as a strategy for resilience is simply that a 

portfolio of several slightly different forms of a 

species or an ecosystem increases the likelihood 

that, among those variants, there will be one 

or more that are suited to the new climate. 

A management plan for a large ecosystem 

that includes representation of all possible 

combinations of physical environments and 

biological communities increases the chances 

that, regardless of the climatic change that 

occurs, somewhere in the system there will 

be areas that survive and provide a source for 

recovery. Employing this approach with wildlife 

refuges may be particularly important for 

migrating birds because they use a diverse array 

of habitats at different stages of their life cycles 

and along their migration routes, and all of these 

habitats will be affected by climate change 

(Chapter 5, National Wildlife Refuges). At the 

level of species, it may be possible to increase 

genetic diversity in river systems through 

plantings or via stocking fish (Chapter 6, Wild 

and Scenic Rivers), or maintain complexity of 

salt marsh landscapes by preserving marsh edge 

environments (Chapter 7, National Estuaries). 

Box 9.4 presents additional examples of this 

adaptation approach drawn from across the 

chapters of this report.

9.4.2.4 Replication

Replication is simply managing for the 

continued survival of more than one example 

of each ecosystem or species, even if the 

replicated examples are identical. When one 

recognizes that climate change stress includes 

unpredictable extreme events and storms, then 

replication represents a strategy of having 

• Actively plant or introduce desired species after disturbances or in anticipation of the loss of some sp

National Wildlife Refuges 

• Strategically expand the boundaries of NWRs to increase ecological, genetic, geographical, behavior

morphological variation in species.

• Facilitate the growth of plant species more adapted to future climate conditions.

Wild & Scenic Rivers 

• Increase genetic diversity through plantings or by stocking fish.

• Increase physical habitat heterogeneity in channels to support diverse biotic assemblages.

National Estuaries 

• Maintain high genetic diversity through strategies such as the establishment of reserves specifically fo

purpose.

• Maintain landscape complexity of salt marsh landscapes, especially preserving marsh edge environmen

Marine Protected Areas 

• Maximize habitat heterogeneity within MPAs and consider protecting larger areas to preserve biodiv

biological connections among habitats, and ecological functions.

• Include entire ecological units (e.g., coral reefs with their associated mangroves and seagrasses) in MPA 

to maintain ecosystem function and resilience.

• Ensure that the full breadth of habitat types is protected (e.g., fringing reef, fore reef, back reef, patch 

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 19 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 19 
20

In practice, most replication strategies also 

serve as representation strategies (since no two 

populations or ecosystems can ever be truly 

identical), and conversely most representation 

strategies provide some form of replication. 

Box 9.5 provides examples of this adaptation 

approach drawn from across the chapters of 

this report.

hotter and drier summers (Chapter 3, Nati

Forests). At Blackwater National Wild

Refuge, the USFWS is planning to res

wetlands that may otherwise be inundate

2100 (Chapter 5, National Wildlife Refuges

the case of estuaries, restoring the vegetati

layering and structure of tidal marshes, seag

meadows, and mangroves can stabilize estu

function (Chapter 7, National Estuar

Box 9.6 provides additional examples of 

adaptation approach drawn from across 

chapters of this report.

9.4.2.6 Refugia and Relocation

The term refugia refers to physical environm

that are less affected by climate cha

than other areas (e.g., due to local curre

geographic location, etc.) and are thus a “refu

from climate change for organisms. Reloca

refers to human-facilitated transplanta

of organisms from one location to ano

in order to bypass a barrier (e.g., an ur

area). Refugia and relocation, while m

concepts, are actually subsets of one or m

of the approaches listed above. For exam

if refugia can be identified locally, they 

be considered sites for long-term retentio

species (e.g., for representation and to main

resilience) in forests (Chapter 3, Natio

Forests). Or, in national wildlife refuge

may be possible to use restoration techniq

to reforest riparian boundaries with na

species to create shaded thermal refugia for 

species (Chapter 5, National Wildlife Refug

In the case of relocation, an example woul

transport of fish populations in the Southw

that become stranded as water levels dro

river reaches with appropriate flows (e.g

preserve system-wide resilience and spe

representation) (Chapter 6, Wild and Sc

Rivers). Similarly, transplantation of organi

BOX 9.5. Examples of adaptation actions that focus 

on replication as a means of supporting resilience.

Adaptation Approach: Replication

National Forests 

• Spread risks by increasing ecosystem redundancy 

and buffers in both natural environments and 

plantations.

National Parks 

• Practice bet-hedging by replicating populations and 

gene pools of desired species.

National Wildlife Refuges 

• Provide redundant refuge types to reduce risk to 

trust species.

Wild & Scenic Rivers 

• Establish special protection for multiple headwater 

reaches that support keystone processes or sensitive 

species.

National Estuaries 

• When restoring oyster reefs, replicate reefs along a 

depth gradient to allow fish and crustaceans to survive 

when depth-dependant environmental degradation 

occurs. 

• Support migrating shorebirds by ensuring protection 

of replicated estuaries along the flyway.

Marine Protected Areas 

• Replicate habitat types in multiple areas to spread risks 

associated with climate change.

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 20 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 20 
among national parks could preserve systemwide representation of species that would not 

otherwise be able to overcome barriers to 

dispersal (Chapter 4, National Parks). Boxes 

9.7 and 9.8 provide additional examples of these 

adaptation approaches drawn from across the 

chapters of this report.

9.4.3 Confidence

Due to uncertainties associated with climate 

change projections as well as uncertainties in 

species and ecosystem responses, there is also 

uncertainty as to how effective the different 

adaptation approaches listed above will be at 

supporting resilience. It is therefore essential 

to assess the level of confidence associated 

with each adaptation approach. For this report, 

the levels of confidence for each adaptation 

approach are based on the expert judgment of 

the authors, using a conceptual methodology 

developed by the IPCC (2007). 

Confidence levels are presented for each of 

the seven adaptation approaches for each 

management system (Table 9.4). The goal of 

these adaptation approaches is to support the 

resilience of ecosystems to persist in their 

current form (i.e., without major shifts to 

entirely redefined systems) under changing 

climatic conditions. Thus it is important to note 

at this point that promoting resilience may be 

a management strategy that is useful only on 

shorter time scales of a few decades rather than 

centuries, because as climate change continues, 

various thresholds of resilience will eventually 

be exceeded. Therefore, each of the authors’ 

• Minimize soil loss after fire or vegetation dieback using native vegetation and debris.

National Wildlife Refuges 

• Restore and increase habitat availability and reduce stressors in order to capture the full geographic

geophysical, and ecological ranges of species on as many refuges as possible.

Wild & Scenic Rivers 

• Conduct river restoration projects to stabilize eroding banks, repair in-stream habitat, or promote f

passages from areas with high temperatures and less precipitation.

• Restore the natural capacity of rivers to buffer climate-change impacts (e.g., through land acquisition arou

rivers, levee setbacks to free the floodplain of infrastructure, riparian buffer repairs).

National Estuaries 

• Restore important native species and remove invasive non-natives to improve marsh characteristics th

promote propagation and production of fish and wildlife.

• Direct estuarine habitat restoration projects to places where the restored ecosystem has room to retre

as sea level rises.

Marine Protected Areas 

• Following extreme events, consider whether actions should be taken to enhance natural recovery proces

through active restoration.

• Consider mangrove restoration for potential benefits including shoreline protection, expansion of nurse

habitat, and release of tannins and other dissolved organic compounds that may reduce photo-oxidat

stress in corals.

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 21 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 21 
22

ppgp

rivers and streams.

• Identify climate change refugia and acquire necessary land.

Wild & Scenic Rivers 

• Plant riparian vegetation to provide fish and other organisms with refugia.

• Acquire additional river reaches for the wild and scenic river where they contain naturally occurring 

refugia from climate change stressors.

• Create side-channels and adjacent wetlands to provide refugia for species during droughts and floods.

National Estuaries 

• Restore oyster reefs along a depth gradient to provide shallow water refugia for mobile species such as 

fish and crustaceans to retreat to in response to climate-induced deep water hypoxia/anoxia.

Marine Protected Areas 

• Identify and protect areas observed to be resistant to climate change effects or to recover quickly from 

climate-induced disturbances.

• Establish dynamic MPAs defined by large-scale oceanographic features such as oceanic fronts where 

changes in types and abundances of organisms often occur.

BOX 9.8. Examples of adaptation actions that focus on relocation as a means of supporting resilience.

Adaptation Approach: Relocation

National Forests 

• Establish or strengthen long-term seed banks to create the option of re-establishing extirpated populations in new/more appropriate locations.

National Parks 

• Assist in species migrations.

National Wildlife Refuges 

• Facilitate long-distance transport of threatened endemic species.

• Facilitate interim propagation and sheltering or feeding of mistimed migrants, holding them until suitable habitat becomes available.

Wild & Scenic Rivers 

• Establish programs to move isolated populations of species of interest that become stranded when 

water levels drop.

National Estuaries – none

Marine Protected Areas – none

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 22 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 22 
their confidence assessments to the near term, 

the authors also excluded from consideration 

any non-ecological factor (such as confidence 

in the ability to put particular approaches into 

practice) and only evaluated those adaptation 

approaches for which they had adaptation 

strategies discussed in their chapter. 

9.4.3.1 Approach to Estimating Levels of 

Confidence

The authors considered two separate but related 

elements of confidence (IPCC, 2007). The 

first element is the amount of evidence that is 

High/low amount of evidence. Is this adaptation 

approach well-studied and understood, or 

instead is it mostly experimental or theoretical 

and not well-studied? Does your experience 

in the field, your analyses of data, and your 

understanding of the literature and performance 

of specific adaptation options under this type 

of adaptation approach indicate that there is 

a high or low amount of information on the 

effectiveness of this approach?

High/low amount of agreement. Do the studies, 

reports, and your experience in the field, 

analyzing data, or implementing the types 

Table 9.4. Confidence levels associated with seven different adaptation approaches, examined across six management system types. Estimates reflect the expert opinions of the authors and are based on the literature and 

personal experience. 

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 23 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 23 
24

management plans, workshop reports, other 

management literature, other gray literature), 

data and observations, model results, and 

the authors’ own experience, including their 

experiences in the field, their analyses of data, 

and their knowledge of the performance of 

specific adaptation options under each type of 

adaptation approach. 

Confidence estimates are presented in Table 

9.4 by management system type for each of the 

seven adaptation approaches. Such confidence 

estimates should be a key consideration when 

deciding which adaptation approaches to 

implement for a given system.

9.4.3.2 Findings

To take action today using the best available 

information, reducing anthropogenic stresses

is currently the adaptation approach that ranks 

highest in confidence, in terms of both evidence 

and agreement across all six management 

systems. This may be due partly to the fact that 

managers have been dealing with anthropogenic 

stresses for a long time, so there are a lot of data 

and good agreement among the experts that this 

approach is effective in increasing resilience to 

any kind of stress, including climate change.

P r o t e c t i n g k e y e c o s y s t e m fe a t u r e s , 

representation, replication, restoration, and

refugia all received variable confidence rankings 

across the management system chapters. This 

could be due to a number of factors related to 

both evidence and agreement. One explanation 

could be differences in the amount and nature 

of research and other information available on 

an approach depending on the management 

system. For example, one management system 

may have a great deal of evidence for the 

effectiveness of an approach at the species level, 

but little evidence that it would be effective in 

assessment of confidence is needed for e

specific adaptation option and ecosystem 

which it would be applied.

Relocation stands out as being the weake

terms of confidence at the current time, b

on available information. There appears t

little information (evidence) about reloca

or its implications for ecosystem resilience, 

thus there is little agreement among experts 

it is a robust approach. Future research 

change this ranking (as well as the ranking

other approaches) at any time.

9.4.3.3 Improving Confidence Estimate

Management planning to select and prior

adaptation approaches will always inv

some assessment of confidence, whe

implicitly or explicitly. Explicit estimation

confidence, while difficult, afford manage

better understanding of the nature, implicati

and risks of different adaptation approac

The confidence exercise in this report 

first attempt at evaluating a series of se

conceptual approaches to adaptation 

each represents an aggregation of var

adaptation options. The next level of refinem

for confidence assessments may invo

evaluating confidence in individual adapta

options within each approach. This wil

especially important in those cases wh

levels of confidence in an approach are hi

variable across management systems or ac

ecosystems.

There are a number of challenges associ

with improving confidence estimates 

adaptation. One challenge is removing 

inherent subjectivity of judgments ab

evidence and agreement. This could 

addressed by more clearly defining termino

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 24 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 24 
Once adaptation approaches have been selected 

after taking into account confidence levels, 

adaptive management is likely to be an effective 

method for implementing those approaches. It 

emphasizes managing based on observation 

and continuous learning and provides a means 

for effectively addressing varying degrees 

of uncertainty in our knowledge of current 

and future climate change impacts. Adaptive 

management is typically divided into two 

types: passive and active (Arvai et al., 2006; 

Gregory, Ohlson, and Arvai, 2006). Passive 

adaptive management refers to using historical 

data to develop hypotheses about the best 

management action, followed by action and 

monitoring. Often models are used to guide the 

decisions and the monitoring can improve the 

models. Active adaptive management refers to 

actually conducting a management experiment, 

ideally with several different management 

actions implemented at once as a means of 

testing competing hypotheses. Examples 

include flood release experiments in the Grand 

Canyon (Chapter 4, National Parks) and at the 

Glen Canyon dam (National Research Council, 

1999). Releasing water from a dam allows for 

the application of highly regulated experimental 

treatments and assessments of effects. For more 

information on adaptive management, see the 

Technical Guide5 released in the spring of 2007 

by the Department of Interior. It provides a 

robust analytical framework that is based on 

the experience, in-depth consultation, and best 

practices of scientists and natural resource 

managers.

5 Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 

2007. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department 

of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Washington, DC.

other management issues but have strong 

potential for application toward climate change 

impacts, and (2) new strategies that are not yet 

in place but appear to be feasible and within 

reasonable reach of current management 

structures. In other words, at a minimum, 

managers need to vigorously pursue changes 

that are relatively easily accomplished under 

existing programs and management cultures. 

Figure 9.2. The process of adaptive management.

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 25 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 25 
26

programs with predefined triggers that initiate 

a re-examination of management approaches, 

and a flexible policy or institutional framework 

(Gregory, Ohlson, and Arvai, 2006). These 

challenges do not mean adaptive management is 

impossible—only that attention to hypotheses, 

monitoring, periodic re-evaluations, and 

flexibility are necessary. 

Even i n the absence of an abilit y to 

experimentally manipulate systems, rapid, 

climate-induced ecological changes provide 

excellent opportunities to observe the effects of 

climate change in relatively short time frames. 

Managers and scientists can design studies to 

take advantage of increased climatic variability 

and climate trends to inform management. 

Some examples of such studies could include 

observing: which riparian plant species are 

best adapted to extreme variations in flow 

regime and flooding, how increased variability 

in climatic conditions affects population 

dynamics of target insect pests or focal wildlife 

species, and the effects of marine reserve size 

on recruitment and survival of key species. In 

order to make this approach effective, specific 

hypotheses should be proposed about which 

life history traits will predispose species to 

(biologically) adapt to climate change (Kelly 

and Adger, 2000). Otherwise the data collection 

will be less focused and efficient. Using 

climate-driven changes as treatments per se

will be much less exact and less predictable than 

controlled experiments, so taking advantage 

of such situations for adaptive management 

studies will require increased flexibility, 

foresight, and creativity on the part of managers 

and scientists.

Another key element of adaptive management 

is monitoring of sensitive species and processes 

outcomes of management actions on the gro

If management goals are altered beca

climate change is perceived to be so severe 

historical goals are untenable, then entirely 

indicators and monitoring programs may n

to be designed. Whatever the case, monito

is fundamental to supporting the reevalua

and refinement of management strategie

part of the adaptive process.

The same monitoring can also foste

improved understanding of how bes

characterize and quantify resilience. For s

systems, the ecology of climate stress (

coral bleaching) has been studied for deca

and resilience theory continues to dev

rapidly. For other ecosystems, the impact

climate change are less well understood, 

understanding resilience is more diffic

In any event, while there may be some g

conceptual models that describe resilie

characteristics for species and ecosyste

there is generally a paucity of empirical 

to confirm and resolve the relative importa

of these characteristics. Such informatio

needed for the next generation of techniq

and tools for quantification and predictio

resilience across species and ecosystem

monitoring programs are designed with exp

hypotheses about resilience, they will be m

likely to yield useful information.

The idea of “adaptive management” has b

widely advocated among natural resou

managers for decades and has been ascr

to many management decisions. Howe

due largely to the challenges cited above, 

not as widely or rigorously applied as it c

be. Yet the prospect of uncertain, widespr

and severe climatic changes may galva

managers to embrace adaptive managemen

an essential strategy. Climate change cre

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 26 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 26 
aoe possbes ae easbe. acos 

limiting or enhancing managers’ ability to 

implement options may be technical, economic, 

social, or political. As noted previously in 

this chapter, the climate community refers 

to such opportunities and constraints (or 

barriers) as adaptive capacity. It may be 

helpful to understand the types of barriers to 

implementation that exist in order to assess the 

feasibility of specific adaptation options, and 

even more so to identify corresponding ways in 

which barriers may be overcome. The barriers 

and opportunities discussed below are based on 

the expert opinions of the authors of this report 

and feedback from the expert workshops and are 

associated with implementation of adaptation 

options today, assuming no significant changes 

in institutional frameworks and authorities.

A useful way of thinking about both barriers and 

opportunities is in terms of the following four 

categories: (1) legislation and regulations, (2) 

management policies and procedures, (3) human 

and financial capital, and (4) information and 

science (see Tables 9.5–9.8). All of the federal 

land and water management systems reviewed 

in the preceding chapters are mandated by law 

to preserve and protect the nation’s natural 

resources. Specific management goals vary 

across systems, however, due to the unique 

mission statements articulated in their founding 

legislation, or organic acts. Organic acts are 

fundamental pieces of legislation that either 

signify the organization of an agency or provide 

a charter for a network of public lands, such 

as the National Park Service Organic Act 

that established the National Park System. 

Accordingly, goals are manifested through 

management principles that could interpret 

those goals in ways that may inhibit or enhance 

the capability to adapt.

of managers to apply resources strategically 

and effectively (e.g., for monitoring and 

management experiments) (Spittlehouse and 

Stewart, 2003).

Resources are managed carefully across 

federal agencies to deal with a growing human 

population that puts new and expanding 

pressures on managers’ ability to meet 

management goals. Examples of these existing 

pressures include economic development 

near management unit boundaries (Chapter 

5, National Wildlife Refuges), air pollution 

(Chapter 4, National Parks), increased wildfirerelated costs and risks (Chapter 3, National 

Forests), habitat degradation and destruction 

(Chapter 8, Marine Protected Areas), pollutant 

loading (Chapter 7, National Estuaries), and 

excessive water withdrawals (Chapter 6, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers). The added threat of 

climate change may exceed the capacity of 

the federal management systems to protect 

the species and ecological systems that each 

is mandated to protect. However, as many of 

the previous chapters point out, this threat also 

represents an opportunity to undertake strategic 

thinking, reshape priorities, and use carefully 

considered actions to initiate the development 

of management adaptations to more effectively 

protect resources.

Adaptation responses to climate change are 

meant to reduce the risk of failing to achieve 

management goals. A better understanding 

of the barriers and opportunities that affect 

implementation of adaptation strategies could 

facilitate the identification of critical adjustments 

within the constraints of management structures 

and policies, and subsequently could foster 

increased adaptive capacity within and 

across federal management systems as those 

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 27 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 27 
28

policy and management frameworks at the time 

were written, many reflect a past era (Table 

9.5). For example, the first unit of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, Pelican Island, was 

designated in 1903 to protect waterfowl from 

being over-hunted when that was the greatest 

threat. At that time, the U.S. population was 

half of what it is now, and the interstate highway 

system was decades away from establishment 

(Chapter 5, National Wildlife Refuges). In 

addition, ambiguous language in enabling 

legislation poses challenges to addressing issues 

related to climate change, such as determining 

what “impaired” means (Chapter 4, National 

Parks). It also has been recognized that specific 

environmental policies such as the Endangered 

Species Act, National Environmental Policy 

Act, and the National Forest Management Act 

are highly static, making dynamic planning 

difficult and potentially impeding adaptive 

responses.6 Even recently implemented 

6 Levings, W., 2003: Economics of Delay. Unpublished report on file at the Tahoe National Forest, 

pp.1-6.

management to adapt to climate change for 

National Wildlife Refuge System is the lim

jurisdiction of many refuges over their w

(Chapter 5, National Wildlife Refuges). Both 

timing of water flows as well as the quantit

water flowing through refuges are often sub

to state permitting and control by other fed

agencies. Similarly, legal frameworks such a

Colorado River Compact establish water rig

compacts, and property rights that all serv

constrain the ability to use adaptive strate

to address climate change (Chapter 6, Wild 

Scenic Rivers).

Protected areas have political rather t

ecological boundaries as an artifac

legislation. These boundaries may po

barrier to effectively addressing climate cha

Climate change will likely lead to shift

species and habitat distribution (Chapte

National Forests; Chapter 4, National Pa

Chapter 7, National Estuaries; Chapte

Marine Protected Areas), potentially mov

them outside the bounds of federal jurisdic

or introducing new species that cause chan

Table 9.5. Examples of legislation and regulation as barriers to and opportunities for adaptation.

LEGISLATION AND REGULATION

Perceived Barrier Opportunity Examples

Legislation and agency 

policies may be highly 

static, inhibit dynamic 

planning, impede 

flexible adaptive 

responses and force a 

fine-filter approach to 

management.

Re-evaluate capabilities of, or authorities 

under, existing legislation to determine how 

climate change can be 

addressed within the 

legislative boundaries.

• Use state wildlife action plans to manage la

adjacent to national wildlife refuges to en

climate-induced species emigration.

• Re-evaluate specific ecosystem- and spec

related legislation to use all capabilities wi

the legislation to address climate change.

• Incorporate climate change impacts i

priority setting for designation of new wild 

scenic rivers (see Chapter 6 section 6.4.4)

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 28 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 28 
certain management techniques can lead to 

costly and time-consuming challenges from 

particular stakeholders or the public (Chapter 

3, National Forests). Fuel treatments and 

other adaptive projects that have grounddisturbing elements, such as salvage harvest 

after disturbance and use of herbicides before 

revegetation, have been strongly opposed by the 

public.7 While using adaptation approaches in 

management poses the risk of spurring costly 

litigation from stakeholders, every chapter in 

this volume concludes that inaction with regard 

to climate change may prove more damaging and 

costly than acting with insufficient knowledge 

of the outcomes.

9.5.1.2 Opportunities

Federal land and water managers can use 

existing legislative tools in opportunistic ways 

(Table 9.5). Managers can strategically apply 

existing legislation or regulations at the national 

or state level by applying traditional features 

or levers in non-traditional ways. For example, 

while still operating within the legislative 

framework, features of existing legislation can 

be effectively used to coordinate management 

outside of jurisdictional boundaries. Generally, 

the USFWS has ample proprietary authority to 

engage in transplantation-relocation, habitat 

engineering (including irrigation-hydrologic 

management), and captive breeding to support 

conservation (Chapter 5, National Wildlife 

Refuges). These activities are especially 

applicable to managing shifts in species 

distributions and in potentially preventing 

species extirpations likely to result from climate 

change. Portions of existing legislation could 

also be used to influence dam operations at 

7 Levings, W., 2003: Economics of Delay. Unpublished report on file at the Tahoe National Forest, 

pp.1-6.

Some management systems have a history of 

static policies that are counter to the dynamic 

management actions called for today (Table 

9.6) and do not recognize climatic change 

as a significant problem or stressor. These 

agency policies do not allow for sufficient 

flexibility under uncertainty and change. 

Without flexibility, existing management goals 

and priorities—though potentially unrealistic 

given climate change—may have to be pursued 

without adjustments. Yet, with limited resources 

and staff time, priorities need to be established 

and adaptation efforts focused to make best use 

of limited resources. There are several specific 

hindrances to such management changes that 

are worth mentioning in detail.

First, addressing climate change will require 

flexible and long-term planning horizons. 

Existing issues on public lands, coupled with 

insufficient resources (described below), force 

many agencies and managers to operate under 

crisis conditions, focusing on short-term and 

narrow objectives (Chapter 4, National Parks). 

Agencies often put priority on maintaining, 

retaining, and restoring historic conditions. 

These imperatives can lead to static as opposed 

to dynamic management (Chapter 3, National 

Forests) and may not be possible to achieve 

as a result of climate change. Additionally, 

place-based management paradigms may 

direct management at inappropriate spatial and 

temporal scales for climate change. Managing 

on a landscape scale, as opposed to smallerscale piecemeal planning, would enable greater 

adaptability to climate-related changes (Chapter 

3, National Forests).

A number of factors may limit the usefulness of 

management plans. The extent to which plans 

are followed and updated is highly variable 

across management systems. Further, plans may 

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 29 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 29 
30

Scenic Rivers). Some proactive steps to address 

climate change will likely cost very little and 

could be included in policy and management 

plans (Chapter 7, National Estuaries). These 

include documenting baseline conditions to 

aid in identifying future changes and threats, 

identifying protection options, and developing 

techniques and methods to help predict climate 

related changes at various scales (Chapter 3, 

National Forests; Chapter 6, Wild and Scenic 

Rivers). 

Last, even if the plan for a particular management 

system addresses climate change appropriately, 

many federal lands and waters are affected by 

neighboring lands for which they have limited or 

no control (Chapter 4, National Parks). National 

wildlife refuges and wild and scenic rivers are 

subject to water regulation by other agencies 

or entities. This fragmented jurisdiction means 

that collaboration among agencies is required 

so that they are all working toward common 

goals using common management approaches. 

Although such collaboration does occur, formal 

co-management remains the exception, not 

the rule. Despite this lack of collaboration, 

there is widespread recognition that managing 

surrounding lands and waters is important to 

meeting management objectives (Chapter 5, 

National Wildlife Refuges; Chapter 8, Marine 

Protected Areas), which may lead to more 

effective management across borders in the 

future.

9.5.2.2 Opportunities

E a ch m a n a ge me nt s y s t e m m a nd at e s 

the development of a management plan. 

Incorporating climate change adaptation could 

be made a part of all planning exercises, both at 

the level of individual units and collaboratively 

with other management units. This might 

itself well to climate change planning. T

has already occurred in the National Fo

System, where the Olympic, Mt. Baker, 

Gifford Pinchot National Forests have comb

resources to produce coordinated plans. 

Olympic National Forest’s approach to 

strategic planning process is also exemp

of an entity already possessing the capacit

incorporate climate change through its spe

guidance on prioritization. 

In some cases, existing management plans 

already set the stage for climate adaptatio

good example is the Forest Service’s adop

of an early detection/rapid response strategy 

invasive species. This same type of think

could easily be translated to an early detect

rapid response management approac

climate impacts. Even destructive extr

climate events can be viewed as managem

opportunities by providing valuable p

disturbance data. For example, reforesta

techniques following a fire or windfall e

can be better honed and implemented w

such data (e.g., use of genotypes that are b

adjusted to the new or unfolding regio

climate, use of nursery stock tolerant to 

soil moisture and high temperature, or use 

variety of genotypes in the nursery stocks) 

Chapter 3, National Forests).

Management plans that are allowed 

incorporate climate change adaptation strate

but that have not yet done so provide a b

canvas of opportunity. In the near term, s

wildlife action plans are an example of this 

of leveraging opportunity. Another exam

is the Forest Service’s involvement with 

Puget Sound Coalition and the National Estu

Program’s involvement in Coastal Hab

Protection Plans for fish, an ecosystem-b

fisheries management approach at the s

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 30 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 30 
level. Stakeholder processes, described above 

as a barrier, might be an opportunity to move 

forward with new management approaches 

if public education campaigns precede the 

stakeholder involvement. The issue of climate 

change has received sufficient attention that 

many people in the public have begun to 

demand actions by the agencies to address it.

As suggested by the many themes identified 

by the federal land and water management 

systems, the key to successful adaptation is to 

turn barriers into opportunities. This should be 

possible with increased availability of practical 

information, corresponding flexibility in 

management goals, and strong leadership. At 

the very least, managers (and corresponding 

management plans) may need to recognize 

climate change and its synergistic effects as an 

overarching threat to their resources.

9.5.3 Human and Financial Capital

9.5.3.1 Perceived Barriers

Level of funding and staff capacity (or regular 

staff turnover) may pose significant barriers 

to adaptation to climate change (Table 9.7). 

Agencies may also lack adaptive capacity due 

to the reward systems in place. Currently, in 

some agencies a reward system exists that 

focuses primarily on achieving narrowly 

prescribed targets, and funding is directed at 

achieving these specific activities. This system 

change as a significant 

problem or stressor.

guidelines and processes 

to develop management 

actions that address climate change impacts.

actions to address effect of climate change on achievement 

of goals (see the Olympic National Forest Case Study, 

Annex A1.2).

Political boundaries 

do not necessarily 

align with ecological 

processes; some 

resources cross 

boundaries; 

checkerboard 

ownership pattern 

with lands alternating 

between public and 

private ownership at 

odds with landscapescale management 

(see Chapter 3 section 

3.4.5). 

Identify management 

authorities/agencies with 

similar goals and adjacent 

lands; share information 

and create coalitions 

and partnerships that 

extend beyond political 

boundaries to coordinate 

management; acquire 

property for system 

expansion.

• Develop management plans that encompass multiple 

forest units such as the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan 

that includes Olympic National Forest-Mt. Baker-Gifford 

Pinchot National Forest (see the Olympic National Forest 

Case Study, Annex A1.2).

• Implement active management at broader landscape scales 

through existing multi-agency management processes 

such as (1) the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group 

Pilot and the FPA Adaptive Management project on Tahoe 

National Forest (see the Tahoe National Forest Case Study, 

Annex A1.1), (2) the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating 

Committee, and the Southern Appalachian Man and the 

Biosphere Program with relationships across jurisdictional 

boundaries (see Chapter 4 section 4.4.3), (3) The Delaware 

River, managed cooperatively as a partnership river (see the 

Upper Delaware River Case Study, Annex A4.3).

• Coordinate dam management at the landscape level 

for species that cross political boundaries by using dam 

operations prospectively as thermal controls under future 

climate changes (see Chapter 6 section 6.4.4.2).

• Coordinate habitat and thermal needs for fish species with 

entities that control the timing and amount of up-stream 

water releases (see Chapter 6 section 6.4.4.2).

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 31 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 31 
32

to increase the scope of management by 

increasing both the area of land requiring 

active management and the planning burden 

per unit area (because of adaptive management 

techniques), agencies such as the USFWS 

face decreasing personnel in some regions. 

Additionally, minimal institutional capacity 

exists to capture experience and expand 

learning (Chapter 4, National Parks). As a 

result, many agency personnel do not have 

adequate training, expertise, or understanding 

to effectively address emerging issues (Chapter 

3, National Forests). All of these factors work 

to constrain the ability of managers to alter 

or supplement practices that would enable 

adaptation to climate change. 

9.5.3.2 Opportunities

Agency employees play important roles 

as crafters and ultimate implementers of 

management plans and strategies. In fact, 

with respect to whether the implementation 

of adaptation strategies is successful or 

unsuccessful, the management of people can 

be as—or more—important than managing the 

natural resource. A lack of risk-taking coupled 

with the uncertainty surrounding climate 

change could lead to a situation where managers 

opt for the no-action approach (e.g., Hall and 

Fagre, 2003). On the other hand, climate change 

could cause the opposite response if managers 

perceive that risks must be taken because of 

the uncertainties surrounding climate change. 

Implementation of human resource policies 

that minimize risk for action and protect people 

when mistakes are made will be critical to 

enabling managers to make difficult choices 

under climate change (Table 9.7). A “safeto-fail” policy would be exemplary of this 

manage for impacts of climate change (Cha

4, National Parks).

Tackling the challenge of managing nat

resources in the face of climate change 

require that staff members not only feel va

but also empowered by their instituti

Scores of federal land management emplo

began their careers as passionate stew

of the nation’s natural resources. With 

threat of climate change further compoun

management challenges, it is important that 

passion be reinvigorated and fully cultiva

Existing employees could be effectively tra

(or specialist positions designated) for tack

climate change issues within the contex

their current job descriptions and managem

frameworks (Chapter 3, National Forests). 

example, the National Park Service has rece

implemented a program to educate park staf

climate change issues, in addition to offe

training for presenting this informatio

park visitors in 11 national parks. Called 

“Climate Friendly Parks” program, it inclu

guidelines for inventorying a park’s greenh

gas emissions, park-specific suggestion

reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and 

for setting realistic emissions reduction go

Additionally, the Park Service’s Pacific W

Regional Office has been proactive in educa

western park managers on issues relate

climate change as well as promoting mess

to communicate to the public and act

to address the challenge of climate cha

(Chapter 4, National Parks). Such “no regr

activities offer a cost-effective mechanism 

empowering existing employees with b

knowledge and public outreach skills.

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 32 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 32 
9.5.4 Information and Science

9.5.4.1 Perceived Barriers

Adaptation is predicated upon research and 

scientific information. Addressing emerging 

issues that arise as a result of climate change 

will require new research and information 

to use in developing strategic management 

plans. Critical gaps in scientific information, 

such as understanding of ecosystem function 

and structure, coupled with the high degree 

of uncertainty surrounding potential impacts 

of climate change, hinder the potential for 

effective implementation of adaptation (Table 

9.8; Chapter 8, Marine Protected Areas). A 

Little to no climate 

expertise within many 

management units at the 

regional and local level; 

disconnect between 

science and management 

that impedes access to 

information.

Use newly created positions or staff openings 

as opportunities to add 

climate change expertise; train resource 

managers and other 

personnel in climate 

change science.

• Use incremental changes in staff to reinvent and redefine

organizations’ institutional ability to better respond t

climate change impacts (see the Tahoe National Fores

Case Study, Annex A1.1).

• Develop expertise through incorporation into existin

Forest Service training programs like the silvicultura

certification program, regional integrated resource trainin

workshops, and regional training sessions for resource staff

(see Chapter 3 section 3.5).

• Develop managers’ guides, climate primers, managemen

toolkits, a Web clearinghouse, and video presentations (se

Chapter 3 section 3.5).

National and regional 

budget policies/processes 

constrain the potential for 

altering or supplementing 

current management 

practices to enable 

adaptation to climate change 

(see Chapter 3 section 

3.5; general decline in staff 

resources and capacity (see 

Chapter 3 section 3.4.5).

Look for creative 

ways to augment the 

workforce and stretch 

budgets to institute adaptation practices (e.g., 

individuals or parties 

with mutual interests 

in learning about or addressing climate change 

that may be engaged at 

no additional cost).

• Augment budget and workforce through volunteers from 

the public or other sources such as institutions wit

compatible educational requirements, neighborhoo

groups, environmental associations, etc., such as the Ree

Check Program that help collect coral reef monitoring dat

(see Chapter 8 sections 8.3.3, 8.4.4.1 and 8.4.4.2).

• Identify organizations or private citizens that benefit from 

adaptation actions to share implementation costs in orde

to avoid more costly impacts/damages.

• Use emerging carbon markets to promote (re-) developmen

of regional biomass and biofuels industries, providin

economic incentives for active adaptive management; fund

from these industries could be used to promote thinnin

and fuel-reduction projects (see Tahoe National Fores

Case Study, Annex A1.1).

lack of climate-related data from monitoring 

precludes managers from assessing the extent 

to which climate has affected their systems. 

Staff and budget limitations may not only 

constrain the ability to monitor but may also 

preclude managers from analyzing data from 

the monitoring programs that do receive 

support. Without adequate monitoring, it 

remains difficult to move forward confidently 

with appropriate adaptation efforts (Chapter 6, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers).

Even if managers had sufficient information, 

decision-making would still prove problematic. 

Managers often lack sufficient tools to help 

guide them in selecting appropriate management 

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 33 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 33 
34

“100-year” flood events may 

occur more often and dams 

need to be constructed 

accordingly).

flect accurate baselines in 

the face of climate change; 

modify design assumptions 

to account for changing 

climate conditions.

flows to the more sophisticated and scientific

based “natural flow paradigm,” as is happening 

some places (see Chapter 6 section 6.3.4.2).

Lack of decision support 

tools and models, uncertainty 

in climate change science, 

and critical gaps in scientific 

information that limit 

assessment of risks and 

efficacy and sustainability of 

actions.

Identify and use all available 

tools/mechanisms currently in place to deal with 

existing problems to apply 

to climate-change related 

impacts.

• Use early detection/rapid response approach

(such as that used to manage invasive species) 

respond quickly to the impacts of extreme eve

(e.g., disturbances, floods, windstorms) with an 

towards adaptation (see Chapter 3 section 3.3.3

• Diversify existing portfolio of manageme

approaches to address high levels of uncertainty

• Hedge bets and optimize practices in situatio

where system dynamics and responses are fa

certain.

• Use adaptive management in situations with grea

uncertainty (see Chapter 4 section 4.4.3).

Occurrence of extreme 

climate events outside 

historical experience.

Use disturbed landscapes 

as templates for “management experiments” that 

provide data to improve 

adaptive management of 

natural resources.

• After fire, reforest with genotypes of species t

are better adjusted to the new or unfolding regio

climate with nursery stock tolerant to low s

moisture and high temperature, or with a vari

of genotypes in the nursery stock (see Chapte

section 3.4.1.2).

Stakeholders/public may 

have insufficient information 

to properly evaluate 

adaptation actions, and 

thus may oppose/prevent 

implementation of adaptive 

projects (e.g., such as those 

that have ground-disturbing 

elements like salvaging 

harvests after disturbance 

and using herbicides before 

revegetating). Appeals and 

litigation from external public 

often results in the default 

of no action (See Chapter 3 

section 3.4.5).

Inform public and promote consensus-building 

on tough decisions; invite 

input from a broad range 

of sources to generate 

buy-in across stakeholder 

interests. 

• Conduct public outreach activities with informat

on climate impacts and adaptation options—includ

demonstration projects with concrete results

through workshops, scoping meetings, face-

face dialog, and informal disposition proces

to raise public awareness and buy-in for spec

management actions (e.g., like Tahoe NF, Annex A

and Partnership for the Sounds (the Estuarium) a

North Carolina Aquariums, Annex A5.1).

• Use state and local stakeholders to deve

management plans to gain support and participat

in implementation and oversight of planning activit

as the National Estuary CCMPs do (see Chapte

section 7.2.2), the Coastal Habitat Protection Pl

do for fisheries management (see Chapter 7 sect

7.5), and some National Forests do (Chapte

section 3.5).

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 34 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 34 
Another gap exists between stakeholder 

information and expertise compared with 

that held by resource managers and scientists. 

Stakeholders often do not have full information, 

sufficient expertise, or a long-term perspective 

that allow them to evaluate the relative merit of 

adaptation options. Therefore, they may act to 

inhibit or even block the use of adaptation in 

management planning. Strong local preferences 

can contradict broader agency goals and drive 

non-optimal decision-making, all of which act 

to limit or preclude acceptance of proactive 

management (Chapter 3, National Forests).

9.5.4.2 Opportunities

Although barriers exist, effective collaboration 

and linkages among managers and resource 

scientists are possible (Table 9.8). Scientists can 

support management by targeting their research 

to provide managers with information relevant 

to major management challenges, which would 

enable managers to make better-informed 

decisions as new resource issues emerge. 

Resource scientists have monitoring data and 

research results that are often underused or 

ignored. Monitoring efforts that have specific 

objectives and are conducted with information 

use in mind would make the data more useful for 

managers. The need for monitoring efforts may 

provide impetus for a more unified approach 

across agencies or management regions. 

This would serve to not only provide more 

comprehensive information but would also serve 

to minimize costs associated with monitoring 

efforts.

A unified effort is also needed to invest 

resources and training into the promotion of 

agile approaches to adaptation management 

function as outreach staff who would explain 

to the public what climate change might mean 

to long-standing recreational opportunities or 

management goals.

Many federal lands and waters provide excellent 

opportunities for educating the public about 

climate change. The national parks and wildlife 

refuges already put extensive resources into 

education and outreach for environmental, 

ecological, and cultural subjects. There 

are several ways in which the agencies can 

inform the public about climate change and 

climate-change impacts. The first of these 

uses traditional communication venues such as 

information kiosks and signs, documentaries, 

and brochures. Interactive video displays are 

well suited to demonstrating the potential 

effects of climate change. Such displays could 

demonstrate the effects of different climatechange scenarios on specific places or systems, 

making use, for example, of photos or video 

documenting coral bleaching and retreating 

glaciers, or modeling studies projecting changes 

in specific lands or waters (Kerr, 2004; 2005).

The second major way that agencies can inform 

the public is to provide examples of sustainable 

practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

The National Park Service’s Climate Friendly 

Parks program is a good example of such 

an outreach effort. The program involves a 

baseline inventory of park emissions using 

Environmental Protection Agency models and 

then uses that inventory to develop methods 

for reducing emissions, including coordinating 

transportation, implementing energy-saving 

technology, and reducing solid waste. Similar 

programs could easily be developed for other 

agencies.

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 35 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 35 
36

done at appropriate scales, and not necessarily 

simply the scales of convenience or tradition; 

(3) manage expecting change; and (4) increase 

collaboration among agencies in research and 

management activities.

In order to understand how these conclusions 

were reached, one needs only to appreciate 

that for virtually every category of federal land 

and water management, one is likely to find 

situations that exist in which currently available 

adaptation strategies will not enable a manager 

to meet specific goals, especially where 

those goals are related to keeping ecosystems 

unchanged or species where they are. The 

expert opinion of the report authors is that 

these circumstances may require fundamental 

shifts in how ecosystems are managed. Such 

shifts may entail reformulating goals, managing 

cooperatively across landscapes, and looking 

forward to potential future ecosystem states and 

facilitating movement toward those preferred 

states. These sorts of fundamental shifts in 

management at local-to-regional scales may 

only be possible with coincident changes in 

organizations at the national level that empower 

managers to make the necessary shifts. Thus, 

fundamental shifts in national-level policies 

may also be needed.

Even with actions taken to limit greenhouse 

gas emissions in the future, such shifts in 

management and policies may be necessary 

since concentrations resident in the atmosphere 

are significant enough to require planning 

for adaptation actions today (Myers, 1979). 

Ecosystem responses to the consequences 

of increasing concentrations are likely to 

be unusually fast, large, and non-linear in 

character. More areas are becoming vulnerable 

to climate change because of anthropogenic 

examples of the full suite of these changes b

implemented as a best practices approach. 

9.6.1 Re-Evaluate Priorities and 

Consider Triage

Climate change not only requires considera

of how to adapt management approache

also requires reconsideration of managem

objectives. In a world with unlimited resou

and staff time, climate adaptation wo

simply be a matter of management innovat

monitoring, and more accessible and use

science. In reality, priorities may need to b

examined and re-established to focus adapta

efforts appropriately and make the best us

limited resources. At the regional scale, 

example of the type of change that may 

needed is in selected estuaries where freshw

runoff is expected to increase and salt w

is expected to penetrate further upstre

Given this scenario, combined with the go

protecting anadromous fishes, models c

be used to project shifts in critical propaga

habitats and management efforts could 

refocused to those sites (Chapter 7, Nati

Estuaries). In Rocky Mountain National P

because warmer winters are expected to re

in greatly increased elk populations, a pla

reduce elk populations to appropriate num

is being prepared with the goal of popula

control (Annex A2).

In the situations above, the goals are 

attainable with some modifications. Howe

in general, resource managers could 

significant constraints on their authorit

re-prioritize and make decisions about w

goals to modify and how to accomplish th

modifications. National-level policies may h

to be re-examined with thought toward ho

accommodate and even enable such chan

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 36 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 36 
is relatively straightforward, although even 

baseline information on species distributions 

is often lacking (Chapter 5, National Wildlife 

Refuges; Chapter 6, Wild and Scenic Rivers). 

Prioritization schemes that weight rare species 

or systems heavily would likely target lands 

with more threatened and endangered species 

and unique ecosystems. 

Because climate-driven changes in some 

ecological systems are likely to be extreme, 

priority-setting may, in some instances, involve 

triage (Metzger, Leemans, and Schröter, 2005). 

Some goals may have to be abandoned and new 

goals established if climate change effects are 

severe enough. Even with substantial focused 

and creative management efforts, some systems 

may not be able to maintain the ecological 

properties and services that they provide in 

today’s climate. In other systems, the cost of 

adaptation may far outweigh the ecological, 

social, or economic returns it would provide. 

In such cases, resources may be better invested 

in other systems. One simple example of triage 

would be the decision to abandon habitat 

management efforts for a population of an 

endangered species on land at the “trailing” 

edge of its shifting range. If the refuge or park 

that currently provides habitat for the species 

will be unsuitable for the species in the next 

50 years, it might be best to actively manage 

for habitat elsewhere and, depending on the 

species and the circumstances, investigate the 

potential for relocation. Such decisions will 

have to be made with extreme care. In addition 

to evaluating projected trends in climate and 

habitat suitability, it will be necessary to monitor 

the species or habitats in question to determine 

whether the projected trends are being realized. 

All of the changes in management approaches 

discussed throughout the rest of this section 

at maintaining ecosystem services under a 

multitude of existing stressors. One lesson 

learned from this approach is that it may be 

necessary to define the management scale 

beyond the boundaries of a single habitat type, 

conservation area, or political or administrative 

unit to encompass an entire ecosystem or region. 

Currently, management plans for forests, rivers, 

marine protected areas, estuaries, national 

parks, and wildlife refuges are often developed 

for discrete geographies with specific attributes 

(species, ecosystems, commodities), without 

recognition that they may be nested within 

other systems. For example, marine protected 

areas are often within national estuaries; wild 

and scenic rivers are often within national 

parks. With few exceptions (see Section 9.5.2), 

plans are not developed with the ability to fully 

consider the matrix in which they are embedded 

and the extent to which those attributes may 

vary over time in response to drivers external 

to the management system. Climate change 

adaptation opportunities may be missed if land 

and water resources are thought of as distinct, 

static, or out of context of a regional and even 

continental arena. A better approach would 

be to systematically broaden and integrate 

management plans, where possible. Although 

a single national park or national forest may 

have limited capacity for adaptation, the entire 

system of parks and forests and refuges in a 

region may have the capacity for adaptation. 

When spatial scales of consideration are larger, 

federal agencies often have mutually reinforcing 

goals that may result in the enhancement of 

their ability to manage cooperatively across 

landscapes (Leeworthy and Wiley, 2003).

9.6.3 Manage for Change

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 37 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 37 
38

increase ecosystem resilience will no longer be 

effective. At this point, major shifts in ecosystem 

processes, structures, and components will 

be unavoidable, and adaptation will require 

planning for management of major ecosystem 

shifts. 

For example, some existing management plans 

identify a desired state (based on structural, 

ecosystem service, or ecosystem process 

attributes of the past) and then prescribe 

practices to achieve that state. While there 

is clarity and accountability in such fixed 

management objectives, these objectives may be 

unrealistic in light of dramatic environmental 

in Tahoe National Forest, warming wa

may render selected river reaches no lon

suitable for salmon, so restoration of th

reaches may not be a realistic managem

activity (Chapter 3, National Forests). The s

applies to meadows in Tahoe National Fo

where restoration efforts may be abando

due to possible succession to non-mea

conditions. Management will not be abl

prevent change, so it may also be importan

manage the public’s expectations. For exam

the goal of the Park Service is to maintain a 

exactly as it always has been, composed o

same tree species (Chapter 4, National Pa

BOX 9.9. Adaptation options for managing in the context of major climatic and 

ecological changes.

Adaptation Options for Managing for Change

• Assist transitions, population adjustments, and range shifts through manipulation of 

species mixes, altered genotype selections, modified age structures, and novel silivicultural techniques.

• Rather than focusing only on historic distributions, spread species over a range of environments according to modeled future conditions.

• Proactively manage early successional stages that follow widespread climate-related 

mortality by promoting diverse age classes, species mixes, stand diversities, genetic 

diversity, etc., at landscape scales.

• Identify areas that supported species in the past under similar conditions to those 

projected for the future and consider these sites for establishment of “neo-native” 

plantations or restoration sites.

• Favor the natural regeneration of species better adapted to projected future conditions.

• Realign management targets to recognize significantly disrupted conditions, rather 

than continuing to manage for restoration to a “reference” condition that is no longer 

realistic given climate change.

• Manage the public’s expectations as to what ecological states will be possible (or impossible) given the discrepancy between historical climate conditions and current/future 

climate conditions. 

• Develop guidelines for scenarios under which restoration projects or rebuilding of human structures should occur after climate disturbances.

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 38 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 38 
experts, can engage in scenario planning 

related to climate change and resources of 

interest and put into place plans for both highprobability and low-probability, high-risk 

events. Development of realistic plans may 

require a philosophical shift concerning when 

restoration is an appropriate post-disturbance 

response. It is impractical to attempt to keep 

ecosystem boundaries static. Estuaries display 

this poignantly. After a flood, there is often 

intense pressure to restore to the pre-flooding 

state (Chapter 7, National Estuaries). To ensure 

sound management responses, guidelines for 

the scenarios under which restoration and 

rebuilding should occur could be established 

in advance of disturbances. In this sense, 

disturbances could become opportunities for 

managing toward a distribution of human 

population and infrastructure that is more 

realistic given changing climate. 

9.6.4 Expand Interagency 

Collaboration, Integration, and 

Lesson-Sharing

The scale of the challenge posed by climate 

disruption and the uncertainty surrounding 

f ut u re cha nges dema nd coord i nated , 

collaborative responses that go far beyond 

traditional “agency-by-agency” responses to 

stressors and threats. Every chapter in this 

volume has noted the need for a structured, 

interagency effort and for partnerships and 

collaboration in everything from research to 

management and land acquisition. Scientists 

and mangers across agencies and management 

systems would benefit from greater sharing 

of data, models, and experiences. It may be 

necessary to develop formal structures and 

policies that foster extensive interagency 

cooperation.

Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The 

goals of this program are to develop scientific 

knowledge of the climate system; the causes 

of changes in this system; and the effects of 

such changes on ecosystems, society, and the 

economy; and also to determine how best to 

apply that knowledge to decision-making. 

Climate change research conducted across 13 

U.S. government departments and agencies is 

coordinated through the CCSP. The CCSP could 

be expanded to include management research 

and coordination to bridge the gap between 

resource management needs and scientific 

research priorities. This may enhance the goal 

of the CCSP to apply existing knowledge to 

decision-making.

There are also other examples of existing 

collaborations across agencies that could 

be used as models. Several examples of 

interagency initiatives established to address 

universal threats to resources include the 

National Invasive Species Council, the Joint 

Fire Science Program, and National Interagency 

Fire Center. The analogy for climate change 

adaptation would be a group that would 

coordinate management activities, interpret 

research findings, inform on priority-setting, 

and disseminate data and tools.

Any collaborative interagency effort would 

benefit from coordinating regional and national 

databases with scientific and monitoring data to 

increase the capacity to make informed decisions 

related to climate-induced changes. Pooling 

resources would allow for more effective data 

generation and sharing. Coordination could be 

done through easily accessible databases that 

can access and readily provide comprehensive 

information and serve to better inform managers 

and decision-makers in their efforts to adapt to 

climate change. Information on climate-change 

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 39 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 39 
40

interagency efforts may gain the greatest 

momentum and credibility when they address 

on-the-ground management challenges. There 

are several nascent collaborative networks 

that may provide models for success, such 

as the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and 

some collaborative research and management 

coalitions built around marine protected 

areas and wild and scenic rivers. These sorts 

of networks are critical to illustrating how 

to overcome the challenges posed by lack of 

funding, and how to create critical ecological 

and sociological connectivity. With strong 

leadership, a systematic national network of 

such coalitions could lead to increased adaptive 

capacity across agencies and may set precedents 

for coordinating approaches among regional, 

state, and local-level management agencies. 

9.7 CONCLUSIONS 

Information on climate trends and climate 

impacts has increased dramatically within the 

last few years. The public, business leaders, 

and political leaders now widely recognize the 

risks of climate change and are beginning to 

take action. While a great deal of discussion 

has focused on emissions reductions and 

policies to limit climate change, many may 

not realize that—no matter which policy path 

is taken—some substantial climate change, 

uncertainty, and risk are inevitable. Moreover, 

the climate change that is already occurring will 

be here for years to come. Adaptation to climate 

8 U.S. Geological Survey, 1-4-2007: USGS water resources National Research Program (NRP) models. 

USGS Website, http://water.usgs.gov/nrp/models.

html, accessed on 6-12-2007. 9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 4-27-2007: 

Better assessment science integrating point & nonpoint sources. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency 

Website, http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins, 

accessed on 6-12-2007.

adaptation. 

These experts believe that the current min

toward management of natural resources 

ecosystems may have to change. The sp

scale and ecological scope of climate cha

may necessitate that we broaden our thinkin

view the natural resources of the United St

as one large interlocking and interacting sys

including state, federal, and private la

with resilience emerging from coordin

stewardship of all of the parts. To ach

this, institutions may have to collaborate 

cooperate more. Under conditions of uncer

climatic changes combined with uncer

ecosystem responses, agile managem

may have to become the rule rather t

the exception. While energy corporati

insurance firms, and coastal developers 

beginning to adapt to climate change, 

essential that federal agencies respons

for managing the nation’s land and w

resources also develop management agility 

deftness in dealing with climate disrupti

Maladaptation—adaptation that does 

succeed in reducing vulnerability but incre

it instead—must be avoided. Finally, to a

to climate change, managers need to know 

advance where the greatest vulnerabilities 

In response to vulnerability analyses, agen

and the public can work together to bolster 

resilience of those ecosystems and ecosys

services that are both valuable and capabl

remaining viable into the future.

It is crucial to emphasize that adaptation is 

simply a matter of managers figuring out w

to do, and then setting about to change t

practices. All management is conducted wi

a broader context of socioeconomic incent

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 40 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 40 
first glance one would not think that mortgages 

and insurance had anything to do with the 

adaptation of national estuaries to climate 

change, but in fact these economic incentives 

and constraints largely dictate the pattern of 

coastal development. 

Federal lands and waters do not function in 

isolation from human systems or from private 

land or water uses. For this reason, mechanisms 

for reducing conflict among private property 

uses and federal lands and waters are essential. 

For example, the National Park Service is 

working cooperatively with landowners 

bordering the Rio Grande in Texas to establish 

binding agreements that offer them technical 

assistance with measures to alleviate potentially 

adverse impacts on the river resulting from their 

land-use activities. In addition, landowners may 

voluntarily donate or sell lands or interests in 

lands (i.e., easements) as part of a cooperative 

agreement. In the absence of agreements with 

private landowners, withdrawals from rivers 

and loss of riparian vegetation could foreclose 

opportunities for adaptation, potentially 

exacerbating the impacts of climate change.

One adaptive response is large protected areas 

and replicated protected areas, but they are 

often associated with taking areas of land or 

ocean away from productive activities such 

as ranching, farming, or fishing. However, 

protected areas have multiple beneficial effects 

on the economy that are also important to 

consider. For example, in the Florida Keys it 

has been shown that total annual spending 

by recreating visitors to the Florida Keys was 

$1.2 billion between June 2000 and May 2001 

(IPCC, 2007).

most likely to remain effective if management 

is aligned with the public’s well-being and 

perception of well-being. Experienced resource 

managers recognize this and regularly invest 

in public education. This means that education 

and communication regarding managing for 

adaptation needs just as much attention as does 

the science of adaptation. 

Repeatedly, in response to crises and national 

challenges, the nation’s executive and 

congressional leadership have mandated new 

collaboration among agencies, extended existing 

authorities, and encouraged innovation. The 

report authors and expert stakeholders conclude 

that this is exactly what is needed to adapt to 

climate change. The security of land and water 

resources and critical ecosystem services 

requires a national initiative and leadership. 

Greater agility will be required than has ever 

before been demanded from major land or water 

managers. The public has become accustomed 

to stakeholder involvement in major resource 

use decisions. This involvement cannot be 

sacrificed, but decision-making processes could 

be streamlined so that management approaches 

do not stand still while climate change proceeds 

rapidly. The specific recommendations for 

adaptation that emerge from studies of national 

forests, national parks, national wildlife refuges, 

wild and scenic rivers, national estuaries, and 

marine protected areas will not take root unless 

there is leadership at the highest level to address 

climate adaptation.

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 41 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 41 
42

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 42 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 42 
assessment maps under alternative climate scenarios and varying perspectives of fire probability 

and values at risk. 

North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program

http://www.narccap.ucar.edu/

Regional Hydro-Ecologic Simulation Tool 

http://geography.sdsu.edu/Research/Projects/RHESSYS

U.S. Climate Division Dataset Mapping Tool 

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/USclimate/USclimdivs.html

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/PublicData/getpage.pl

This tool can generate regional maps.

ISPE/Weiss/Overpeck climate change projections for West (based on IPCC)

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/research/regional/projected_US_climate_change/projected_

US_climate_change.htm

High Plains Regional Climate Center

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/

Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Climate change reports, graphics, summaries.

The Hadley Centre

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/index.html

Coarse scale global temperature, soil moisture, sea level, and sea-ice volume and area 

projections.

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/

Coarse resolution climate-change projections, regional climate model.

Pew Center on Global Climate Change

http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/

Background on climate change, policy implications.

NOAA Earth System Research Lab (Climate Analysis Branch)

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/

Current climate data and near-term forecasts.

The Climate Institute

http://www.climate.org/climate_main.shtml

Basic background information on climate change.

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 43 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 43 
44

http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/climas/

A source for climate change related research, short-term forecasts and climate reconstruct

for the southwestern United States.

Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington

http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/

Climate-change research and projections for the Pacific Northwest.

Chapter 9_Synthesis.indd 44 hapter 9_Synthesis.indd 44 
GLOSSARY AND 

The ability of a system to adjust to climate change 

(including climate variability and extremes) to 

moderate potential damages, to take advantage of 

opportunities, or to cope with the consequences.

adaptive governance

Institutional and political frameworks designed to 

adapt to changing relationships between society and 

ecosystems in ways that sustain ecosystem services; 

expands the focus from adaptive management of 

ecosystems to address the broader social contexts 

that enable ecosystem-based management.

adaptive management

A process that promotes flexible decision making 

that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as 

outcomes from management actions and other events 

become better understood. Careful monitoring of these 

outcomes both advances scientific understanding 

and helps adjust policies or operations as part of 

an iterative learning process. It also recognizes the 

importance of natural variability in contributing to 

ecological resilience and productivity.

anthropogenic stress

(1) Stressors resulting from or produced by human 

beings (see “stressor” definition below); (2) Any 

human activity that causes an ecosystem response 

that is considered negative.

anticipatory adaptation

Adaptation that takes place before impacts of climate 

change are observed. Also referred to as proactive 

adaptation.

biodiversity

(1) The variability among living organisms from all 

sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and 

other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes 

of which they are part; this includes diversity within 

species, between species and of ecosystems. (2) The 

diversity of genes, populations, species, communities, 

and ecosystems, which underlies all ecosystem 

patterns over less than a decade). Such eve

occurred in the past due to natural causes.

climate change

Climate change refers to any change in clim

time, whether due to natural variability or a

of human activity. This usage differs from th

United Nations Framework Convention on 

Change, which defines “climate change” as: “

of climate which is attributed directly or in

to human activity that alters the compositio

global atmosphere and which is in addition t

climate variability observed over compara

periods.” 

climate change scenario

A plausible and often simplified representati

future climate, based on an internally cons

of climatological relationships, typically con

for explicit use as input to impact models. A 

change scenario” is the difference between a 

scenario and the current climate.

climate variability

Climate variability refers to variation

mean state and other statistics (such as 

deviations, statistics of extremes, etc.) of the 

on all temporal and spatial scales beyond 

individual weather events. Variability may 

to natural internal processes within the 

system (internal variability), or to varia

natural or anthropogenic external forcing 

variability). 

confidence (in an adaptation approach) 

Degree of belief that an event will occu

observations, modeling results, and 

knowledge. In this report, confidence is b

the expert opinion of the authors and is com

two elements: (1) the amount of evidence 

to support the determination that the effec

of a given adaptation approach is well

and understood and (2) the level of agree

Back Matter.indd 1 ack Matter.indd 1 
2

A system of interacting living organisms together with their 

physical environment. 

ecosystem management, or ecosystem-based 

management

There are many definitions for this term, and different 

agencies interpret the term in slightly different ways. 

Three definitions follow; the first is frequently cited. 

(1) Management that integrates scientific knowledge of 

ecological relationships within a complex sociopolitical 

and values framework toward the general goal of protecting 

native ecosystem integrity over the long term. (2) Any landmanagement system that seeks to protect viable populations 

of all native species, perpetuate natural disturbance regimes 

on the regional scale, adopt a planning timeline of centuries, 

and allow human use at levels that do not result in long-term 

ecological degradation. (3) The application of ecological 

and social information, options, and constraints to achieve 

desired social benefits within a defined geographic area over 

a specified period. 

ecosystem services

The conditions and processes through which natural 

ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and 

fulfill human life.

extreme weather event

An event that is rare within its statistical reference 

distribution at a particular place. Definitions of “rare” vary, 

but an extreme weather event would normally be as rare as 

or rarer than the 10th or 90th percentile. By definition, the 

characteristics of what is called “extreme weather” may vary 

from place to place. Extreme weather events may typically 

include floods and droughts. 

global change

Changes in the global environment (including alterations in 

climate, land productivity, oceans or other water resources, 

atmospheric chemistry, and ecological systems) that may 

alter the capacity of the Earth to sustain life.

human social resilience

The capacity to absorb shocks while maintaining function. 

invasive species

Non-native species whose introduction does or is likel

cause economic or environmental harm or harm to hu

health. 

likelihood

The likelihood of an occurrence, an outcome or a re

where this can be estimated probabilistically. 

maladaptation

Any changes in natural or human systems that inadverte

increase vulnerability to climatic stimuli; an adaptation 

does not succeed in reducing vulnerability but increas

instead.

management plan

In general, a document that provides guidance regar

all activities on federally managed lands. However, 

meaning for National Forests is quite distinct. Specific

the National Forest Management Act (NFMA (16 U.

1660(6)) requires the Forest Service to manage the Nati

Forest System lands according to land and resou

management plans that provide for multiple-uses 

sustained-yield in accordance with MUSYA (16 U.

1604(e) and (g)(1)), in particular include coordinatio

outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife 

fish, and wilderness and determine forest managem

systems, harvesting levels, and procedures in the light o

of the uses set forth in the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield 

of 1960, and the availability of lands and their suitability 

resource management.

mitigation

An anthropogenic intervention to reduce the anthropog

forcing of the climate system; strategies to reduce greenh

gas sources and emissions and enhance greenhouse 

sinks.

native species

With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, o

than as a result of an introduction, historically occurre

currently occurs in that ecosystem.

Back Matter.indd 2 ack Matter.indd 2 
favorable conditions of water flows, and (2) furnishing a 

continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of 

the citizens of the United States. 

phenology

The timing of behavior cued by environ mental 

information.

reactive adaptation

Adaptation that takes place after impacts of climate change 

have been observed.

realignment

Considered in the context of restoration, realignment refers 

to an adjustment in management or planning goals to 

account for substantially altered reference conditions and 

new ecosystem dynamics. The rationale for this adaptation 

approach is that historical (pre-disturbance) baselines may 

be inappropriate in the face of a changing climate. 

refugia

Physical environments that are less affected by climate 

change than other areas (e.g., due to local currents, 

geographic location, etc.) and are thus a “refuge” from 

climate change for organisms.

relocation

Human-facilitated transplantation of organisms from one 

location to another in order to bypass a barrier (e.g., an urban 

area). Also referred to as “assisted migration.” 

replication

Multiple replicates of a habitat type (e.g., multiple fore reef 

areas throughout the reef system) or population are protected 

as a “bet hedging” strategy against loss of the habitat type 

due to a localized disaster.

representation

Includes both (1) ensuring that the full breadth of habitat 

types is protected (e.g., fringing reef, fore reef, back reef, 

patch reef) and (2) ensuring that full breadth of species 

diversity is included within sites; both concepts relate to 

maximizing overall biodiversity of the larger system.

manipulation of the physical environment to cou

resist physical/biological change.

restoration

Manipulation of the physical and biological enviro

order to restore a desired ecological state or set of e

processes.

sensitivity

Sensitivity is the degree to which a system is affecte

adversely or beneficially, by climate-related stim

effect may be direct (e.g., a change in crop yield in 

to a change in the mean, range, or variability of temp

or indirect (e.g., damages caused by an increas

frequency of coastal flooding due to sea-level rise

stressor 

Any physical, chemical, or biological entity that ca

an adverse response.

surprises

(1) Sudden, unexpected changes in the environmen

or abiotic) that may have disproportionately large e

consequences. (2) In the context of climate 

unexpected events resulting from climate change (

shift in ocean circulation) that may have both pos

negative consequences. (3) In the context of social-e

systems, a qualitative disagreement between ec

behavior and a priori expectations—an enviro

cognitive dissonance. 

trust species

All species where the federal government has 

jurisdiction including federally endangered or th

species, migratory birds, anadromous fish, and 

marine mammals.

unimpaired

Refers to language in the NPS Organic Act that d

the purpose for which National Parks were establis

to conserve the scenery and the natural and histori

and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjo

the same in such manner and by such means as w

Back Matter.indd 3 ack Matter.indd 3 
4

(1) Management activities that aim to preserve the 

wilderness character of designated wilderness areas, which 

are “...area[s] where the earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who 

does not remain.” (2) The planning for and management of 

wilderness resources.

QQy 

ATBA Area to Be Avoided

ATBI All Taxa-Biodiversity Inventory

ATV All-Terrain vehicle

AVHRR Advanced Very High Resolution 

Radiometer

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CaCO3 Calcium Carbonate

CCMP Comprehensive Conservation and 

Management Plan

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan

CCSP Climate Change Science Program

CDFG California Department of Fish and G

CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restorati

Plan

CHPP Coastal Habitat Protection Plan

CINMS Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CoRIS Coral Reef Information System

CRED Coral Reef Ecosystem Division

CREIOS Coral Reef Ecosystem Integrated 

Observing System

CREWS Coral Reef Early Warning System

CRMP Comprehensive River Management P

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

CTD casts Water Conductivity-Temperature-De

profi les

CWA Clean Water Act

CWMTF Clean Water Management Trust Fund

DDT Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane

DEFRA United Kingdom Department for 

Environment Food and Rural Affairs

DGVM Dynamic Global Vegetation Model

DO Dissolved Oxygen

DRBC Delaware River Basin Commission

EBM Ecosystem-Based Management

EDRR Early Detection and Rapid Response

EEP Ecosystem Enhancement Program

EMA Existing Management Area

Back Matter.indd 4 ack Matter.indd 4 
NS ct odeys Noe Scuy 

and Protection Act

FMP Fishery Management Plan

FONSI Finding of No Signifi cant Importance

FPA Forest Plan Amendment

FPR Forest Plan Revision

GBR Great Barrier Reef

GBRMPA Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 

Authority

GBRNP Great Barrier Reef National Park

GCM General Circulation Model

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GIS Geographic Information Systems

GtC Gigaton Carbon

HINWR Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge

ICRAN International Coral Reef Action Network

IOOS Integrated Ocean Observing System

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change

IUCN International Union for the Conservation 

of Nature/World Conservation Union

LAPS Land Acquisition Priority System

LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging

LMP Land and Resource Management Plan

LTER Long-Term Ecological Research

MHI Main Hawaiian Islands

MMA Marine Managed Area

MPA Marine Protected Area

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

Management Reauthorization Act

MSX Multinucleate Sphere X, a parasite 

affecting oysters

NAO/NHM North Atlantic Oscillation/Northern 

Hemisphere Annular Mode

NAWQA National Water Quality Assessment

NEON National Ecological Observatory 

Network

NEP National Estuary Program

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NRE Neuse River Estuary

NRI National Rivers Inventory

NWFP Northwest Forest Plan

NWHI Northwestern Hawaiian Islands

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System

NWRSIA National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle

ONF Olympic National Forest

ONFP Olympic National Forest Plan

ONP Olympic National Park

ORION Ocean Research Interactive Obse

Networks

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl

PDO Pacifi c Decadal Oscillation

PMNM Papahānaumokuākea Marine Na

Monument

PPR Prairie Pothole Region

PRE Pamlico River Estuary

RMNP Rocky Mountain National Park

RPA Resource Planning Act (1974)

SAC Sanctuary Advisory Council

SAMAB Southern Appalachian Man and t

Biosphere

SAP 4.4 Synthesis and Assessment Produ

SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

SDM Species Distribution Model

SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act

SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Managem

District

SLAMM Sea Level Affecting Marshes Mo

SPA Sanctuary Protection Area

SRES Special Report on Emissions Sce

SST Summer Sea Surface Temperatur

SVP Surface Velocity Program

SW Southwest

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TNF Tahoe National Forest

Back Matter.indd 5 ack Matter.indd 5 
6

WCWesed Codossesse

WMA Wildlife Management Area

WQPP Water Quality Protection Program

WSR Wild and Scenic Rivers

WUI Wildland Urban Interface

ZIMM Zonal Inundation and Marsh Model

Back Matter.indd 6 ack Matter.indd 6 
SAP 4.4 WORKSHOP P

Name Affiliation

National Forests

Paul Arndt United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Servic

Region 8

Chris Bernabo* National Council on Science for the Environment (NCSE)

Michael Case World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Global Climate Change Programm

Bob Davis* United States Forest Service (USFS), Region 3

Steve Eubanks USFS Tahoe National Forest

Lee Frelich* The University of Minnesota Center for Hardwood Ecology

Greg Kujawa USDA Forest Service

Jeremy Littell* University of Washington, Climate Impacts Group

Douglas W. MacCleery* USDA Forest Service

Duane Nelson USFS Regional Forest Revegetation, Region 5

Kathy A. O’Halloran* Olympic National Forest

Frank Roth USDA Forest Service, Region 4

Lindsey Rustad* USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station

Hugh Safford* USFS, Region 5

Charles Sams USDA Forest Service, Region 9

Allen Solomon* USDA Forest Service, Washington Office

Jeff Sorkin* USDA Forest Service

Peter Stine Sierra Nevada Research Center

John Townsley* Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests

Mary Vasse National Forest Foundation

Bonnie Wyatt USDA Forest Service

Christina Zarrella National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry

National Parks

Stan Austin* Rocky Mountain National Park

Jane Belnap United States Geological Survey (USGS)

Gillian Bowser* Texas A&M University

Gregg Bruff Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore

Hannah Campbell** National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Of

of Global Programs, Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessme

Program (RISA)

John Dennis** National Park Service (NPS) Headquarters

Dan Fagre USGS Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center

Back Matter.indd 7 ack Matter.indd 7 
8

Abby MillerThe Coalition of NPS Retirees

Jim Nations National Parks and Conservation Association

Shawn Norton* NPS Headquarters

David Parsons USFS

David Peterson USDA Forest Service

Mike Soukup* NPS Headquarters

Lee Tarnay* Yosemite National Park

Julie Thomas* NPS

Kathy Tonnessen University of Montana

Leigh Welling* Crown of the Continent Research Learning Center

Mark Wenzler* National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)

Aaron Worstell NPS, Air Resources Division

National Wildlife Refuges

Dan Ashe* United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Refuges and Wildli

Don Barry Wilderness Society

Dawn Browne* Ducks Unlimited

Tom Franklin* Izaak Walton League

Patrick Gonzalez* The Nature Conservancy

Lara Hansen WWF Climate Change Program

Evan Hirsche National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA)

Matt Hogan Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Doug Inkley* National Wildlife Federation (NWF)

Danielle G. Jerry* USFWS (Alaska)

Kurt Johnson* USFWS

John Kostyack NWF

James Kurth* USFWS

Tom Lovejoy The Heinz Center

Noah Matson* Defenders of Wildlife

Sean McMahon* NWF

Claudia Nierenberg The Heinz Center

Maribeth Oakes* Wilderness Society

Amber Pairis Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Camille Parmesan The University of Texas at Austin

Caryn Rea ConocoPhillips (Alaska)

Terry Rich USFWS

John Schoen Alaska Audubon

Back Matter.indd 8 ack Matter.indd 8 
Donita Cotter* National Wildlife Refuge System, Div. of Natural Resources

Jackie Diedrich* USFS, Region 6

Karen Dunlap USFS, Region 9, Ottawa National Forest

Andrew Fahlund* American Rivers, Conservation

Dave Forney* NPS, Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River (SRR)

Dan Haas* USFWS, Hanford Reach National Monument

Kristy Hajny* Niobrara, National Scenic River (NSR)

Joan Harn NPS

Steve Harris Rio Grande Restoration

John Haubert NPS, Washington, D.C.

Peter Henn Land Manager of Wekiva River Buffer Conservation Area for St Johns 

River Water Management District

Mike Higgins* USFWS, National Wildlife Refuge System

Phil Horning USFS, Tahoe National Forest

Quinn McKew* American Rivers, Wild Rivers Program

Teri McMillan Alaska Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) Program

Jerry Mosier Klamath, California, multiple agencies

Tim O’Halloran Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

David Purkey* Stockholm Environment Institute-US Center

Jason Robertson* U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Cassie Thomas* NPS

Richard (Omar) Warner* Kinni Consulting

National Estuaries

Mark Alderson* Sarasota Bay Project

Carol Auer* NOAA/National Ocean Service

Rich Batiuk* USEPA Region 3 – Chesapeake Bay Program

Suzanne Bricker NOAA/National Ocean Service

Dean E. Carpenter* Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (NEP)

Derb Carter* Southern Environmental Law Center, Chapel Hill

James E. Cloern USGS

Pamela Emerson City of Seattle

Holly Greening* Tampa Bay Estuary Program

Michael J. Kennish* Rutgers University

Wim Kimmerer Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies

Karen L. McKee* USGS National Wetlands Research Center

Back Matter.indd 9 ack Matter.indd 9 
10

Marine Protected Areas

Peter Auster National Undersea Research Center

Maria Brown* Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (NMS)

Deborah Cramer* Stellwagen Bank NMS Advisory Council

Andrew DeVogelaere Monterey Bay NMS

Barbara Emley Gulf of the Farallones NMS Advisory Council

Daniel Gleason* Georgia Southern University

Lynne Hale* The Nature Conservancy

Lara Hansen* WWF

Sean Hastings Channel Islands NMS

Terrie Klinger* University of Washington (UW) School of Marine Affairs

Irina Kogan* Gulf of the Farallones NMS

David Loomis* University of Massachusetts

Steve Palumbi Stanford University

Linda Paul* Hawaii Audubon Society

Bruce Popham* Florida Keys NMS Advisory Council

Steve Roady Earthjustice; Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment an

Earth Sciences

Teresa Scott* Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Jack Sobel* The Ocean Conservancy

Steve Tucker* Cape Cod Commission

Charles M. Wahle, Ph.D. NOAA National Marine Protected Areas Center

Lauren Wenzel* NOAA National Marine Protected Areas Center

Bob Wilson* Gulf of the Farallones NMS Advisory Council

* Indicates invitees who participated in the workshops

** Indicates participants in the workshops who were not on the original invite list

Back Matter.indd 10 ack Matter.indd 10 
Caldeira, K. and M.E. Wickett, 2005: Ocean model 

predictions of chemistry changes from carbon 

dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and ocean. 

Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, 1-12.

Diffenbaugh, N.S., 2005: Atmosphere-land cover 

feedbacks alter the response of surface temperature 

to CO2 forcing in the western United States. Climate 

Dynamics, 24(2), 237-251.

Diffenbaugh, N.S., J.S. Pal, R.J. Trapp, and F. Giorgi, 

2005: Fine-scale processes regulate the response 

of extreme events to global climate change. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of 

the United States of America, 102(44), 15774-15778.

Doney, S.C., 2006: The dangers of ocean acidifi cation. 

Scientifi c American, 294(3), 58-65.

Donnelly, J.P. and J.D. Woodruff, 2007: Intense hurricane 

activity over the past 5,000 years controlled by El 

Niño and the West African Monsoon. Nature, 447, 

465-468.

Franks, S.J., S. Sim, and A.E. Weis, 2007: Rapid 

evolution of fl owering time by an annual plant in 

response to a climate fl uctuation. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America, 104, 1278-1282.

Groisman, P.Y., R.W. Knight, D.R. Easterling, T.R. Karl, 

G.C. Hegerl, and V.N. Razuvaev, 2005: Trends in 

intense precipitation in the climate record. Journal of 

Climate, 18(9), 1326-1350.

Groisman, P.Y., R.W. Knight, and T.R. Karl, 2001: 

Heavy precipitation and high streamfl ow in the 

contiguous United States: trends in the twentieth 

century. Bulletin of the American Meteorological 

Society, 82(2), 219-246.

Groom, M.J., G.K. Meffe, and C.R. Carroll, 2006: 

Principles of Conservation Biology. [Groom, M.J., 

G.K. Meffe, and C.R. Carroll (eds.)]. Sinauer Press, 

Sunderland, MA, pp. 1-701.

Group II to the Third Assessment Report of 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chang

[McCarthy, J.J., O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, 

Dokken, and K.S. White (eds.)]. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, UK.

IPCC, 2007a: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, 

Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution 

Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

IPCC, 2007b: Climate Change 2007: the Physic

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Gro

I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chang

[Solomon, S., D. Quin, M. Manning, Z. Che

Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. 

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambr

United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 

1-996.

IPCC, 2007c: Summary for policymakers, In: C

Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fou

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmenta

Panel on Climate Change, [Solomon, S., D

M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Av

M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambrid

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingd

New York, NY, USA.

Karl, T.R. and R.W. Knight, 1998: Secular trend

precipitation amount, frequency, and intens

in the United States. Bulletin of the America

Meteorological Society, 79(2), 231-241.

Kleypas, J.A., R.A. Feely, V.J. Fabry, C. Langdo

Sabine, and L.L. Robbins, 2006: Impacts of 

Acidifi cation on Coral Reefs and Other Mar

Calcifi ers: a Guide for Future Research. Wo

Report, National Science Foundation, Natio

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a

U.S. Geological Survey.

Back Matter.indd 11 ack Matter.indd 11 
12

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 86(1), 

39-49.

National Research Council, 2007: Analysis of Global Change 

Assessments: Lessons Learned. Committee on Analysis of 

Global Change Assessments, National Research Council, 

National Academies Press, Washington, D.C..

Parmesan, C. and H. Galbraith, 2004: Observed Impacts of 

Global Climate Change in the US. Pew Center on Global 

Climate Change.

Parmesan, C., 2006: Ecological and evolutionary responses to 

recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution 

and Systematics, 37, 637-669.

Parmesan, C. and G. Yohe, 2003: A globally coherent fi ngerprint 

of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature, 

421, 37-42.

Root, T.L., D.P. MacMynowski, M.D. Mastrandrea, and S.H. 

Schneider, 2005: Human-modifi ed temperatures induce 

species changes: joint attribution. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America, 102(21), 7465-7469.

Scheffer, M., S. Carpenter, J.A. Foley, C. Folke, and B.H. 

Walker, 2001: Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature, 

413, 591-596.

Smith, T.M. and R.W. Reynolds, 2005: A global merged land-airsea surface temperature reconstruction based on historical 

observations (1880-1997). Journal of Climate, 18(12), 

2021-2036.

Stewart, I.T., D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger, 2004: Changes 

in snowmelt runoff timing in Western North America under 

a ‘business as usual’ climate change scenario. Climatic 

Change, 62, 217-232.

Tebaldi, C., K. Hayhoe, J. Arblaster, and G. Meehl, 2006: Going 

to the extremes: an intercomparison of model-simulated 

historical and future changes in extreme events. Climatic 

Change, 79(3-4), 185-211.

f f f y 

100(14).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000: Stressor 

Identifi cation Guidance Document. EPA-822-B-00-025, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Offi ce of Water 

and Offi ce of Research and Development, Washington, D

pp.1-208.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007: Proposed 

Indicators for the U.S. EPA’s Report on the Environment 

(External Peer Review). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency.

Vecchi, G.A. and B.J. Soden, 2007: Increased tropical Atlant

wind shear in model projections of global warming. 

Geophysical Research Letters, 34.

Williams, K., K.C. Ewel, R.P. Stumpf, F.E. Putz, and T.W. 

Workman, 1999: Sea-level rise and coastal forest retreat 

the west coast of Florida, USA. Ecology, 80(6), 2045-20

CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES

Aber, J.D., C.L. Goodale, S.V. Ollinger, M.L. Smith, A.H. 

Magill, M.E. Martin, R.A. Hallett, and J.L. Stoddard, 

2001: Is nitrogen deposition altering the nitrogen status 

northeastern forests? BioScience, 53(4), 375-389.

Adams, M.B., L. Loughry, and L. Plaugher, 2004: Experimen

Forests and Ranges of the USDA Forest Service. Genera

Technical Report NE-321, United States Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern Research Statio

Adger, W.N., 1999: Social vulnerability to climate change an

extremes in coastal Vietnam. World Development, 27(2)

249-269.

Adger, W.N., 2003: Social aspects of adaptive capacity, In: 

Climate Change, Adaptive Capacity and Development, 

Imperial College Press, London, UK, pp. 29-49.

Back Matter.indd 12 ack Matter.indd 12 
Ainsworth, E.A. and S.P. Long, 2005: What have we learned 

from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A 

meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, 

canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New 

Phytologist, 165, 351-372.

Alberto, A.M.P., L.H. Ziska, C.R. Cervancia, and P.A. Manalo, 

1996: The infl uence of increasing carbon dioxide and 

temperature on competitive interactions between aC 3 

crop, rice (Oryza sativa) and aC 4 weed (Echinochloa 

glabrescens). Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 23(6), 

795-802.

Alig, R.J., J.D. Kline, and M. Lichtenstein, 2004: Urbanization 

on the US landscape: looking ahead in the 21st century. 

Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(2-3), 219-234.

Allegheny National Forest, 2006: Ecological Context. USDA 

Forest Service.

Allen, C.D. and D.D. Breshears, 1998: Drought-induced shift 

of a forest-woodland ecotone: Rapid landscape response 

to climate variation. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences of the United States of America, 95(25), 

14839-14842.

Amman, G.D., 1973: Population changes of the Mountain Pine 

Beetle in relation to elevation. Environmental Entomology, 

2(541), 547.

Anderson, J.L., R. W. Hilborn, R. T. Lackey, and D. Ludwig, 

2003: Watershed restoration - adaptive decision making in 

the face of uncertainty, In: Strategies for Restoring River 

Ecosystems: Sources of Variability and Uncertainty in 

Natural and Managed Systems, American Fisheries Society, 

Bethesda, MD, pp. 202-232.

Angert, A., S. Biraud, C. Bonfi ls, C.C. Henning, W. Buermann, 

J. Pinzon, C.J. Tucker, and I. Fung, 2005: Drier summers 

cancel out the CO2 uptake enhancement induced by warmer 

springs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of 

the United States of America, 102(31), 10823-10827.

Auclair, A.N.D., J.T. Lill, and C. Revenga, 1996: The ro

climate variability and global warming in the dieba

northern hardwoods. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 

163-169.

Bachelet, D., J. Lenihan, R. Drapek, and R. Neilson, in 

VEMAP vs VINCERA: A DGVM sensitivity to dif

in climate scenarios. Global and Planetary Change

Bachelet, D., J. Lenihan, R. Neilson, R. Drapek, and T. 

2005: Simulating the response of natural ecosystem

their fi re regimes to climatic variability in Alaska. C

Journal of Forest Research, 35(9), 2244-2257.

Bachelet, D., R.P. Neilson, T. Hickler, R.J. Drapek, J.M

Lenihan, M.T. Sykes, B. Smith, S. Sitch, and K. Th

2003: Simulating past and future dynamics of natur

ecosystems in the United States. Global Biogeoche

Cycles, 17(2), 1045.

Bachelet, D., R.P. Neilson, J.M. Lenihan, and R.J. Drap

Climate change effects on vegetation distribution a

budget in the United States. Ecosystems, 4, 164-185

Balvanera, P., A.B. Pfi sterer, N. Buchmann, J.S. He, T. 

Nakashizuka, D. Raffaelli, and B. Schmid, 2006: 

Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on 

ecosystem functioning and services. Ecology Letter

1146-1156.

Barden, L.S., 1987: Invasion of Microstegium vimineum

(poaceae), an exotic, annual, shade-tolerant, C4 gra

a North Carolina fl oodplain. American Midland Na

118(1), 40-45.

Barnett, T.P., J.C. Adam, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2005: P

impacts of a warming climate on water availability 

dominated regions. Nature, 438(7066), 303-309.

Baron, J.S., M.D. Hartman, L.E. Band, and R.B. Lamer

Sensitivity of a high-elevation rocky mountain wat

altered climate and CO2. Water Resources Research

89-99.

Back Matter.indd 13 ack Matter.indd 13 
14

2002: Interactions of climate change with biological 

invasions and land use in the Hawaiian Islands: modeling 

the fate of endemic birds using a geographic information 

system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of 

the United States of America, pp. 14246-14249.

Berg, E.E., J.D. Henry, C.L. Fastie, A.D. De Volder, and S.M. 

Matsuoka, 2006: Spruce beetle outbreaks on the Kenai 

Peninsula, Alaska, and Kluane National Park and Reserve, 

Yukon Territory: Relationship to summer temperatures and 

regional differences in disturbance regimes. Forest Ecology 

and Management, 227(3), 219-232.

Birch, T.W., 1996: Private Forest-Land Owners of the United 

States, 1994. Resour. Bull. NE-134 U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station, Radnor, PA, pp.183 p.

Birdsey, R., R. Alig, and D. Adams, 2000: Mitigation activities 

in the forest sector to reduce emissions and enhance sinks 

of greenhouse gases, In: The Impact of Climate Change 

on America’s Forests, Publication Number RMRS-GTR59, 

[Joyce, L.A. and R. Birdsey (eds.)]. Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp. 112-131.

Blaikie, P., T. Cannon, I. Davis, and B. Wisner, 1994: At Risk: 

Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. 

London: Routledge.

Blaikie, P.M., H.C. Brookfi eld, and B.J. Allen, 1987: Land 

Degradation and Society. Methuen.

Boisvenue, C. and S.W. Running, 2006: Impacts of climate 

change on natural forest productivity - evidence since the 

middle of the 20th century. Global Change Biology, 12(5), 

862-882.

Bormann, B., R. Haynes, and J.R. Martin, 2007: Adaptive 

management of forest ecosystems: did some rubber hit the 

road? BioScience, 57(2), 186-191.

Boucher, T.V. and B.R. Mead, 2006: Vegetation change 

and forest regeneration on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska 

following a spruce beetle outbreak, 1987-2000. Forest 

Ecology and Management, 227(3), 233-246.

, , , , 

J.E. Keeley, J.M. DiTomaso, R.J. Hobbs, M. Pellant, and 

Pyke, 2004: Effects of invasive alien plants on fi re regim

BioScience, 54, 677-688.

Brown, T.J., B.L. Hall, and A.L. Westerling, 2004: The impa

twenty-fi rst century climate change on wildland fi re dan

in the Western United States: an applications perspective

Climatic Change, 62(1-3), 365-388.

Bruederle, L.P. and F.W. Stearns, 1985: Ice storm damage to 

a southern Wisconsin mesic forest. Bulletin of the Torrey 

Botanical Club, 112(2), 167-175.

Bugmann, H., B. Zierl, and S. Schumacher, 2005: Projecting 

the impacts of climate change on mountain forests and 

landscapes, In: Global Change and Mountain Regions: 

an Overview of Current Knowledge, [Huber, U.M., H. 

Bugmann, and M.A. Reasoner (eds.)]. Springer, Berlin, 

477-488.

Burdon, J.J. and T. Elmqvist, 1996: Selective sieves in the 

epidemiology of Melampsora lini. Plant pathology, 45(5

933-943.

Burton, I., 1996: The growth of adaptation capacity: practice 

policy, In: Adapting to Climate Change: an Internationa

Perspective, [Smith, J.B., N. Bhatti, G. Menzhulin, 

R. Benioff, M. Budyko, M. Campos, B. Jallow, and F. 

Rijsberman (eds.)]. Springer, New York, pp. 55-67.

Cameron, P., G. Jelinek, A.M. Kelly, L. Murray, and J. 

Heyworth, 2000: Triage. Textbook of adult emergency 

medicine. Emergency Medicine, 12, 155-156.

Camp, A.E., P.F. Hessburg, R.L. Everett, and C.D. Oliver, 19

Spatial Changes in Forest Landscape Patterns Resulting 

From Altered Disturbance Regimes on the Eastern Slope 

the Washington Cascades. General Technical Report INT

GTR-320, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, pp.1-283

Back Matter.indd 14 ack Matter.indd 14 
Cash, D.W., 2001: In order to aid in diffusing useful and 

practical information: Agricultural extension and boundary 

organizations. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 

431-453.

Cash, D.W., W.C. Clark, F. Alcock, N.M. Dickson, N. Eckley, 

D.H. Guston, J. Jaeger, and R.B. Mitchell, 2003: Knowledge 

systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America, 100(14), 8086-8091.

Cathcart, J. and M. Delaney, 2006: Carbon Accounting: 

Determining Offsets From Forest Products. Cloughesy, M. 

(Ed.), Forests, Carbon, and Climate Change: A synthesis 

of science fi ndings, Oregon Forest Resources Institute, 

pp.157-176.

Certini, G., 2005: Effects of fi re on properties of forest soils: a 

review. Oecologia, 143(1), 1-10.

Chen, C.Y., R.S. Stemberger, N.C. Kamman, B.M. Mayes, 

and C.L. Folt, 2005: Patterns of Hg bioaccumulation and 

transfer in aquatic food webs across multi-lake studies in the 

Northeast US. Ecotoxicology, 14(1), 135-147.

Chornesky, E.A., A.M. Bartuska, G.H. Aplet, K.O. Britton, J. 

Cummings-carlson, F.W. Davis, J. Eskow, D.R. Gordon, 

K.W. Gottschalk, and R.A. Haack, 2005: Science priorities 

for reducing the threat of invasive species to sustainable 

forestry. BioScience, 55(4), 335-348.

Christen, D. and G.R. Matlack, 2006: Essays: the role of 

roadsides in plant invasions: a demographic approach. 

Conservation Biology, 20(2), 385-391.

Clark, M.E., K.A. Rose, D.A. Levine, and W.W. Hargrove, 2001: 

Predicting climate change effects on Appalachian trout: 

combining GIS and individual-based modeling. Ecological 

Applications, 11(1), 161-178.

Collingham, Y.C. and B. Huntley, 2000: Impacts of habitat 

fragmentation and patch size upon migration rates. 

Ecological Applications, 10(1), 131-144.

f ppy g

Publishing, Champaign, IL, pp. xii-449.

Covington, W.W., R.L. Everett, R. Steele, L.L. Irwin, an

Daer, 1994: Historical and anticipated changes in fo

ecosystems of the Inland West of the United States

of Sustainable Forestry, 2, 13-63.

Currie, D.J., 2001: Projected effects of climate change 

patterns of vertebrate and tree species richness in th

conterminous United States. Ecosystems, 4(3), 216

D’Antonio, C.M., 2000: Fire, plant invasions, and globa

changes, In: Invasive Species in a Changing World

[Mooney, H.A. and R.J. Hobbs (eds.)]. 

D’Antonio, C.M., J.T. Tunison, and R. Loh, 2000: Varia

in the impact of exotic grass on native plant compo

in relation to fi re across an elevation gradient in Ha

Austral Ecology, 25, 507-522.

D’Antonio, C.M. and P.M. Vitousek, 1992: Biological i

by exotic grasses, the grass/fi re cycle, and global ch

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 23, 63-

Dale, V.H., L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R.P. Neilson, M.P. A

M.D. Flannigan, P.J. Hanson, L.C. Irland, A.E. Lug

C.J. Peterson, 2001: Climate change and forest dist

BioScience.

Davis, M.B., 1989: Lags in vegetation response to green

warming. Climatic Change, 15(1), 75-82.

Davis, M.B. and R.G. Shaw, 2001: Range shifts and ada

responses to quaternary climate change: paleoclima

Science, 292(5517), 673-679.

De Steven, D., J. Kline, and P.E. Matthiae, 1991: Long-

changes in a Wisconsin Fagus-Acer forest in relatio

glaze storm disturbance. Journal of Vegetation Scie

201-208.

Back Matter.indd 15 ack Matter.indd 15 
16

Díaz, S., J. Fargione, F.S. Chapin, and D. Tilman, 2006: 

Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS 

Biology, 4(8), e277.

Dixon, G.E., 2003: Essential FVS: A User’s Guide to the Forest 

Vegetation Simulator. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center, Fort 

Collins, CO, pp. 193.

Drake, B.G., M.A. Gonzalez-Meler, and S.P. Long, 1997: More 

effi cient plants: A consequence of rising atmospheric CO2? 

Annual Review Plant Physiology Plant Molecular Biology, 

48, 609-639.

Driscoll, C.T., Y.J.I. Han, C.Y. Chen, D.C. Evers, K.F. Lambert, 

T.M. Holsen, N.C. Kamman, and R.K. Munson, 2007: 

Mercury contamination in forest and freshwater ecosystems 

in the Northeastern United States. BioScience, 57, 17-28.

Duffy, P.A., J.E. Walsh, J.M. Graham, D.H. Mann, and T.S. 

Rupp, 2005: Impacts of large-scale atmospheric-ocean 

variability on Alaskan fi re season severity. Ecological 

Applications, 15(4), 1317-1330.

Dukes, J.S., 2000: Will the increasing atmospheric CO2

concentration affect the success of invasive species. Invasive 

Species in a Changing World. Island Press, Washington.

Dukes, J.S. and H.A. Mooney, 1999: Does global change 

increase the success of biological invaders? Trends in 

Ecology and Evolution, 14(4), 135-139.

Dupouey, J.L., E. Dambrine, J.D. Laffi te, and C. Moares, 2002: 

Irreversible impact of past land use on forest soils and 

biodiversity. Ecology, 83(11), 2978-2984.

Earle, T.C. and G.T. Cvetkovich, 1995: Social Trust: Toward a 

Cosmopolitan Society. Praeger/Greenwood.

Eaton, J.G. and R.M. Scheller, 1996: Effects of climate warming 

on fi sh thermal habitat in streams of the United States. 

Limnology and Oceanography, 41(5), 1109-1115.

y ggy, , 

Ewers, R.M. and R.K. Didham, 2006: Confounding factors i

the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentati

Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Soc

81(1), 117-142.

Felzer, B., D. Kicklighter, J. Melillo, C. Wang, Q. Zhuang, a

R. Prinn, 2004: Effects of ozone on net primary product

and carbon sequestration in the conterminous United Sta

using a biogeochemistry model. Tellus Series B-Chemic

and Physical Meteorology, 56(3), 230-248.

Fenn, M.E., J.S. Baron, E.B. Allen, H.M. Rueth, K.R. Nydic

Geiser, W.D. Bowman, J.O. Sickman, T. Meixner, and D

Johnson, 2003: Ecological effects of nitrogen deposition 

the western United States. BioScience, 53(4), 404-420.

Ferrell, G.T., 1996: The Infl uence of Insect Pests and Pathog

on Sierra Forests. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: fi n

report to Congress II, University of California, Centers f

Water and Wildland Resources, Davis, CA, pp.1177-119

Fiore, A.M., D.J. Jacob, I. Bey, R.M. Yantosca, B.D. Field, A

Fusco, and J.G. Wilkinson, 2002: Background ozone ov

the United States in summer- Origin, trend, and contribu

to pollution episodes. Journal of Geophysical Research, 

107(D15).

Flannigan, M.D., B.J. Stocks, and B.M. Wotton, 2000: Clim

change and forest fi res. Science of the Total Environmen

262(3), 221-229.

Fleming, R.A., J.N. Candau, and R.S. McAlpine, 2002: 

Landscape-scale analysis of interactions between insect 

defoliation and forest fi re in Central Canada. Climatic 

Change, 55(1), 251-272.

Foley, J.A., R. DeFries, G.P. Asner, C. Barford, G. Bonan, S.

Carpenter, F.S. Chapin, M.T. Coe, G.C. Daily, H.K. Gib

J.H. Helkowski, T. Holloway, E.A. Howard, C.J. Kuchar

C. Monfreda, J.A. Patz, I.C. Prentice, N. Ramankutty, 

and P.K. Snyder, 2005: Global consequences of land use

Science, 309(5734), 570-574.

Back Matter.indd 16 ack Matter.indd 16 
Studies From Temperate Evergreen-Deciduous Forests. 

Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Fu, Q., C.M. Johanson, J.M. Wallace, and T. Reichler, 2006: 

Enhanced mid-latitude tropospheric warming in satellite 

measurements. Science, 312(5777), 1179.

GAO, 2004: Challenges to Agency Decision and Opportunities 

for BLM to Standardize Data Collection. Oil and 

gas development GAO-05-124, U.S. Government 

Accountability Offi ce, Washington, DC.

Gates, D.M., 1993: Climate Change and Its Biological 

Consequences. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Massachusetts.

Gottschalk, K.W., 1995: Using Silviculture to Improve Health 

in Northeastern Conifer and Eastern Hardwood Forests. 

Forest Health through Silviculture General Technical 

Report RM-267, USDA Forest Service, Ft. Collins, CO, 

pp.219-226.

Graham, R.T., 2003: Hayman Fire Case Study: Summary. 

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-115.

Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, T.B. Jain, and J.R. Tonn, 1999: The 

Effects of Thinning and Similar Stand Treatments on Fire 

Behavior in Western Forests. General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-463, USDA Forest Service.

Groisman, P.Y., R.W. Knight, D.R. Easterling, T.R. Karl, 

G.C. Hegerl, and V.N. Razuvaev, 2005: Trends in intense 

precipitation in the climate record. Journal of Climate, 

18(9), 1326-1350.

Guarin, A. and A.H. Taylor, 2005: Drought triggered tree 

mortality in mixed conifer forests in Yosemite National 

Park, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 

218(1), 229-244.

Gutierrez, R.J., M. Cody, S. Courtney, and A.B. Franklin, 

2007: The invasion of barred owls and its potential effect 

on the spotted owl: a conservation conundrum. Biological 

Invasions, 9(2), 181-196.

Hance, T., J. van Baaren, P. Vernon, and G. Boivin, 200

of extreme temperatures on parasitoids in a climate 

perspective. Annual Review of Entomology, 52, 107

Handmer, J.W., S. Dovers, and T.E. Downing, 1999: So

vulnerability to climate change and variability. Mit

and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4(3)

267-281.

Hansen, A.J. and R. DeFries, 2007: Ecological mechani

linking protected areas to surrounding lands. Ecolo

Applications, 17, 974-988.

Hansen, A.J., R.R. Neilson, V.H. Dale, C.H. Flather, L.R

Iverson, D.J. Currie, S. Shafer, R. Cook, and P.J. B

2001: Global change in forests: responses of specie

communities, and biomes. BioScience, 51(9), 765-7

Hanson, P.J. and J.F. Weltzin, 2000: Drought disturbanc

climate change: response of United States forests. S

the Total Environment, 262(3), 205-220.

Hanson, P.J., S.D. Wullschleger, R.J. Norby, T.J. Tschap

and C.A. Gunderson, 2005: Importance of changing 

temperature, precipitation, and ozone on carbon an

cycles of an upland-oak forest: incorporating exper

results into model simulations. Global Change Bio

11(9), 1402-1423.

Hardy, C.C., K.M. Schmidt, J.M. Menakis, and N.R. Sa

2001a: Spatial data for national fi re planning and fu

management. International Journal of Wildland Fir

353-372.

Hardy, J.P., P.M. Groffman, R.D. Fitzhugh, K.S. Henry, 

Welman, J.D. Demers, T.J. Fahey, C.T. Driscoll, G.

Tierney, and S. Nolan, 2001b: Snow depth manipul

its infl uence on soil frost and water dynamics in a n

hardwood forest. Biogeochemistry, 56(2), 151-174.

Harmon, M.E. and B. Marks, 2002: Effects of silvicultu

treatments on carbon stores in forest stands. Canad

Journal of Forest Research, 32, 863-877.

Back Matter.indd 17 ack Matter.indd 17 
18

(), 

Hawbaker, T.J., V.C. Radeloff, M.K. Clayton, R.B. Hammer, 

and C.E. Gonzalez-Abraham, 2006: Road development, 

housing growth, and landscape fragmentation in northern 

Wisconsin: 1937-1999. Ecological Applications, 16(3), 

1222-1237.

Hayhoe, K., D. Cayan, C.B. Field, P.C. Frumhoff, E.P. Maurer, 

N.L. Miller, S.C. Moser, S.H. Schneider, K.N. Cahill, 

E.E. Cleland, L. Dale, R. Drapek, R.M. Hanemann, L.S. 

Kalkstein, J. Lenihan, C.K. Lunch, R.P. Neilson, S.C. 

Sheridan, and J.H. Verville, 2004: Emissions pathways, 

climate change, and impacts on California. Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America, 101, 34.

Haynes, R.W., D.M. Adams, R.J. Alig, P.J. Ince, J.R. Mills, and 

X. Zhou, 2007: The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-699, USDA Forest 

Service, Pacifi c Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Haynes, R.W., B.T. Bormann, D.C. Lee, and J.R. Martin, 2006: 

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994-2003): 

Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-651, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Pacifi c Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR, pp.1-292.

Hendrix, P.F. and P.J. Bohlen, 2002: Exotic earthworm invasions 

in North America: ecological and policy implications. 

BioScience, 52(9), 801-811.

Hesseln, H., J.B. Loomis, A. González-Cabán, and S. Alexander, 

2003: Wildfi re effects on hiking and biking demand in 

New Mexico: a travel cost study. Journal of Environmental 

Management, 69, 359-369.

Hicke, J.A., G.P. Asner, J.T. Randerson, C. Tucker, S. Los, R. 

Birdsey, J.C. Jenkins, and C. Field, 2002: Trends in North 

American net primary productivity derived from satellite 

observations, 1982-1998. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 

16(2), 1019.

g, yy, , 

Houlton, B.Z., C.T. Driscoll, T.J. Fahey, G.E. Likens, P.M. 

Groffman, E.S. Bernhardt, and D.C. Buso, 2003: Nitrog

dynamics in ice storm-damaged forest ecosystems: 

implications for nitrogen limitation theory. Ecosystems, 

431-443.

Huntington, T.G., 2003: Climate warming could reduce runo

signifi cantly in New England, USA. Agricultural and Fo

Meteorology, 117(3), 193-201.

Inamdar, S.P., N. O’Leary, M.J. Mitchell, and J.T. Riley, 

2006: The impact of storm events on solute exports from 

glaciated forested watershed in western New York, USA

Hydrological Processes, 20(16), 3423-3439.

Inouye, D.W., B. Barr, K.B. Armitage, and B.D. Inouye, 200

Climate change is affecting altitudinal migrants and 

hibernating species. Proceedings of the National Academ

Sciences of the United States of America, 97(4), 1630-16

IPCC, 2001a: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, a

Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the 

Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Pane

Climate Change. [McCarthy, J.J., O.F. Canziani, N.A. L

D.J. Dokken, and K.S. White (eds.)]. Cambridge Univer

Press, Cambridge, UK.

IPCC, 2001b: Summary for policymakers, In: Climate Chan

2001: the Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 

the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental P

on Climate Change, [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Grigg

M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, and D. Xiaosu (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.

IPCC, 2007: Summary for policymakers, In: Climate Chang

2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Solomon

D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt

Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University P

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Back Matter.indd 18 ack Matter.indd 18 
Johnson, D.W. and S.E. Lindberg, 1992: Atmospheric Deposition 

and Forest Nutrient Cycling. Springer.

Johnstone, J.F., F.S. Chapin, III, J. Foote, S. Kemmett, K. 

Price, and L. Viereck, 2004: Decadal observations of tree 

regeneration following fi re in boreal forests. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research, 34(2), 267-273.

Joyce, L.A., M.A. Fosberg, and J. Comandor, 1990: Climate 

Change and America’s Forests. General Technical Report 

RM-187, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Joyce, L.A., 1995: Productivity of America’s Forests and Climate 

Change. General Technical Report RM-271, US Dept. of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Joyce, L.A., 2007: The impacts of climate change on forestry, 

In: Resource and Market Projections for Forest Policy 

Development: Twenty Five Years of Experience With the 

U.S. RPA Timber Assessment, [Adams, D.M. and R.W. 

Haynes (eds.)]. Springer.

Joyce, L.A., J. Aber, S. McNulty, D. H. Vale, A. Hansen, L. 

C. Irland, R. P. Neilson, and K. Skog, 2001: Potential 

consequences of climate variability and change for the 

forests of the United States, In: Climate Change Impacts on 

the United States: the Potential Consequences of Climate 

Variability and Change, National Assessment Synthesis 

Team Report for the US Global Change Research Program, 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 489-522.

Joyce, L.A. and R. Birdsey, 2000: The Impact of Climate Change 

on America’s Forests. RMRS-GTR-59, USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, 

CO.

Joyce, L.A. and M. Nungesser, 2000: Ecosystem Productivity 

and the Impact of Climate Change. The impact of climate 

change on America’s forests General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-59, US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, 

CO, pp.45-68.

(), 

Karnosky, D.F., D.R. Zak, and K.S. Pregitzer, 2003: 

Tropospheric O3 moderates responses of temperate 

hardwood forests to elevated CO2: a synthesis of m

to ecosystem results from the Aspen FACE project. 

Functional Ecology, 17(3), 289-304.

Kasperson, R.E. and J.X. Kasperson, 2001: Climate Ch

Vulnerability and Social Justice. Stockholm Enviro

Institute, Stockholm.

Keane, R.E., K.C. Ryan, T.T. Veblen, C.D. Allen, J. Log

B. Hawkes, 2002: Cascading Effects of Fire Exclus

Rocky Mountain Ecosystems: a Literature Review. 

Technical Report RMRS-GTR-91, US Department 

Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Resea

Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp.1-24.

Keleher, C.J. and F.J. Rahel, 1996: Thermal limits to sa

distributions in the Rocky Mountain region and pot

habitat loss due to global warming: a geographic 

information system (GIS) approach. Transactions o

American Fisheries Society, 125(1), 1-13.

Kelkar, V.M., B.W. Geils, D.R. Becker, S.T. Overby, an

Neary, 2006: How to recover more value from sma

trees: essential oils and resins. Biomass and Bioene

316-320.

Kelly, E.G., E.D. Forsman, and R.G. Anthony, 2003: Ar

owls displacing spotted owls? Condor, 105(1), 45-5

Kim, J., T.-K. Kim, R.W. Arritt, and N.L. Miller, 2002: 

of increased atmospheric CO2 on the hydroclimate 

the western United States. Journal of Climate, 15(1

1926-1942.

King, J.S., M.E. Kubiske, K.S. Pregitzer, G.R. Hendrey, 

McDonald, C.P. Giardina, V.S. Quinn, and D.F. Kar

2005: Tropospheric O3 compromises net primary p

in young stands of trembling aspen, paper birch and 

maple in response to elevated atmospheric CO2. Ne

Phytologist, 168(3), 623-636.

Back Matter.indd 19 ack Matter.indd 19 
20

and Ecosystems. Union of Concerned Scientists and The 

Ecological Society of America.

Krankina, O.N. and M. E. Harmon, 2006: Forest management 

strategies for carbon storage, In: Forests, Carbon, and 

Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings, 

[Cloughesy, M. (ed.)]. Oregon Forest Resources Institute, 

pp. 77-92.

Kulakowski, D., T.T. Veblen, and P. Bebi, 2003: Effects of fi re 

and spruce beetle outbreak legacies on the disturbance 

regime of a subalpine forest in Colorado. Journal of 

Biogeography, 30(9), 1445-1456.

Lacey, J.R., C.B. Marlow, and J.R. Lane, 1989: Infl uence of 

spotted knapweed (Centaurea-maculosa) on surface runoff 

and sediment yield. Weed Technology, 3(4), 627-631.

Lafon, C.W., 2006: Forest disturbance by ice storms in Quercus 

forests of the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA. 

Ecoscience, 13(1), 30-43.

Lafon, C.W., J.A. Hoss, and H.D. Grissino-Mayer, 2005: The 

contemporary fi re regime of the central Appalachian 

Mountains and its relation to climate. Physical Geography, 

26(2), 126-146.

Ledig, F.T. and J.H. Kitzmiller, 1992: Genetic strategies for 

reforestation in the face of global climate change. Forest 

Ecology and Management, 50(1), 153-169.

Lemmen, D.S. and F.J. Warren, 2004: Climate Change: a 

Canadian Perspective. Natural Resources Canada, Ottowa.

Lenihan, J.M., D. Bachelet, R. Drapek, and R.P. Neilson, 2006: 

The Response of Vegetation, Distribution, Ecosystem 

Productivity, and Fire in California to Future Climate 

Scenarios Simulated by the MC1 Dynamic Vegetation 

Model. Climate action team report to the Governor 

and Legislators, available from http://www.energy.

ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-191/CEC-500-

2005-191-SF.PDF.

(), (), 

Littell, J.S., 2006: Climate impacts to forest ecosystem 

processes: Douglas-fi r growth in northwestern U.S. 

mountain landscapes and area burned by wildfi re in 

western U.S. ecoprovinces. PhD Dissertation, Universit

Washington, Seattle.

Littell, J.S. and D.L. Peterson, 2005: A method for estimating 

vulnerability of Douglas-fi r growth to climate change in 

northwestern US. Forestry Chronicle, 81(3), 369-374.

Logan, J.A. and B.J. Bentz, 1999: Model analysis of Mounta

Pine Beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) seasonality. 

Environmental Entomology, 28(6), 924-934.

Logan, J.A. and J.A. Powell, 2001: Ghost forests, global 

warming, and the mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: 

Scolytidae). American Entomologist, 47(3), 160-172.

Logan, J.A. and J. A. Powell, 2005: Ecological consequences 

climate change altered forest insect disturbance regimes

Climate Change in Western North America: Evidence an

Environmental Effects, [Wagner, F.H. (ed.)]. Allen Press

Lawrence, KS.

Logan, J.A., J. Regniere, and J.A. Powell, 2003: Assessing 

the impacts of global warming on forest pest dynamics. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(3), 130-13

Mack, R.N., 1981: Invasion of bromus tectorum L. into west

North America: an ecological chronicle. Agro-Ecosystem

7(2), 145-165.

Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, R.P. Neilson, L. Hansen, and L. Hann

2006: Global warming and extinctions of endemic speci

from biodiversity hotspots. Conservation Biology, 20(2)

538-548.

Malhi, Y., P. Meir, and S. Brown, 2002: Forests, carbon and 

global climate. Philos Transact Ser A Math Phys Eng Sc

360(1797), 1567-1591.

Back Matter.indd 20 ack Matter.indd 20 
433-449.

McDonald, K.A. and J.H. Brown, 1992: Using montane 

mammals to model extinctions due to global change. 

Conservation Biology, 6(3), 409-415.

McKenzie, D.H., Z. Gedalof, D.L. Peterson, and P. Mote, 2004: 

Climatic change, wildfi re, and conservation. Conservation 

Biology, 18(4), 890-902.

McKenzie, D.H., A.E. Hessl, and D.L. Peterson, 2001: Recent 

growth of conifer species of western North America: 

assessing spatial patterns of radial growth trends. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research, 31(3), 526-538.

McKenzie, D.H., D.L. Peterson, and J. Littell, in press: Global 

warming and stress complexes in forests of western North 

America. Forest fi res and air pollution issues. [Bytnerowicz, 

A., M. Arbaugh, C. Anderson, and A. Riebau (ed.)]. Elsevier 

Science Ltd.

McKinney, M.L. and J.L. Lockwood, 1999: Biotic 

homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in 

the next mass extinction. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 

14(11), 450-453.

McLachlan, J.S., J.J. Hellmann, and M.W. Schwartz, 2007: 

A framework for debate of assisted migration in an era of 

climate change. Conservation Biology, 21(2), 297-302.

McLaughlin, S.B., M. Nosal, S.D. Wullschleger, and G. Sun, 

2007a: Interactive effects of ozone and climate on tree 

growth and water use in a southern Appalachian forest in the 

USA. New Phytologist, 174(1), 109-124.

McLaughlin, S.B., S.D. Wullschleger, G. Sun, and M. Nosal, 

2007b: Interactive effects of ozone and climate on water 

use, soil moisture content and streamfl ow in a southern 

Appalachian forest in the USA. New Phytologist, 174(1), 

125-136.

McNulty, S.G., 2002: Hurricane impacts on US forest carbon 

sequestration. Environmental Pollution, 116(Supplement 

1), S17-S24.

(), 

Melillo, J., A.D. McGuire, D.W. Kicklighter, B. Moore, 

Vorosmarty, and A.L. Schloss, 1993: Global climat

and terrestrial net primary production. Nature, 363(

234-240.

Michener, W.K. and R.A. Haeuber, 1998: Flooding: nat

managed disturbances. BioScience, 48(9), 677-680

Milchunas, D.G. and W.K. Lauenroth, 1995: Inertia in p

community structure - state changes after cessation 

nutrient-enrichment stress. Ecological Applications

452-458.

Millar, C.I., 1989: Allozyme variation of bishop pine as

with pygmy-forest soils in northern California. Can

Journal of Forest Research, 19(7), 870-879.

Millar, C.I., 1998: Reconsidering the conservation of m

pine. Fremontia, 26(3), 12-16.

Millar, C.I., 1999: Evolution and biogeography of Pinu

with a proposed revision of its Quaternary history. N

Zealand Journal of Forestry Science, 29(3), 335-36

Millar, C.I. and L. B. Brubaker, 2006: Climate change a

paleoecology: New contexts for restoration ecology

Press.

Millar, C.I., J.C. King, R.D. Westfall, H.A. Alden, and D

Delany, 2006: Late Holocene forest dynamics, volc

and climate change at Whitewing Mountain and Sa

Ridge, Mono County, Sierra Nevada, CA, USA. Qu

research, 66, 273-287.

Millar, C.I., R.D. Westfall, and D.L. Delany, in press: M

and growth suppression in high elevation limber pi

fl exilis) forests in response to multi-year droughts a

century warming. Canadian Journal of Forest Rese

Millar, C.I. and W.B. Woolfenden, 1999: The role of cli

change in interpreting historical variability. Ecolog

Applications, 9(4), 1207-1216.

Back Matter.indd 21 ack Matter.indd 21 
22

()]pgg, , pp

Milly, P.C.D., K.A. Dunne, and A.V. Vecchia, 2005: Global 

pattern of trends in streamfl ow and water availability in a 

changing climate. Nature, 438(7066), 347-350.

Milne, B.T., V.K. Gupta, and C. Restrepo, 2002: A scale invariant 

coupling of plants, water, energy, and terrain. Ecoscience, 

9(2), 191-199.

Milne, B.T., A.R. Johnson, T.H. Keitt, C.A. Hatfi eld, J. David, 

and P.T. Hraber, 1996: Detection of critical densities 

associated with pinon-juniper woodland ecotones. Ecology, 

77(3), 805-821.

Minnich, R.A., 2001: An integrated model of two fi re regimes. 

Conservation Biology, 15(6), 1549-1553.

Mitchell, J.E., 2000: Rangeland Resource Trends in the United 

States: a Technical Document Supporting the 2000 USDA 

Forest Service RPA Assessment. General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-68, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, 

CO, pp.1-84.

Mohseni, O., H.G. Stefan, and J.G. Eaton, 2003: Global warming 

and potential changes in fi sh habitat in U.S. streams. 

Climatic Change, 59(3), 389-409.

Mooney, H.A. and E.E. Cleland, 2001: The evolutionary impact 

of invasive species. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(10), 

5446-5451.

Mooney, H.A. and R.J. Hobbs, 2000: Invasive Species in a 

Changing World. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Moore, A., B. Nelson, B. Pence, C. Hydock, J. Hickey, P. 

Thurston, S. Reitz, B. White, and R. Kandare, 2006: 

Allegheny National Forest: Ecological Context. 

Moritz, C., 2002: Symposium on biodiversity, systematics, and 

conservation strategies to protect biological diversity and the 

evolutionary processes that sustain it. Systematic Biology, 

51(2), 238-254.

Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2

Declining mountain snowpack in Western North Americ

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 86(1), 

39-49.

Multihazard Mitigation Council, 2006: Natural Hazard 

Mitigation Saves: an Independent Study to Assess the Fu

Savings From Mitigation Activities. Report to FEMA, 

National Institute for Building Sciences, Boston, MA.

Murphy, J.D., D.W. Johnson, W.W. Miller, R.F. Walker, E.F. 

Carrol, and R.R. Blank, 2006: Wildfi re effects on soil 

nutrients and leaching in a Tahoe Basin watershed. Jour

of Environmental Quality, 35, 479-489.

National Assessment Synthesis Team, US Global Change 

Research Program, 2001: Climate Change Impacts on th

United States (Foundation Report). Cambridge Universi

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

National Drought Policy Commission, 2000: Preparing 

for Drought in the 21st Century. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture.

National Research Council, 1987: The Mono Basin Ecosyst

Effects of Changing Lake Level. Mono Basin Ecosystem 

Study Committee, Board on Environmental Studies 

and Toxicology and Commission on Physical Sciences, 

Mathematics and Resources. National Academy Press.

Nearing, M.A., 2001: Potential changes in rainfall erosivity 

in the U.S. with climate change during the 21st century. 

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 56(3), 229-232

Neary, D.G., C.C. Klopatek, L.F. DeBano, and P.F. Ffolliott, 

1999: Fire effects on belowground sustainability: a revie

and synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management, 122(1)

51-71.

Neary, D.G., K.C. Ryan, and L.F. DeBano, 2005: Wildland 

Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Soils and Water. 

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-volume 4, US 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Moun

Research Station, Ogden, UT, pp.1-250.

Back Matter.indd 22 ack Matter.indd 22 
g ggpgp

climate change. BioScience, 55(9), 749-760.

Neilson, R.P. and L.H. Wullstein, 1983: Biogeography of 

2 southwest american oaks in relation to atmospheric 

dynamics. Journal of Biogeography, 10(4), 275-297.

Nilsson, S. and W. Schopfhauser, 1995: The carbon-sequestration 

potential of a global afforestation program. Climatic 

Change, 30(3), 267-293.

Noon, B.R. and J.A. Blakesley, 2006: Conservation of the 

northern spotted owl under the northwest forest plan. 

Conservation Biology, 20(2), 288-296.

Norby, R.J., L. A. Joyce, and S. D. Wullschleger, 2005: Modern 

and future forests in a changing atmosphere, In: A History 

of Atmospheric CO2 and Its Effects on Plants, Animals, 

and Ecosystems, [Ehleringer, J.R., T.E. Cerling, and M.D. 

Dearing (eds.)]. Springer Science and Business Media, Inc., 

New York, pp. 394-414.

Noss, R.F., 1990: Indicators for monitoring biodiversity - a 

hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology, 4(4), 355-364.

Noss, R.F., 2001: Beyond Kyoto: Forest management in a time of 

rapid climate change. Conservation Biology, 15(3), 578-590.

Novacek, M.J. and E.E. Cleland, 2001: The current biodiversity 

extinction event: scenarios for mitigation and recovery. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America, 98(10), 5466-5470.

Nowacki, G.J. and M.G. Kramer, 1998: The Effects of Wind 

Disturbance on Temperate Rain Forest Structure and 

Dynamics of Southeast Alaska. Conservation and resource 

assessments for the Tongass land management plan revision. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-421, US Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacifi c Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR, pp.1-25.

Nowak, R.S., D.S. Ellsworth, and S.D. Smith, 2004: 

Functional responses of plants to elevated atmospheric 

CO2 - do photosynthetic and productivity data from FACE 

experiments support early predictions? New Phytologist, 

162(2), 253-280.

environmental consequences, Chapter 3, In: Draft 

Environmental Impact Assessment, USDA Forest S

available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/ottawa/forest_

management/forest_plan/revision/fp_fi nal/volume_

eis/fi nal_eis_chapter_3.pdf.

Papadopol, C.S., 2000: Impacts of climate warming on 

in Ontario: options for adaptation and mitigation. F

Chronicle, 76(1), 139-149.

Papaik, M.J. and C.D. Canham, 2006: Species resistanc

and community response to wind disturbance regim

northern temperate forests. Journal of Ecology, 94(

1011-1026.

Parker, W.C., S.J. Colombo, M.L. Cherry, M.D. Flannig

Greifenhagen, R.S. McAlpine, C. Papadopol, and T

2000: Third millennium forestry: what climate chan

mean to forests and forest management in Ontario. 

Chronicle, 76(3), 445-463.

Parmesan, C., 2006: Ecological and evolutionary respo

recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, E

and Systematics, 37, 637-669.

Paulson, A., 2007: A speck of a species - felling pines a

West. The Christian Science Monitor, February 22

Peterson, D.L., M.J. Arbaugh, and L.J. Robinson, 1991

trends of ozone-stressed ponderosa pine (Pinus pon

in the Sierra Nevada of California, USA. The Holo

1(50), 61.

Peterson, D.L., M.C. Johnson, D.H. McKenzie, J.K. Ag

Jain, and E.D. Reinhardt, 2005: Forest Structure an

Hazard in Dry Forests of the Western United States

Technical Report GTR-PNW-628, USDA Forest Se

Peterson, G.D., G.S. Cumming, and S.R. Carpenter, 200

Scenario planning: A tool for conservation in an un

world. Conservation Biology, 17(2), 358-366.

Back Matter.indd 23 ack Matter.indd 23 
24

p, (), 

Pounds, A.J., M.R. Bustamante, L.A. Coloma, J.A. Consuegra, 

M.P.L. Fogden, P.N. Foster, E. La Marca, K.L. Masters, A. 

Merino-Viteri, R. Puschendorf, S.R. Ron, G.A. SanchezAzofeifa, C.J. Still, and B.E. Young, 2006: Widespread 

amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by 

global warming. Nature, 439(7073), 161-167.

Preston, B.L., 2006: Risk-based reanalysis of the effects of 

climate change on US cold-water habitat. Climatic Change, 

76(1-2), 91-119.

Price, J.T. and T.L. Root, 2005: Potential Impacts of Climate 

Change on Neotropical Migrants: Management 

Implications. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191, 

USDA Forest Service.

Price, M.F. and G.R. Neville, 2003: Designing strategies to 

increase the resilience of alpine montane systems to climate 

change. Restoration Ecology, 14(2), 170-176.

Pyne, S.J., P.L. Andrews, and R.D. Laven, 1996: Introduction to 

Wildland Fire. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Radeloff, V.C., R.B. Hammer, S.I. Stewart, J.S. Fried, S.S. 

Holcomb, and J.F. McKeefry, 2005: The wildland-urban 

interface in the United States. Ecological Applications, 

15(3), 799-805.

Rahel, F.J., 2000: Homogenization of fi sh faunas across the 

United States. Science, 288(5467), 854-856.

Rahel, F.J., C.J. Keleher, and J.L. Anderson, 1996: Potential 

habitat loss and population fragmentation for cold water 

fi sh in the North Platte River drainage of the Rocky 

Mountains: response to climate warming. Limnology and 

Oceanography, 41(5), 1116-1123.

Reed, D.H. and R. Frankham, 2003: Correlation between fi tness 

and genetic diversity. Conservation Biology, 17, 230-237.

Regier, H.A. and J.D. Meisner, 1990: Anticipated effects of 

climate change on freshwater fi shes and their habitat. 

Fisheries, 15(6), 10-15.

f 

Research, 32(10), 1763-1775.

Rice, K.J. and N.C. Emery, 2003: Managing microevolution: 

restoration in the face of global change. Frontiers in 

Ecology and the Environment, (1), 469-478.

Richards, K.R., R.N. Sampson, and S. Brown, 2006: 

Agricultural & Forestlands: U.S. Carbon Policy Strateg

Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Riitters, K.H. and J.W. Coulston, 2005: Hot spots of perforat

forest in the eastern United States. Environmental 

Management, 35(4), 483-492.

Riitters, K.H. and J.D. Wickham, 2003: How far to the neare

road? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(3), 

125-129.

Root, T.L., J.T. Price, K.R. Hall, S.H. Schneider, C. Rosenzw

and J.A. Pounds, 2003: Fingerprints of global warming 

wild animals and plants. Nature, 421, 57-60.

Ross, D.W., G.E. Daterman, J.L. Boughton, and T.M. Quigle

2001: Forest Health Restoration in South-Central Alask

a Problem Analysis. General Technical Report PNWGTR-523, USDA Forest Service, Pacifi c Northwest 

Research Station, Portland, OR.

Rouault, G., J.N. Candau, F. Lieutier, L.M. Nageleisen, J.C. 

Martin, and N. Warzee, 2006: Effects of drought and hea

forest insect populations in relation to the 2003 drought 

Western Europe. Annals of Forest Science, 63(6), 613-6

Rowley, W.D., 1985: US Forest Service Grazing and 

Rangelands. Texas A & M University Press, College Sta

Texas, 270.

Rueth, H.M., J. S. Baron, and L. A. Joyce, 2002: Natural 

resource extraction: past, present, and future, In: Rocky 

Mountain Futures: an Ecological Perspective, [Baron, J

(ed.)]. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 85-112.

Running, S.W., 2006: Is global warming causing more, large

wildfi res? Science, 313(5789), 927-928.

Back Matter.indd 24 ack Matter.indd 24 
, , pp

CO2 enrichment and climatic change for the geographical 

distribution of two introduced vines in the U.S.A. Climatic 

Change, 16, 31-51.

Sax, D.F. and S.D. Gaines, 2003: Species diversity: from 

global decreases to local increases. Trends in Ecology and 

Evolution, 18(11), 561-566.

Schmidt, K.M., J.P. Menakis, C.C. Hardy, W.J. Hann, and D.L. 

Bunnell, 2002: Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data 

for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, USDA Forest Service.

Schneider, S.H., S. Semenov, A. Patwardhan, I. Burton, C. H. 

D. Magadza, M. Oppenheimer, A. B. Pittock, A. Rahman, 

J. B. Smith, A. Suarez, and F. Yamin, 2007: Assessing key 

vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change, In: Climate 

Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. 

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

[Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der 

Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 779-810.

Schneider, S.H. and T.L. Root, 2002: Wildlife Responses to 

Climate Change: North American Case Studies. Island 

Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 437.

Schoennagel, T., T.T. Veblen, and W.H. Romme, 2004: The 

interaction of fi re, fuels, and climate across rocky mountain 

forests. BioScience, 54(7), 661-676.

Schoettle, A.W. and R.A. Sniezko, in press: Proactive 

management options for high elevation white pines 

threatened by an exotic pathogen. Journal of Forest 

Research.

Scholze, M., W. Knorr, N.W. Arnell, and I.C. Prentice, 2006: 

A climate-change risk analysis for world ecosystems. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America, 103(35), 13116-13120.

pf 

Environment, 262(3), 253-261.

Sitch, S., P.M. Cox, W.J. Collins, and C. Huntingford, 2

Indirect radiative forcing of climate change through 

effects on the land-carbon sink. Nature, 448, 791-7

Skinner, W.R., A. Shabbar, and M.D. Flanningan, 2006

forest fi res in Canada and the relationship to global 

surface temperatures. Journal of Geophysical Rese

Atmospheres, 111(D14), D14106.

Slovic, P., 1993: Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. R

Analysis, 13(6), 675-682.

Smit, B., I. Burton, R.J.T. Klein, and J. Wandel, 2000: A

anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variab

Climatic Change, 45(1), 223-251.

Smit, B. and O. Pilifosova, 2003: From adaptation to ad

capacity and vulnerability reduction, In: Climate C

Adaptive Capacity and Development, [Smith, J.B., 

Klein, and S. Hug (eds.)]. Imperial College Press, L

pp. 9-28.

Smit, B., O. Pilifosova, I. Burton, B. Challenger, S. Huq

Klein, G. Yohe, N. Adger, T. Downing, and E. Harv

2001: Adaptation to climate change in the context o

sustainable development and equity. Climate Chang

Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contributio

Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report o

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [McC

J.J., O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken, and K

White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambri

877-912.

Smit, B. and J. Wandel, 2006: Adaptation, adaptive capa

vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 2

Smith, S.D., T.E. Huxman, S.F. Zitzer, T.N. Charlet, D.C

Housman, J.S. Coleman, L.K. Fenstermaker, J.R. S

and R.S. Nowak, 2000: Elevated CO2 increases pro

and invasive species success in an arid ecosystem. 

408, 79-82.

Back Matter.indd 25 ack Matter.indd 25 
26

Stein, B.A., S.R. Flack, N.B. Benton, and N. Conservancy, 1996: 

America’s Least Wanted: Alien Species Invasions of US 

Ecosystems. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

Stenseth, N.C., N.I. Samia, H. Viljugrein, K.L. Kausrud, M. 

Begon, S. Davis, H. Leirs, V.M. Dubyanskiy, J. Esper, 

V.S. Ageyev, N.L. Klassovskiy, S.B. Pole, and K.S. Chan, 

2006: Plague dynamics are driven by climate variation. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America, 103(35), 13110-13115.

Stephenson, N.L., 1998: Actual evapotranspiration and defi cit: 

biologically meaningful correlates of vegetation distribution 

across spatial scales. Journal of Biogeography, 25(5), 

855-870.

Stewart, I.T., D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger, 2004: Changes 

in snowmelt runoff timing in Western North America under 

a ‘business as usual’ climate change scenario. Climatic 

Change, 62, 217-232.

Stewart, S.I., V.C. Radeloff, and R.B. Hammer, 2006: The 

Wildland-Urban Interface in the United States. The public 

and wildland fi re management: social science fi ndings for 

managers Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-1, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 

Newtown Square, PA: pp.197-202.

Stine, S., 1996: Climate, (1650-1850). Version II, University 

of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 

Davis, pp.25-30.

Suffl ing, R. and D. Scott, 2002: Assessment of climate change 

effects on Canada’s National Park system. Environmental 

monitoring and assessment, 74(2), 117-139.

Sun, G., S.G. McNulty, J. Lu, D.M. Amatya, Y. Liang, and 

R.K. Kolka, 2005: Regional annual water yield from forest 

lands and its response to potential deforestation across the 

southeastern United States. Journal of Hydrology, 308(1), 

258-268.

Sutherst, R.W., 2004: Global change and human vulnerability 

to vector-borne diseases. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 

17(1).

Taylor, A.H. and R.M. Beaty, 2005: Climatic infl uences on fi 

regimes in the northern Sierra Nevada Mountains, Lake 

Tahoe Basin, Nevada, USA. Journal of Biogeography, 

32(3), 425-438.

Tebaldi, C., K. Hayhoe, J.M. Arblaster, and G.A. Meehl, 200

Going to the extremes. Climatic Change, 79(3-4), 185-2

Thomas, C.D., A. Cameron, R.E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L.J. 

Beaumont, Y.C. Collingham, B.F.N. Erasmus, M.F. de 

Siqueira, A. Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Huntley

A.S. Van Jaarsveld, G.F. Midgley, L. Miles, M.A. Orteg

Huerta, A.T. Peterson, O.L. Phillips, and S.E. Williams, 

2004: Extinction risk from climate change. Nature, 

427(6970), 145-148.

Tol, R.S., 2002: Estimates of the damage costs of climate cha

Part II: dynamic estimates. Environmental & Resource 

Economics, 21(2), 135-160.

Toth, F.L., 1999: Fair Weather? Equity Concerns in Climate 

Change. Earthscan, London.

Truscott, A.M., C. Soulsby, S.C.F. Palmer, L. Newell, and P.

Hulme, 2006: The dispersal characteristics of the invasiv

plant Mimulus guttatus and the ecological signifi cance 

of increased occurrence of high-fl ow events. Journal of 

Ecology, 94, 1080-1091.

Turner, M.G., W.L. Baker, C.J. Peterson, and R.K. Peet, 

1998: Factors infl uencing succession: lessons from large

infrequent natural disturbances. Ecosystems, 1, 511-523

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000: Stressor 

Identifi cation Guidance Document. EPA-822-B-00-025, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Offi ce of Water 

Offi ce of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.

Ungerer, M.J., M.P. Ayres, and M.J. Lombardero, 1999: Clim

and the northern distribution limits of Dendroctonus 

frontalis Zimmermann (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Journa

Biogeography, 26(6), 1133-1145.

Back Matter.indd 26 ack Matter.indd 26 
in the United States: 1952 to 2050. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-560, Pacifi c Northwest Research Station, 

Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service, 2004: National Strategy and 

Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management. 

FS-805.

USDA Forest Service, in press: 2005 RPA assessment of forest 

and rangelands. USDA Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service, 2007a: Conservation Education Strategic 

Plan to Advance Environmental Literacy 2007-2012. 

FS-879, United States Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service.

USDA Forest Service, 2007b: USDA Forest Service Strategic 

Plan FY 2007-2012. FS-880, United States Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service Health Protection, 2005: Forest Insect 

and Disease Conditions 2004. 

Van Mantgem, P.J., N.L. Stephenson, M.B. Keifer, and J. 

Keeley, 2004: Effects of an introduced pathogen and fi re 

exclusion on the demography of sugar pine. Ecological 

Applications, 14(5), 1590-1602.

Vaux, H.J., P.D. Gardner, and J. Thomas, 1984: Methods for 

Assessing the Impact of Fire on Forest Recreation. General 

Technical Report PSW-79, US Deptment of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacifi c Southwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA, pp.1-13.

Veblen, T.T., K.S. Hadley, E.M. Nel, T. Kitzberger, M. Reid, 

and R. Villalba, 1994: Disturbance regime and disturbance 

interactions in a Rocky Mountain subalpine forest. Journal 

of Ecology, 82(1), 125-135.

Veblen, T.T., K.S. Hadley, and M.S. Reid, 1991: Disturbance and 

stand development of a Colorado subalpine forest. Journal 

of Biogeography, 18(6), 707-716.

pp

Von Holle, B. and D. Simberloff, 2005: Ecological resis

biological invasion overwhelmed by propagule pre

Ecology, 86(12), 3212-3218.

Wagle, R.F. and J.H. Kitchen, Jr., 1972: Infl uence of fi re 

nutrients in a ponderosa pine type. Ecology, 53(1), 

Walker, B., S. Carpenter, J. Anderies, N. Abel, G.S. Cum

M. Janssen, L. Lebel, J. Norberg, G.D. Peterson, an

Pritchard, 2002: Resilience management in social-e

systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory a

Conservation Ecology, 6(1), 14.

Walker, J.C.G. and J.F. Kasting, 1992: Effects of fuel an

conservation on future levels of atmospheric carbon

Global and Planetary Change, 97(3), 151-189.

Watterson, N.A. and J.A. Jones, 2006: Flood and debris 

interactions with roads promote the invasion of exo

plants along steep mountain streams, western Oreg

Geomorphology, 78, 107-123.

Watts, M.J. and H.G. Bohle, 1993: The space of vulnera

the causal structure of hunger and famine. Progress 

Human Geography, 17(1), 43-67.

Webb, T., III, 1986: Is vegetation in equilibrium with cl

How to interpret Late-Quaternary pollen data. Plan

Ecology, 67(2), 75-91.

Weltzin, J.F., R.T. Belote, and N.J. Sanders, 2003: Biolo

invaders in a greenhouse world: will elevated CO2 

invasions? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environme

146-153.

Werner, R.A., E.H. Holsten, S.M. Matsuoka, and R.E. B

2006: Spruce beetles and forest ecosystems in south

Alaska: A review of 30 years of research. Forest Ec

and Management, 227(3), 195-206.

Back Matter.indd 27 ack Matter.indd 27 
28

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam, 

2006: Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. 

forest wildfi re activity. Science, 313(5789), 940-943.

Western Governors’ Association, 2006: A Collaborative 

Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities 

and the Environment. 10-year strategy implementation plan, 

available from http://www.westgov.org/wga/publicat/TYIP.

pdf.

Wheaton, E., 2001: Changing Fire Risk in a Changing Climate: 

a Literature Review and Assessment. Saskatchewan 

Research Council SRC Publication No. 11341-2E01, 

Saskatchewan Research Council.

Whiles, M.R. and J.E. Garvey, 2004: Freshwater Resources in 

the Hoosier-Shawnee Ecological Assessment Area. General 

Technical Report NC-244, North Central Forest Experiment 

Station, USDA Forest Service, St. Paul, MN, pp.1-267.

Whitlock, C., S.L. Shafer, and J. Marlon, 2003: The role of 

climate and vegetation change in shaping past and future 

fi re regimes in the northwestern U.S. and the implications 

for ecosystem management. Forest Ecology Management, 

178(1-2), 5-21.

Wilbanks, T.J. and R.W. Kates, 1999: Global change in local 

places: how scale matters. Climatic Change, 43(3), 601-628.

Wilcove, D.S. and L.Y. Chen, 1998: Management costs 

for endangered species. Conservation Biology, 12(6), 

1405-1407.

Williams, D.G. and Z. Baruch, 2000: African grass invasion 

in the Americas: ecosystem consequences and the role of 

ecophysiology. Biological Invasions, 2(2), 123-140.

Williams, D.W. and A.M. Liebhold, 2002: Climate change and 

the outbreak ranges of two North American bark beetles. 

Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 4(2), 87-99.

Wilson, J., 2006: Using wood products to reduce global 

warming, In: Forests, Carbon, and Climate: a Synthesis 

of Science Findings, [Cloughesy, M. (ed.)]. Oregon Fore

Resources Institute, pp. 114-129.

Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and A. Davis, 2004: At Ris

Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. 

Routedge, London.

Woodworth, B.L., C.T. Atkinson, D.A. LaPointe, P.J. Hart, C

Spiegel, E.J. Tweed, C. Henneman, J. LeBrun, T. Denett

R. DeMots, K.L. Kozar, D. Triglia, D. Lease, A. Gregor, 

T. Smith, and D. Duffy, 2005: Host population persisten

in the face of introduced vector-borne diseases: Hawaii 

amakihi and avian malaria. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 

102(5), 1531-1536.

Worrall, J.J., T.D. Lee, and T.C. Harrington, 2005: Forest 

dynamics and agents that initiate and expand canopy gap

in Picea-Abies forests of Crawford Notch, New Hampsh

USA. Journal of Ecology, 93(1), 178-190.

Yarie, J., L. Viereck, K. van Cleve, and P. Adams, 1998: 

Flooding and ecosystem dynamics along the Tanana rive

BioScience, 48(9), 690-695.

Ying, C.C. and A.D. Yanchuk, 2006: The development of Bri

Columbia’s tree seed transfer guidelines: purpose, conce

methodology, and implementation. Forest Ecology and 

Management, 227, 1-13.

Yohe, G., N. Andronova, and M. Schlesinger, 2004: To hedge 

not against an uncertain climate future? Science, 305(56

416-417.

Yohe, G.W. and R.S.J. Tol, 2002: Indicators for social and 

economic coping capacity--moving toward a working 

defi nition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental 

Change, 12, 25-40.

Back Matter.indd 28 ack Matter.indd 28 
, (), 

Ziska, L.H., J.B. Reeves, and B. Blank, 2005: The impact of 

recent increases in atmospheric CO2 on biomass production 

and vegetative retention of Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum): 

implications for fi re disturbance. Global Change Biology, 

11(8), 1325-1332.

CHAPTER 4 REFERENCES

Albright, H.M. and M.A. Schenck, 1999: Creating the National 

Park Service. Norman Publishing.

Allen, C.D., 2007: Interactions across spatial scales among 

forest dieback, fi re, and erosion in northern New Mexico 

landscapes. Ecosystems, 10(5), 797-808.

Allen, C.D. and D.D. Breshears, 1998: Drought-induced shift 

of a forest-woodland ecotone: rapid landscape response to 

climate variation. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences of the United States of America, 95(25), 

14839-14842.

Allen, C.D., M. Savage, D.A. Falk, K.F. Suckling, T. Schulke, 

T.W. Swetnam, P.B. Stacey, P. Morgan, M. Hoffman, and 

J.T. Klingel, 2002: Ecological restoration of southwestern 

ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecological 

Applications, 12(5), 1418-1433.

Baron, J.S., 2004: Research in National Parks. Ecological 

Applications, 14(1), 3-4.

Baron, J.S., H.M. Rueth, A.M. Wolfe, K.R. Nydick, E.J. Allstott, 

J.T. Minear, and B. Moraska, 2000: Ecosystem responses 

to nitrogen deposition in the Colorado Front Range. 

Ecosystems, 3(4), 352-368.

Barron, M.G., S.E. Duvall, and K.J. Barron, 2004: Retrospective 

and current risks of mercury to panthers in the Florida 

Everglades. Ecotoxicology, 13(3), 223-229.

Beckage, B., L.J. Gross, and W.J. Platt, 2006: Modelling 

responses of pine savannas to climate change and largescale disturbance. Applied Vegetation Science, 9(1), 75-82.

Brooks, M.L., 1999: Habitat invasibility and dominance 

annual plants in the western Mojave Desert. Biolog

Invasions, 1(4), 325-337.

Brooks, M.L., C.M. D’Antonio, D.M. Richardson, J.B. 

J.E. Keeley, J.M. DiTomaso, R.J. Hobbs, M. Pellan

Pyke, 2004: Effects of invasive alien plants on fi re 

BioScience, 54(7), 677-688.

Brown, D.G., K.M. Johnson, T.R. Loveland, and D.M. 

Theobald, 2005: Rural land-use trends in the conter

United States, 1950-2000. Ecological Applications

1851-1863.

Bulger, A.J., B.J. Cosby, and J.R. Webb, 2000: Current, 

reconstructed past, and projected future status of br

trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) streams in Virginia. Ca

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57(7), 

1515-1523.

Burkett, V., D. Wilcox, R. Stottlemyer, W. Barrow, D. F

J. Baron, J. Price, J.L. Nielsen, C.D. Allen, D.L. Pe

G. Ruggerone, and T. Doyle, 2005: Nonlinear dyna

ecosystem response to climatic change: case studie

policy implications. Ecological Complexity, 2(4), 3

Carpenter, S.R., 2002: Ecological futures: building an 

of the long now. Ecology, 83(8), 2069-2083.

Chase, A., 1987: Playing God in Yellowstone: the Destr

of America’s First National Park. Harcourt Brace, O

FL.

Dale, V.H., L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R.P. Neilson, M.P. A

M.D. Flannigan, P.J. Hanson, L.C. Irland, A.E. Lug

C.J. Peterson, 2001: Climate change and forest dist

BioScience.

Davis, S.M., D.L. Childers, J.J. Lorenz, H.R. Wanless, a

T.E. Hopkins, 2005: A conceptual model of ecologi

interactions in the mangrove estuaries of the Florid

Everglades. Wetlands, 25(4), 832-842.

Back Matter.indd 29 ack Matter.indd 29 
30

yg, (), 

Fahrig, L., 2003: Effects of habitat fragmentation on 

biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and 

Systematics, 34, 487-515.

Finney, M.A., C.W. McHugh, and I.C. Grenfell, 2004: Standand landscape-level effects of prescribed burning on two 

Arizona wildfi res. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 

35(7), 1714-1722.

Ford, D. and P. Williams, 1989: Karst Geomorphology and 

Hydrology. Chapman and Hall, Winchester, MA, pp. 1-320.

Gleick, P.H., 2006: The World’s Water 2006-2007: the Biennial 

Report on Freshwater Resources. Island Press, Washington, 

DC.

Granshaw, F.D. and A.G. Fountain, 2006: Glacier change 

(1958-1998) in the North Cascades National Park Complex, 

Washington, USA. Journal of Glaciology, 52(177), 251-256.

Grayson, D.K., 2005: A brief history of Great Basin pikas. 

Journal of Biogeography, 32(12), 2103-2111.

Gunderson, L.H., 2000: Ecological resilience-in theory and 

application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31, 

425-439.

Gunderson, L.H., 2001: Managing surprising ecosystems in 

southern Florida. Ecological Economics, 37(3), 371-378.

Gunderson, L.H. and C.S. Holling, 2002: Panarchy: 

Understanding Transformations in Systems of Humans and 

Nature. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Hall, M.H.P. and D.B. Fagre, 2003: Modeled climate-induced 

glacier change in Glacier National Park, 1850-2100. 

BioScience, 53(2), 131-140.

Hessl, A.E. and W.L. Baker, 1997: Spruce-fi r growth form 

changes in the forest-tundra ecotone of Rocky Mountain 

National Park, Colorado, USA. Ecography, 20(4), 356-367.

yf gy y, ()

1-23.

Holling, C.S., 1978: Adaptive Environmental Assessment and 

Management. Blackburn Press, Caldwell, NJ.

Huntington, T.G., G.A. Hodgkins, B.D. Keim, and R.W. Du

2004: Changes in the proportion of precipitation occurri

as snow in New England (1949-2000). Journal of Clima

17(13), 2626-2636.

IPCC, 2007: Summary for policymakers, In: Climate Chang

2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Solomon

D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt

Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University P

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Keane, R.E., K.C. Ryan, T.T. Veblen, C.D. Allen, J. Logan, a

B. Hawkes, 2002: Cascading Effects of Fire Exclusion 

in the Rocky Mountain Ecosystems: a Literature Review

General Technical Report RMRSGTR-91, U.S. Departm

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Researc

Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp.1-24.

Knowles, G., 2003: Aquatic life in the Sonoran Desert. 

Endangered Species Bulletin, 28(3), 22-23.

Knowles, N., M.D. Dettinger, and D.R. Cayan, 2006: Trends 

in snowfall versus rainfall in the Western United States. 

Journal of Climate, 19(18), 4545-4559.

Kohut, R.J., 2007: Ozone Risk Assessments for Vital Signs 

Monitoring Networks, Appalachian National Scenic Tra

and Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail. Natural Resou

Report NPS/NRPC/ARD/NRTR-2007/001, US Departm

of Interior, National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorad

Kokko, H. and A. López-Sepulcre, 2006: From individual 

dispersal to species ranges: perspectives for a changing 

world. Science, 313(5788), 789-791.

Back Matter.indd 30 ack Matter.indd 30 
Lettenmaier, D.P., A.W. Wood, R.N. Palmer, E.F. Wood, and 

E.Z. Stakhiv, 1999: Water resources implications of global 

warming: a U.S. regional perspective. Climatic Change, 

43(3), 537-579.

MacAvoy, S.E. and A.J. Bulger, 1995: Survival of brook trout 

(Salvelinus fontinalis) embryos and fry in streams of 

different acid sensitivity in Shenandoah National Park, 

USA. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 85(2), 445-450.

McKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D.L. Peterson, and P. Mote, 2004: 

Climatic change, wildfi re, and conservation. Conservation 

Biology, 18(4), 890-902.

McKenzie, D.H., S. O’Neill, N.K. Larkin, and R.A. Norheim, 

2006: How will climatic change affect air quality in parks 

and wilderness? In: Proceedings of the 2005 George Wright 

Society Annual Meeting [Harmon, D. (ed.)].

Mote, P.W., 2006: Climate-driven variability and trends in 

mountain snowpack in western North America. Journal of 

Climate, 19(23), 6209-6220.

Muir, J., 1911: My First Summer in the Sierra. Houghton Miffl in 

Company, New York.

Murdoch, P.S., J.S. Baron, and T.L. Miller, 2000: Potential 

effects of climate change on surface-water quality in 

North America. Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association, 36(2), 347-366.

National Invasive Species Council, 2001: Meeting the Invasive 

Species Challenge: National Invasive Species Management 

Plan. pp.1-80.

National Park Service, 1998: Natural Resource Year in Review, 

1997. Publication D-1247, Department of the Interior.

National Park Service, 1999: Natural Resource Challenge: The 

National Park Service’s Action Plan for Preserving Natural 

Resources. Natural Resource Information Division, National 

Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.

National Research Council, 2003: Adaptive Monitoring 

Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Rest

Plan. National Academy Press, pp.1-122.

Neufville, R., 2003: Real options: dealing with uncertain

systems planning and design. Integrated Assessmen

26-34.

Paine, R.T., M.J. Tegner, and E.A. Johnson, 1998: Com

perturbations yield ecological surprises. Ecosystem

535-545.

Parmesan, C., 2006: Ecological and evolutionary respo

recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, E

and Systematics, 37, 637-669.

Parsons, D.J., 2004: Supporting basic ecological researc

S. National Parks: challenges and opportunities. Ec

Applications, 14(1), 5-13.

Pauly, D., 1995: Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syn

of fi sheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10(1

430-430.

Peterson, G.D., G.S. Cumming, and S.R. Carpenter, 200

Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an unc

world. Conservation Biology, 17(2), 358-366.

Pitcaithley, D.T., 2001: Philosophical underpinnings of 

National Park idea. Ranger.

Poff, N.L.R., J.D. Olden, D.M. Merritt, and D.M. Pepin

Homogenization of regional river dynamics by dam

and global biodiversity implications. Proceedings o

National Academy of Sciences of the United States 

America, 104(14), 5732-5737.

Raskin, P.D., 2005: Global scenarios: background revie

the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystem

133-142.

Back Matter.indd 31 ack Matter.indd 31 
32

protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbance in 

Florida. Conservation Biology, 9(1), 89-99.

Romme, W.H. and D.G. Despain, 1989: Historical perspective on 

the Yellowstone fi rs of 1988. BioScience, 39(10), 695-699.

Saxon, E., B. Baker, W. Hargrove, F. Hoffman, and C. Zganjar, 

2005: Mapping environments at risk under different global 

climate change scenarios. Ecology Letters, 8(1), 53-60.

Sellars, R.W., 1999: Preserving Nature in the National Parks: a 

History. Yale University Press.

Shaw, J.D., B.E. Steed, and L.T. DeBlander, 2005: Forest 

inventory and analysis (FIA) annual inventory answers the 

question: what is happening to pinyon-juniper woodlands? 

Journal of Forestry, 103(6), 280-285.

Singer, J.F., C.V. Bleich, and A.M. Gudorf, 2000: Restoration of 

bighorn sheep metapopulations in and near western National 

Parks. Restoration Ecology, 8(4), 14-24.

Smith, S.M., D.E. Gawlik, K. Rutchey, G.E. Crozier, and S. 

Gray, 2003: Assessing drought-related ecological risk in the 

Florida Everglades. Journal of Environmental Management, 

68(4), 355-366.

Stanford, J.A. and B. K. Ellis, 2002: Natural and cultural 

infl uences on ecosystem processes in the Flathead River 

Basin (Montana, British Columbia), In: Rocky Mountain 

Futures: an Ecological Perspective, Island Press, Covelo, 

CA, pp. 269-284.

Stewart, I.T., D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger, 2005: Changes 

toward earlier streamfl ow timing across western North 

America. Journal of Climate, 18(8), 1136-1155.

Stohlgren, T.J., G.W. Chong, L.D. Schell, K.A. Rimar, Y. Otsuki, 

M. Lee, M.A. Kalkhan, and C.A. Villa, 2002: Assessing 

vulnerability to invasion by nonnative plant species at 

multiple spatial scales. Environmental Management, 29(4), 

566-577.

yy

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey

pp.1-220.

Unger, S., 1999: The Restoration of an Ecosystem. Everglade

National Park.

Walters, C., 1986: Adaptive Management of Renewable 

Resources. McGraw Hill, New York.

Walters, C., J. Korman, L.E. Stevens, and B. Gold, 2000: 

Ecosystem modeling for evaluation of adaptive managem

policies in the Grand Canyon. Conservation Ecology, 4(

(online).

Walters, C.J. and C.S. Holling, 1990: Large-scale manageme

experiments and learning by doing. Ecology, 71(6), 

2060-2068.

Weiss, J.L. and J.T. Overpeck, 2005: Is the Sonoran Desert lo

its cool? Global Change Biology, 11(12), 2065-2077.

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetn

2006: Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. 

forest wildfi re activity. Science, 313(5789), 940-943.

Williams, J.W., S.T. Jackson, and J.E. Kutzbach, 2007: Proje

distributions of novel and disappearing climates by 2100 

AD. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences o

United States of America, 104(14), 5738-5742.

Willis, K.J. and H.J.B. Birks, 2006: What is natural? The nee

for a long-term perspective in biodiversity conservation

Science, 314(5803), 1261.

Winks, R.W., 1997: The National Park Service Act of 1916: 

contradictory mandate? Denver University Law Review, 

74(3), 575-623.

Back Matter.indd 32 ack Matter.indd 32 
yfy 

Bulletin, 15(2), 282-284.

Araújo, M.B. and M. New, 2007: Ensemble forecasting of 

species distributions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 22, 

42-47.

Araújo, M.B. and C. Rahbek, 2006: How does climate change 

affect biodiversity? Science, 313(5792), 1396-1397.

Bachelet, D., R.P. Neilson, T. Hickler, R.J. Drapek, J.M. 

Lenihan, M.T. Sykes, B. Smith, S. Sitch, and K. Thonicke, 

2003: Simulating past and future dynamics of natural 

ecosystems in the United States. Global Biogeochemical 

Cycles, 17(2), 1045-1066.

Bachelet, D., R.P. Neilson, J.M. Lenihan, and R.J. Drapek, 2001: 

Climate change effects on vegetation distribution and carbon 

budget in the United States. Ecosystems, 4, 164-185.

Barnett, T.P., J.C. Adam, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2005: Potential 

impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snowdominated regions. Nature, 438(7066), 303-309.

Batt, B.D.J., M. G. Anderson, C. D. Anderson, and F. D. 

Caswell, 1989: The use of prairie potholes by North 

American ducks, In: Northern Prairie Wetlands, Iowa State 

University Press, Ames, IA, pp. 204-227.

Berteaux, D., D. Reale, A.G. McAdam, and S. Boutin, 2004: 

Keeping pace with fast climate change: can arctic life count 

on evolution? Integrative and Comparative Biology, 44(2), 

140-151.

Bildstein, K.L., 1998: Long-term counts of migrating raptors: a 

role for volunteers in wildlife research. Journal of Wildlife 

Management, 62(2), 435-445.

Blades, E., 2007: The National Wildlife Refuge System: 

providing a conservation advantage to threatened and 

endangered species in the United States. Thesis.

Pyke, 2004: Effects of invasive alien plants on fi re 

BioScience, 54, 677-688.

Bunn, D., A. Mummert, M. Hoshovsky, K. Gilardi, and 

S. Shanks, 2007: California Wildlife: Conservation 

Challenges. California’s Wildlife Action Plan. Cali

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Burkett, V. and J. Kusler, 2000: Climate change: potent

impacts and interactions in wetlands of the United 

Journal of American Water Resources Association, 

313-320.

Caudill, J. and E. Henderson, 2003: Banking on Nature 

the Economic Benefi ts to Local Communities of Na

Wildlife Refuge Visitation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife S

Division of Economics, Washington, DC.

Chao, P., 1999: Great Lakes water resources: climate ch

impact analysis with transient GCM scenarios. Jou

American Water Resources Association, 35, 1499-1

Cinq-Mars, J. and A.W. Diamond, 1991: The effects of 

climate change on fi sh and wildlife resources. Tran

of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resour

Conference, NAWTA 6, 171-176.

Curtin, C.G., 1993: The evolution of the U.S. National 

Wildlife Refuge System and the doctrine of compat

Conservation Biology, 7(1), 29-38.

Czech, B., 2005: The capacity of the National Wildlife R

System to conserve threatened and endangered anim

species in the United States. Conservation Biology, 

1246-1253.

D’Antonio, C.M. and P.M. Vitousek, 1992: Biological i

by exotic grasses, the grass/fi re cycle, and global ch

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 23, 63-

Daly, C., D. Bachelet, J.M. Lenihan, R.P. Neilson, W. P

and D. Ojima, 2000: Dynamic simulation of tree-gr

interactions for global change studies. Ecological 

Applications, 10(2), 449-469.

Back Matter.indd 33 ack Matter.indd 33 
34

Dettinger, M.D., 2005: From climate-change spaghetti to 

climate-change distributions for 21st century California. San 

Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 3(1), Article 4.

Donahue, D.L., 1999: Western Range Revisited: Removing 

Livestock From Public Lands to Conserve Native 

Biodiversity. University of Oklahoma Press, pp. 1-388.

Dukes, J.S. and H.A. Mooney, 1999: Does global change 

increase the success of biological invaders? Trends in 

Ecology and Evolution, 14(4), 135-139.

Elith, J., C.H. Graham, R.P. Anderson, M. Dudík, S. Ferrier, A. 

Guisan, R.J. Hijmans, F. Huettmann, J.R. Leathwick, A. 

Lehmann, J. Li, L.G. Lohmann, B.A. Loiselle, G. Manion, 

C. Moritz, M. Nakamura, Y. Nakazawa, J.M. Overton, 

A.T. Peterson, S.J. Phillips, K.S. Richardson, R. ScachettiPereira, R.E. Schapire, J. Soberón, S. Williams, M.S. Wisz, 

and N.E. Zimmermann, 2006: Novel methods improve 

prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. 

Ecography, 29(2), 129-151.

Erwin, R.M., G.M. Sanders, and D.J. Prosser, 2004: Changes in 

lagoonal marsh morphology at selected northeastern Atlantic 

coast sites of signifi cance to migratory waterbirds. Wetlands, 

24(4), 891-903.

Fischman, R.L., 2003: The National Wildlife Refuges: 

Coordinating a Conservation System Through Law. Island 

Press, Washington, Covelo, and London.

Fischman, R.L., 2004: The meanings of biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health. Natural Resources 

Journal, 44, 989-1026.

Fischman, R.L., 2005: The signifi cance of national wildlife 

refuges in the development of U.S. conservation policy. The 

Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law, 21, 1-22.

Flannigan, M.D., K.A. Logan, B.D. Amiro, W.R. Skinner, and 

B.J. Stocks, 2005: Future area burned in Canada. Climatic 

Change, 72(1), 1-16.

Galbraith, H., R. Jones, R. Park, J. Clough, S. Herrod-Julius

B. Harrington, and G. Page, 2002: Global climate chang

and sea level rise: potential losses of intertidal habitat fo

shorebirds. Waterbirds, 25(2), 173-183.

Garrott, R.A., P.J. White, and C.A.V. White, 1993: 

Overabundance: an Issue for conservation biologists? 

Conservation Biology, 7(4), 946-949.

Gergely, K., J.M. Scott, and D. Goble, 2000: A new direction 

the U.S. National Wildlife Refuges: the National Wildlif

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Natural Area

Journal, 20(2), 107-118.

Giorgi, F., 1990: Simulation of regional climate using a limit

area model nested in a general circulation model. Journa

Climate, 3(9), 941-963.

Gonzalez, P., R.P. Neilson, and R.J. Drapek, 2005: Climate 

change vegetation shifts across global ecoregions. 

Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting Abstract

90, 228.

Grumbine, R.E., 1990: Viable populations, reserve size, and 

federal lands management: a critique. Conservation Bio

4(2), 127-134.

Guinotte, J.M., J. Orr, S. Cairns, A. Freiwald, L. Morgan, an

R. George, 2006: Will human-induced changes in seawa

chemistry alter the distribution of deep-sea scleractinian 

corals? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4(3), 

141-146.

Hampe, A. and R.J. Petit, 2005: Conserving biodiversity und

climate change: the rear edge matters. Ecology Letters, 8

461-467.

Hannah, L., G.F. Midgley, G.O. Hughes, and B. Bomhard, 2

The view from the Cape: extinction risk, protected areas

and climate change. BioScience, 55(3).

Hannah, L., G.F. Midgley, T. Lovejoy, W.J. Bond, M. Bush, 

Lovett, D. Scott, and F.I. Woodward, 2002: Conservatio

biodiversity in a changing climate. Conservation Biolog

16(1), 264-268.

Back Matter.indd 34 ack Matter.indd 34 
(), 

Harvell, D., K. Kim, C. Quirolo, J. Weir, and G. Smith, 

2001: Coral bleaching and disease: contributors to 1998 

mass mortality in Briareum asbestinum (Octocorallia, 

Gorgonacea). Hydrobiologia, 460(1), 97-104.

Hayhoe, K., D. Cayan, C.B. Field, P.C. Frumhoff, E.P. Maurer, 

N.L. Miller, S.C. Moser, S.H. Schneider, K.N. Cahill, 

E.E. Cleland, L. Dale, R. Drapek, R.M. Hanemann, L.S. 

Kalkstein, J. Lenihan, C.K. Lunch, R.P. Neilson, S.C. 

Sheridan, and J.H. Verville, 2004: Emissions pathways, 

climate change, and impacts on California. Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America, 101(34), 12422-12427.

Hayhoe, K., C.P. Wake, T.G. Huntington, L. Luo, M.D. 

Schwartz, J. Sheffi eld, E. Wood, B. Anderson, J. Bradbury, 

A. DeGaetano, T.J. Troy, and D. Wolfe, 2007: Past and 

future changes in climate and hydrological indicators in the 

US Northeast. Climate Dynamics, 28(4), 381-407.

Hersteinsson, P. and D.W. Macdonald, 1992: Interspecifi c 

competition and the geographical distribution of red and 

arctic foxes Vulpes vulpes and Alopex lagopus. Oikos, 

64(3), 505-515.

Hoekstra, J.M., T.M. Boucher, T.H. Ricketts, and C. Roberts, 

2005: Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of 

habitat loss and protection. Ecology Letters, 8(1), 23-29.

Holling, C.S., 1973: Resilience and stability of ecological 

systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 

1-23.

Holling, C.S., 1978: Adaptive Environmental Assessment and 

Management. Blackburn Press, Caldwell, NJ.

Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der 

Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson, 2001: 

Climate Change 2001: the Scientifi c Basis. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge.

Hulme, P.E., 2005: Adapting to climate change: is there scope 

for ecological management in the face of a global threat? 

Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(5), 784-794.

y, , 

IPCC, 2000: Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. 

[Nakicenovic, N. and R. Swart (eds.)]. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 1-570.

IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptatio

Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to 

Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Climate Change. [McCarthy, J.J., O.F. Canziani, N

D.J. Dokken, and K.S. White (eds.)]. Cambridge U

Press, Cambridge, UK.

IPCC, 2007a: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Scie

Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Four

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

Climate Change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Mannin

Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-996.

IPCC, 2007b: Summary for policymakers, In: Climate 

Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribu

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report o

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Solo

D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. A

Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge Univers

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, U

Iverson, L.R., M.W. Schwartz, and A.M. Prasad, 2004: 

fast and far might tree species migrate in the easter

United States due to climate change? Global Ecolo

Biogeography, 13(3), 209-219.

Iverson, L.R. and A.M. Prasad, 1998: Predicting abunda

of 80 tree species following climate change in the e

United States. Ecological Monographs, 68(4), 465-

Jackson, J.B.C., M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjornd

L.W. Botsford, B.J. Bourque, R.H. Bradbury, R. Co

Erlandson, J.A. Estes, T.P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C.B

H.S. Lenihan, J.M. Pandolfi , C.H. Peterson, R.S. St

M.J. Tegner, and R.R. Warner, 2001: Historical ove

and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Scien

629-638.

Back Matter.indd 35 ack Matter.indd 35 
36

f q, 

61(12), 2392-2400.

Jump, A.S. and J. Peñuelas, 2005: Running to stand still: 

adaptation and the response of plants to rapid climate 

change. Ecology Letters, 8(9), 1010-1020.

Kareiva, P.M., J. G. Kingsolver, and R. B. Huey, 1993: 

Introduction, In: Biotic Interactions and Global Change, 

Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, MA, pp. 1-6.

Knox, J.C., 1993: Large increases in fl ood magnitude in response 

to modest changes in climate. Nature, 361(6411), 430-432.

Kutz, S.J., E.P. Hoberg, L. Polley, and E.J. Jenkins, 2005: Global 

warming is changing the dynamics of Arctic host-parasite 

systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series 

B: Biological Sciences, 272(1581), 2571-2576.

LaPointe, D., T. L. Benning, and C. T. Atkinson, 2005: Avian 

malaria, climate change, and native birds of Hawaii, In: 

Climate Change and Biodiversity, [Lovejoy, T.E. and L. 

Hannah (eds.)]. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 

317-321.

Larsen, C.F., R.J. Motyka, J.T. Freymueller, and K. Echelmeyer, 

2004a: Rapid uplift of southern Alaska caused by recent ice 

loss. Geophysical Journal International, 158(3), 1118-1133.

Larsen, C.F., R.J. Motyka, J.T. Freymueller, K.A. Echelmeyer, 

and E.R. Ivins, 2005: Rapid viscoelastic uplift in southeast 

Alaska caused by post-Little Ice Age glacial retreat. Earth 

and Planetary Science Letters, 237(3), 548-560.

Larsen, C.I., G. Clark, G. Guntenspergen, D.R. Cahoon, V. 

Caruso, C. Huppo, and T. Yanosky, 2004b: The Blackwater 

NWR Inundation Model. Rising Sea Level on a Low-Lying 

Coast: Land Use Planning for Wetlands. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Reston, VA.

Larson, D.L., 1995: Effects of climate on numbers of northern 

prairie wetlands. Climatic Change, 30(2), 169-180.

Lenihan, J.M., R. Drapek, D. Bachelet, and R.P. Neilson, 20

Climate change effects on vegetation distribution, carbo

and fi re in California. Ecological Applications, 13(6), 

1667-1681.

Logan, J.A., J. Regniere, and J.A. Powell, 2003: Assessing 

the impacts of global warming on forest pest dynamics. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(3), 130-13

Lovejoy, T.E. and L. Hannah, 2006: Climate Change and 

Biodiversity. [Lovejoy, T.E. and L. Hannah (eds.)]. Yale 

University Press, New Haven, CT.

MacPherson, A.H., 1964: A northward range extension of 

the red fox in the eastern Canadian arctic. Journal of 

Mammalogy, 45(1), 138-140.

Magnuson, J.J., K.E. Webster, R.A. Assel, C.J. Bowser, P.J. 

Dillon, J.G. Eaton, H.E. Evans, E.J. Fee, R.I. Hall, L.R. 

Mortsch, D.W. Schindler, and F.H. Quinn, 1997: Potenti

effects of climate changes on aquatic systems: Laurentia

Great Lakes and Precambrian shield region. Hydrologic

Processes, 11, 825-871.

Marsh, P. and N.N. Neumann, 2001: Processes controlling th

rapid drainage of two ice-rich permafrost-dammed lakes 

NW Canada. Hydrological Processes, 15(18), 3433-344

Matthews, W.J. and E.G. Zimmerman, 1990: Potential effect

global warming on native fi shes of the southern Great Pl

and the Southwest. Fisheries, 15, 26-32.

McLachlan, J.S., J.J. Hellmann, and M.W. Schwartz, 2007: 

A framework for debate of assisted migration in an era o

climate change. Conservation Biology, 21(2), 297-302.

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, W.D. Collins, J.M. Arblaste

A. Hu, L.E. Buja, W.G. Strand, and H. Teng, 2005: How 

much more global warming and sea level rise? Science, 

307(5716), 1769-1772.

Back Matter.indd 36 ack Matter.indd 36 
Moore, M.V., M.L. Pace, J.R. Mather, P.S. Murdoch, R.W. 

Howarth, C.L. Folt, C.Y. Chen, H.F. Hemond, P.A. Flebbe, 

and C.T. Driscoll, 1997: Potential effects of climate change 

on freshwater ecosystems of the New England/Mid-Atlantic 

Region. Hydrological Processes, 11, 925-947.

Mote, P.W., E.A. Parson, A.F. Hamlet, W.S. Keeton, D. 

Lettenmaier, N. Mantua, E.L. Miles, D.W. Peterson, D.L. 

Peterson, R. Slaughter, and A.K. Snover, 2003: Preparing 

for climatic change: the water, salmon, and forests of the 

Pacifi c Northwest. Climatic Change, 61(1), 45-88.

National Ecological Assessment Team, 2006: Strategic Habitat 

Conservation Initiative Final Report. U.S. Geological 

Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

National Research Council, 2007: Endangered and Threatened 

Fishes in the Klamath River Basin: Causes of Decline 

and Strategies for Recovery. National Research Council, 

Washington, DC.

Neilson, R.P., I. C. Prentice, B. Smith, T. G. F. Kittel, and D. 

Viner, 1998: Simulated changes in vegetation distribution 

under global warming, In: The Regional Impacts of Climate 

Change: an Assessment of Vulnerability, Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, UK, pp. 439-456.

Nichols, J.D., F.A. Johnson, and B.K. Williams, 1995: Managing 

North American waterfowl in the face of uncertainty. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics, 26, 177-199.

Noss, R.F., 1987: Protecting natural areas in fragmented 

landscapes. Natural Areas Journal, 7(1), 2-13.

Oakley, K.L., L.P. Thomas, and S.G. Fancy, 2003: Guidelines for 

long-term monitoring protocols. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 

31(4), 1000-1003.

Omernik, J.M., 1987: Ecoregions of the conterminous United 

States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 

77(1), 118-125.

Parmesan, C. and G. Yohe, 2003: A globally coherent fi 

of climate change impacts across natural systems. N

421, 37-42.

Payette, S., M.J. Fortin, and I. Gamache, 2001: The sub

forest tundra: the structure of a biome in a changing 

BioScience, 51(9), 709-718.

Pearson, R.G. and T.P. Dawson, 2003: Predicting the im

climate change on the distribution of species: are cl

envelope models useful? Global Ecology and Biog

12, 361-371.

Pearson, R.G., T.P. Dawson, P.M. Berry, and P.A. Harri

2002: SPECIES: A spatial evaluation of climate im

on the envelope of species. Ecological Modelling, 1

289-300.

Peters, R.L. and T. E. Lovejoy, 1994: Global warming a

biological diversity, [Lovejoy, T.E. and R.L. Peters 

Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Peterson, A.T., L.G. Ball, and K.C. Cohoon, 2002: Pred

distributions of tropical birds. Ibis, 144, e27-e32.

Peterson, A.T., H. Tian, E. Martinez-Meyer, J. Soberon, 

V. Sanchez-Cordero, and B. Huntley, 2005: Modeli

distributional shifts of individual species and biome

Climate Change and Biodiversity, [Lovejoy, T.E. an

Hannah (eds.)]. Yale University Press, New Haven, 

211-228.

Peterson, A.T. and D.A. Vieglais, 2001: Predicting spec

invasions using ecological niche modeling: new ap

from bioinformatics attack a pressing problem. Bio

51(5), 363-371.

Pidgorna, A.B., 2007: Representation, redundancy, and 

resilience: waterfowl and the National Wildlife Ref

System. Dissertation.

Back Matter.indd 37 ack Matter.indd 37 
38

, , g, p

amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by 

global warming. Nature, 439(7073), 161-167.

Price, J. and P. Glick, 2002: The Bird Watcher’s Guide to Global 

Warming. National Wildlife Federation and the American 

Bird Conservancy, Reston, Virginia.

Randerson, J.T., H. Liu, M.G. Flanner, S.D. Chambers, Y. Jin, 

P.G. Hess, G. Pfi ster, M.C. Mack, K.K. Treseder, L.R. Welp, 

F.S. Chapin, III, J.W. Harden, M.L. Goulden, E. Lyons, J.C. 

Neff, E.A.G. Schuur, and C.S. Zender, 2006: The impact of 

boreal forest fi re on climate warming. Science, 314(5802), 

1130-1132.

Root, T.L., J.T. Price, K.R. Hall, S.H. Schneider, C. Rosenzweig, 

and J.A. Pounds, 2003: Fingerprints of global warming on 

wild animals and plants. Nature, 421, 57-60.

Ross, M.S., J.J. O’Brien, and L.d.S.L. Sternberg, 1994: Sea-level 

rise and the reduction in pine forests in the Florida Keys. 

Ecological Applications, 4(1), 144-156.

Rouse, W.R., M.S.V. Douglas, R.E. Hecky, A.E. Hershey, G.W. 

Kling, L. Lesack, P. Marsh, M. McDonald, B.J. Nicholson, 

N.T. Roulet, and J.P. Smol, 1997: Effects of climate change 

on the freshwaters of Arctic and subarctic North America. 

Hydrological Processes, 11, 873-902.

Roy, S.B., P.F. Ricci, K.V. Summers, C.F. Chung, and R.A. 

Goldstein, 2005: Evaluation of the sustainability of water 

withdrawals in the United States, 1995 to 2025. Journal 

of the American Water Resources Association, 41(5), 

1091-1108.

Rueda, L.M., K.J. Patel, R.C. Axtell, and R.E. Stinner, 1990: 

Temperature-dependent development and survival rates 

of Culex quinquefasciatus and Aedes aegypti (Diptera: 

Culicidae). Journal of Medical Entomology, 27(5), 892-898.

Rupp, T.S., F.S. Chapin, and A.M. Starfi eld, 2000: Response 

of subarctic vegetation to transient climatic change on the 

Seward Peninsula in north-west Alaska. Global Change 

Biology, 6(5), 541-555.

Evaluating causes of population change in North Americ

insectivorous songbirds. Conservation Biology, 10(2), 

465-478.

Schindler, D.W., 1998: A dim future for boreal waters and 

landscapes. BioScience, 48(3), 157-164.

Schoennagel, T., T.T. Veblen, and W.H. Romme, 2004: The 

interaction of fi re, fuels, and climate across rocky moun

forests. BioScience, 54(7), 661-676.

Scholze, M., W. Knorr, N.W. Arnell, and I.C. Prentice, 2006: 

A climate-change risk analysis for world ecosystems. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America, 103, 13116-13120.

Scott, J.M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B. Butterfi eld, C. 

Groves, H. Anderson, S. Caicco, F. Derchia, T.C. Edwar

Jr, J. Ulliman, Jr., and R.G. Wright, 1993: GAP analysis

geographical approach to protection of biological divers

Wildlife monographs, 123, 1-41.

Scott, J.M., P.J. Heglund, M.L. Morrison, J.B. Haufl er, M.G. 

Raphael, W.A. Wall, and F.B. Samson, 2002: Predicting 

Species Occurrences: Issues of Accuracy and Scale. Isla

Press, Washington, pp. 1-868.

Scott, J.M., T. Loveland, K. Gergely, J. Strittholt, and N. Stau

2004: National Wildlife Refuge System: ecological cont

and integrity. Natural Resources Journal, 44(4), 1041-1

Serreze, M.C., J.E. Walsh, F.S. Chapin III, T. Osterkamp, M. 

Dyurgerov, V. Romanovsky, W.C. Oechel, J. Morison, T

Zhang, and R.G. Barry, 2000: Observational evidence of 

recent change in the northern high-latitude environment

Climatic Change, 46(1-2), 159-207.

Shafer, S.L., P.J. Bartlein, and R.S. Thompson, 2001: Potent

changes in the distribution of western North America tre

and shrub taxa under future climate scenarios. Ecosystem

4, 200-215.

Back Matter.indd 38 ack Matter.indd 38 
gpp

Geosciences, 7(1), 3-12.

Sorenson, L.G., R. Goldberg, T.L. Root, and M.G. Anderson, 

1998: Potential effects of global warming on waterfowl 

populations breeding in the Northern Great Plains. Climatic 

Change, 40(2), 343-369.

Soulé, M.E., 1987: Viable Populations. Cambridge University 

Press, New York, NY.

Striegl, R.G., G.R. Aiken, M.M. Dornblaser, P.A. Raymond, and 

K.P. Wickland, 2005: A decrease in discharge-normalized 

DOC export by the Yukon River during summer through 

autumn. Geophysical Research Letters, 32(21), L21413.

Sutherst, R., 2000: Climate change and invasive species: a 

conceptual framework, In: Invasive Species in a Changing 

World, [Mooney, H.A. and R.J. Hobbs (eds.)]. Island Press, 

Washington, DC, pp. 211-240.

Tabb, D.C. and A.C. Jones, 1962: Effect of Hurricane Donna on 

the aquatic fauna of North Florida Bay. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society, 91(4), 375-378.

Thieler, E.R. and E.S. Hammar-Klose, 1999: National 

Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Future Sea-Level 

Rise: Preliminary Results for the U.S. Atlantic Coast. 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-593, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA.

Thieler, E.R. and E.S. Hammar-Klose, 2000a: National 

Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Future Sea-Level 

Rise: Preliminary Results for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico Coast. 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-179, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA.

Thieler, E.R. and E.S. Hammar-Klose, 2000b: National 

Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Future Sea-Level 

Rise: Preliminary Results for the U.S. Pacifi c Coast. 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-178, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA.

Nature, 427, 145-148.

Thuiller, W., S. Lavorel, and M.B. Araujo, 2005: Niche 

properties and geographical extent as predictors of 

species sensitivity to climate change. Global Ecolo

Biogeography, 14(4), 347-357.

Titus, J.G. and C. Richman, 2001: Maps of lands vulner

sea level rise: modeled elevations along the U.S. A

and Gulf Coasts. Climate Research, 18, 205-228.

Tompkins, E.L. and N.W. Adger, 2004: Does adaptive 

management of natural resources enhance resilienc

climate change? Ecology and Society, 19(2).

Turner, B.L., II, R.E. Kasperson, P.A. Matsone, J.J. Mc

R.W. Corell, L. Christensene, N. Eckley, J.X. Kasp

A. Luerse, M.L. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, 

Schiller, 2003: A framework for vulnerability analy

sustainability science. Proceedings of the National 

of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(14

8074-8079.

U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2007: Synthes

Assessment Product 4.1: Coastal Elevation and Sen

to Sea Level Rise. A report by the U.S. Climate Cha

Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global 

Research, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989: Endangered spec

the wake of hurricane Hugo. Endangered Species T

Bulletin, XIV(9-10), 3-7.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996: Land Acquisition 

Planning. 341 FW2.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999: Fulfi lling the Pro

the National Wildlife Refuge System. The National 

Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, De

of Interior, Washington, DC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife 

1986: North American Waterfowl Management Pla

Department of the Interior, Environment Canada.

Back Matter.indd 39 ack Matter.indd 39 
40

F. Bairlein, 2002: Ecological responses to recent climate 

change. Nature, 416, 389-395.

Watson, R.T., M.C. Zinyowera, and R.H. Moss, 1996: Climate 

Change 1995 - Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of 

Climate Change: Scientifi c-Technical Analyses. Contribution 

of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Westbrooks, R.G., 2001: Potential impacts of global climate 

changes on the establishment and spread on invasive 

species. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and 

Natural Resources Conference, 66, 344-370.

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam, 

2006: Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. 

forest wildfi re activity. Science, 313(5789), 940-943.

Wilby, R.L., T.M.L. Wigley, D. Conway, P.D. Jones, B.C. 

Hewitson, J. Main, and D.S. Wilks, 1998: Statistical 

downscaling of general circulation model output: a 

comparison of methods. Water Resources Research, 34(11), 

2995-3008.

Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro, 2007: Adaptive 

Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical 

Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

Winter, T.C., 2000: The vulnerability of wetlands to climate 

change: a hydrologic landscape perspective. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association, 36(2), 305-311.

Zimov, S.A., E.A.G. Schuur, and F.S. Chapin, III, 2006: Climate 

change: permafrost and the global carbon budget. Science, 

312(5780), 1612-1613.

, , , , g

changes in global water resources driven by socio-econo

and climatic changes. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 52

247-275.

Allan, J.D., 1995: Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of 

Running Waters. Kluwer Academic Pub.

Allan, J.D., 2004: Landscapes and riverscapes: the infl uence 

land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecolo

Evolution and Systematics, 35, 257-284.

Allan, J.D. and A.S. Flecker, 1993: Biodiversity conservation 

running waters. BioScience, 43(1), 32-43.

Allan, J.D., M. A. Palmer, and N. L. Poff, 2005: Freshwater 

ecology, In: Climate Change and Biodiversity, [Lovejoy

T.E. and L. Hannah (eds.)]. Yale University Press, New 

Haven.

Arnold, C.L., Jr. and C.J. Gibbons, 1986: Impervious surface 

coverage: the emergence of a key environmental indicat

Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(2), 

243-258.

Bachelet, D., R.P. Neilson, J.M. Lenihan, and R.J. Drapek, 2

Climate change effects on vegetation distribution and ca

budget in the United States. Ecosystems, 4, 164-185.

Baron, J.S., H.M. Rueth, A.M. Wolfe, K.R. Nydick, E.J. Alls

J.T. Minear, and B. Moraska, 2000: Ecosystem response

to nitrogen deposition in the Colorado Front Range. 

Ecosystems, 3(4), 352-368.

Baron, J.S., N.L. Poff, P.L. Angermeier, C.N. Dahm, P.H. Gl

N.G. Hairston, Jr., R.B. Jackson, C.A. Johnston, B.D. 

Richter, and A.D. Steinman, 2002: Meeting ecological a

societal needs for freshwater. Ecological Applications, 1

1247-1260.

Beitinger, T.L., W.A. Bennett, and R.W. McCauley, 2000: 

Temperature tolerances of North American freshwater fi 

exposed to dynamic changes in temperature. Environme

Biology of Fishes, 58, 237-275.

Back Matter.indd 40 ack Matter.indd 40 
yf 

Association, 37, 255-270.

Brown, B.L., 2003: Spatial heterogeneity reduces temporal 

variability in stream insect communities. Ecology Letters, 

6(4), 316-325.

Bunn, S.E. and A.H. Arthington, 2002: Basic principles and 

ecological consequences of altered fl ow regimes for aquatic 

biodiversity. Environmental Management, 30(4), 492-507.

Clarkson, R.W. and M.R. Childs, 2000: Temperature effects of 

hypolimnial-release dams on early life stages of Colorado 

River basin big-river fi shes. Copeia, 2000(2), 402-412.

Collier, M., R.H. Webb, and J.C. Schmidt, 1996: Dams and 

Rivers: a Primer on the Downstream Effects of Dams. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Denver, CO.

Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold, 1978: Water in Environmental 

Planning. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, pp. 1-818.

Dynesius, M., R. Jansson, M.E. Johansson, and C. Nilsson, 2004: 

Intercontinental similarities in riparian-plant diversity and 

sensitivity to river regulation. Ecological Applications, 

14(1), 173-191.

Eaton, J.G. and R.M. Scheller, 1996: Effects of climate warming 

on fi sh thermal habitat in streams of the United States. 

Limnology and Oceanography, 41, 1109-1115.

Ewert, S.E.D., 2001: Evolution of an environmentalist: Senator 

Frank Church and the Hells Canyon controversy. Montana, 

51(Spring), 36-51.

Fitzhugh, T.W. and B.D. Richter, 2004: Quenching urban thirst: 

growing cities and their impacts on freshwater ecosystems. 

BioScience, 54(8), 741-754.

Hassol, S.J., 2004: Impacts of a Warming Arctic. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, UK.

IPCC, 2007a: Summary for policymakers, In: Climate C

2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report o

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Solo

D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. A

Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge Univers

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, U

IPCC, 2007b: Summary for policymakers, In: Climate C

2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contr

of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Repo

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Parr

O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, a

Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Camb

UK, pp. 7-22.

Knighton, D., 1998: Fluvial Forms and Processes: a Ne

Perspective. Oxford University Press, New York.

Lehmkuhl, D.M., 1974: Thermal regime alterations and 

environmental physiological signals in aquatic syst

Thermal Ecology, [Gibbons, J.W. and R.R. Sharitz 

AEC Symposium Series, CONF-730505, pp. 216-2

Leopold, A., 1978: A Sand County Almanac: With Essay

Conservation of Round River. Ballantine Books, N

Lettenmaier, D.P., E.F. Wood, and J.R. Wallis, 1994: H

climatological trends in the continental United Stat

1948-88. Journal of Climate, 7(4), 586-607.

Ligon, F.K., W.E. Dietrich, and W.J. Trush, 1995: Down

ecological effects of dams: a geomorphic perspectiv

BioScience, 45(3), 183-192.

Loomis, J., J. Koteen, and B. Hurd, 2003: Economic and 

institutional strategies for adapting to water resourc

of climate change, In: Water and Climate in the We

United States, [Lewis, W.M., Jr. (ed.)]. University P

Colorado, Boulder.

Back Matter.indd 41 ack Matter.indd 41 
42

McCabe, G.J. and M.P. Clark, 2005: Trends and variability in 

snowmelt runoff in the western United States. Journal of 

Hydrometeorology, 6(4), 476-482.

McCully, P., 1996: Silenced Rivers: the Ecology and Politics of 

Large Dams. Zed Books, London, UK.

McMahon, G. and T.F. Cuffney, 2000: Quantifying urban 

intensity in drainage basins for assessing stream ecological 

conditions. Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association, 36(6), 1247-1262.

Milly, P.C.D., K.A. Dunne, and A.V. Vecchia, 2005: Global 

pattern of trends in streamfl ow and water availability in a 

changing climate. Nature, 438(7066), 347-350.

Moyle, P.B. and J.F. Mount, 2007: Homogenous rivers, 

homogenous faunas. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(14), 

5711-5712.

Murdoch, P.S., J.S. Baron, and T.L. Miller, 2000: Potential 

effects of climate change on surface-water quality in 

North America. Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association, 36(2), 347-366.

Naiman, R.J., H. Décamps, and M.E. McClain, 2005: Riparia: 

Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Streamside 

Communities. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 

1-430.

National Park Service, 2004: Rio Grande Wild and Scenic 

River: Final General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

National Research Council, 1993: Soil and Water Quality: 

an Agenda for Agriculture. National Academy Press, 

Washington, DC.

National Research Council, 2004: Developing a Research and 

Restoration Plan for Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim (Western 

Alaska) Salmon. Washington, DC.

Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, J.D. Allan, P.S. Lake, G. 

Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C.N. Dahm, a

J.F. Shah, 2005: Standards for ecologically successful ri

restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(2), 208-217

Palmer, M.A., C.A. Reidy, C. Nilsson, M. Flörke, J. Alcamo

P.S. Lake, and N. Bond, 2008: Climate change and the 

world’s river basins: anticipating management options. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, DOI: 

10.1890/060148.

Paul, M.J. and J.L. Meyer, 2001: Streams in the urban landsc

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 32, 333-365

Pizzuto, J.E., G. E. Moglen, M. A. Palmer, and K. C. Nelson

2008: Two model scenarios illustrating the effects of lan

use and climate change on gravel riverbeds of suburban 

Maryland, U.S.A., In: Gravel River Beds VI: From Proc

Understanding to the Restoration of Mountain Rivers, 

[Rinaldi, M., H. Habersack, and H. Piegay (eds.)]. Elsev

Poff, J.L., P. L. Angermeier, S. D. Cooper, P. S. Lake, K. D. 

Fausch, K. O. Winemiller, L. A. K. Mertes, and M. W. 

Oswood, 2006: Global change and stream fi sh diversity, 

Future Scenarios of Global Biodiversity, [Chapin III, F.S

O.E. Sala, and E. Huber-Sanwald (eds.)]. Oxford Univer

Press, Oxford.

Poff, N.L., 2002: Ecological response to and management of 

increased fl ooding caused by climate change. Philosoph

Transactions: Mathematical, Physical & Engineering 

Sciences, 360(1796), 1497-1510.

Poff, N.L. and J.V. Ward, 1990: Physical habitat template of 

lotic systems: recovery in the context of historical patter

spatiotemporal heterogeneity. Environmental Manageme

14(5), 629-646.

Poff, N.L.R., J.D. Olden, D.M. Merritt, and D.M. Pepin, 200

Homogenization of regional river dynamics by dams 

and global biodiversity implications. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America, 104(14), 5732-5737.

Back Matter.indd 42 ack Matter.indd 42 
Postel, S.L., 2007: Aquatic ecosystem protection and drinking 

water utilities. Journal American Water Works Association, 

99(2), 52-63.

Richter, B.D., J.V. Baumgartner, R. Wigington, and D.P. Braun, 

1997: How much water does a river need? Freshwater 

Biology, 37(1), 231-249.

Richter, B.D., R. Mathews, D.L. Harrison, and R. Wigington, 

2003: Ecologically sustainable water management: 

managing river fl ows for ecological integrity. Ecological 

Applications, 13(1), 206-224.

Rier, S.T., N.C. Tuchman, R.G. Wetzel, and J.A. Teeri, 2002: 

Elevated CO2-induced changes in the chemistry of quaking 

aspen (Populus tremuloides Michaux) leaf litter: subsequent 

mass loss and microbial response in a stream ecosystem. 

Journal of The North American Benthological Society, 21, 

16-27.

Sala, O.E., F.S. Chapin III, J.J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. 

Bloomfi eld, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L.F. Huenneke, 

R.B. Jackson, A. Kinzig, R. Leemans, D.M. Lodge, 

H.A. Mooney, M. Oesterheld, N.L. Poff, M.T. Sykes, 

B.H. Walker, M. Walker, and D.H. Wall, 2000: Global 

biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science, 287, 

1770-1774.

Shafroth, P.B., J.C. Stromberg, and D.T. Patten, 2002: Riparian 

vegetation response to altered disturbance and stress 

regimes. Ecological Applications, 12(1), 107-123.

Silk, N. and K. Ciruna, 2005: A Practitioner’s Guide to 

Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation. Island Press, 

Washington, DC.

Smith, L.C., Y. Sheng, G.M. MacDonald, and L.D. Hinzman, 

2005: Disappearing Arctic lakes. Science, 308(5727), 1429.

Stewart, I.T., D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger, 2004: Changes 

in snowmelt runoff timing in Western North America under 

a ‘business as usual’ climate change scenario. Climatic 

Change, 62, 217-232.

impact of cold water releases on the critical period 

spawning survival and its implications for Murray 

(Maccullochella peelii peelii): a case study of the M

Mitta river, south-eastern Australia. River Research 

Applications, 21, 1035-1052.

Tuchman, N.C., K.A. Wahtera, R.G. Wetzel, and J.A. T

2003: Elevated atmospheric CO2 alters leaf litter qu

for stream ecosystems: an in situ leaf decompositio

Hydrobiologia, 495(1), 203-211.

Tuchman, N.C., R.G. Wetzel, S.T. Rier, K.A. Wahtera, a

Teeri, 2002: Elevated atmospheric CO2 lowers leaf 

nutritional quality for stream ecosystem food webs

Change Biology, 8(2), 145-153.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000: Nationa

Quality Inventory. EPA-841-R-02-001, U.S. Enviro

Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Van der Kraak, G. and N. W. Pankhurst, 1997: Temper

effects on the reproductive performance of fi sh, In: 

Warming: Implications for Freshwater and Marine 

[Wood, C.M. and D.G. McDonald (eds.)]. Cambrid

University Press, Cambridge.

Vannote, R.L. and B.W. Sweeney, 1980: Geographic an

thermal equilibria: a conceptual model for evaluatin

effect of natural and modifi ed thermal regimes on a

insect communities. The American Naturalist, 115(

667-695.

Vörösmarty, C.J., M. Meybeck, B. Fekete, K. Sharma, 

Green, and J.P.M. Syvitski, 2003: Anthropogenic se

retention: major global impact from registered rive

impoundments. Global and Planetary Change, 39(

169-190.

Vörösmarty, C.J., P. Green, J. Salisbury, and R.B. Lamm

2000: Global water resources: vulnerability from cl

change and population growth. Science, 289, 284-2

Back Matter.indd 43 ack Matter.indd 43 
44

y , , pp

Webster, J.R. and E.F. Benfi eld, 1986: Vascular plant breakdown 

in freshwater ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology and 

Systematics, 17, 567-594.

Williams, G.P. and M.G. Wolman, 1984: Downstream Effects 

of Dams on Alluvial Rivers. Professional Paper 1286, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Washington, DC.

Willis, C.M. and G.B. Griggs, 2003: Reductions in fl uvial 

sediment discharge by coastal dams in California and 

implications for beach sustainability. Journal of Geology, 

111(2), 167-182.

Wohl, E., M. A. Palmer, and J. M. Kondolf, 2008: The U.S. 

experience. Chapter 10, In: River Futures, [Brierley, G.J. 

and K.A. Fryirs (eds.)]. Island Press.

Wolman, M.G., 1967: A cycle of sedimentation and erosion 

in urban river channels. Geografi ska Annaler Series A: 

Physical Geography, 49(2-4), 385-395.

World Commission on Dams, 2000: Dams and Development: 

a New Framework for Decisions-Making. Earthscan 

Publications, London.

Xenopoulos, M.A., D.M. Lodge, J. Alcamo, M. Marker, 

K. Schulze, and D.P. Van Vuuren, 2005: Scenarios of 

freshwater fi sh extinctions from climate change and water 

withdrawal. Global Change Biology, 11(10), 1557-1564.

Sound. Estuaries, 24(2), 228-243.

Arora, V.K., F.H.S. Chiew, and R.B. Grayson, 2000: The use 

of river runoff to test CSIRO 9 land surface scheme in 

the Amazon and Mississippi River Basins. International 

Journal of Climatology, 20(10), 1077-1096.

Baird, D., R.R. Christian, C.H. Peterson, and G.A. Johnson, 

2004: Consequences of hypoxia on estuarine ecosystem 

function: energy diversion from consumers to microbes. 

Ecological Applications, 14(3), 805-822.

Barry, J.P., C.H. Baxter, R.D. Sagarin, and S.E. Gilman, 199

Climate-related, long-term faunal changes in a Californi

Rocky intertidal community. Science, 267(5198), 672-67

Bearden, D.M., 2001: National Estuary Program: a 

Collaborative Approach to Protecting Coastal Water 

Quality. CRS Report for Congress #97-644, Congressio

Research Service.

Beaugrand, G., P.C. Reid, F. Ibanez, J.A. Lindley, and M. 

Edwards, 2002: Reorganization of North Atlantic Marin

Copepod biodiversity and climate. Science, 296, 1692-1

Boesch, D.F., M.N. Josselyn, A.J. Mehta, J.T. Morris, W.K. 

Nuttle, C.A. Simenstad, and D.J.P. Swift, 1994: Scientifi 

Assessment of Coastal Wetland Loss, Restoration and 

Management in Louisiana. Coastal Education and Resea

Foundation, pp. 1-103.

Boicourt, W.C., 1992: Infl uences of circulation processes on 

dissolved oxygen in the Chesapeake Bay, In: Oxygen 

Dynamics in Chesapeake Bay: a Synthesis of Research, 

[Smith, D.E., M. Leffl er, and G. Mackiernan (eds.)]. 

University of Maryland Sea Grant College Publications, 

College Park, Maryland, pp. 1-234.

Borsuk, M.E., D. Higdon, C.A. Stow, and K.H. Reckhow, 20

A Bayesian hierarchical model to predict benthic oxygen 

demand from organic matter loading in estuaries and co

zones. Ecological Modelling, 143(3), 165-181.

Back Matter.indd 44 ack Matter.indd 44 
Breitburg, D.L., C. A. Baxter, R. W. Hatfi eld, R. W. Howarth, 

C. G. Jones, G. M. Lovett, and C. Wigand, 1998: 

Understanding effects of multiple stressors: ideas and 

challenges, In: Successes, Limitations, and Frontiers in 

Ecosystem Science, [Pace, M.L. and P.M. Groffman (eds.)]. 

Springer, New York, pp. 416-431.

Breitburg, D.L., L.D. Coen, M.W. Luckenbach, R. Mann, M. 

Posey, and J.A. Wesson, 2000: Oyster reef restoration: 

convergence of harvest and conservation strategies. Journal 

of Shellfi sh Research, 19(1), 371-377.

Breitburg, D.L. and G. F. Riedel, 2005: Multiple stressors in 

marine systems, In: Marine Conservation Biology: the 

Science of Maintaining the Sea’s Biodiversity, [Norse, E. 

and L.B. Crowder (eds.)]. Marine Conservation Biology 

Institute.

Breitburg, D.L., J.G. Sanders, C.C. Gilmour, C.A. Hatfi eld, R.W. 

Osman, G.F. Riedel, S.P. Seitzinger, and K.G. Sellner, 1999: 

Variability in responses to nutrients and trace elements, and 

transmission of stressor effects through an estuarine food 

web. Limnology and Oceanography, 44(3), 837-863.

Bricker, S.B., C.G. Clement, D.E. Pirhalla, S.P. Orlando, and 

D.R.G. Farrow, 1999: National Estuarine Eutrophication 

Assessment: Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation’s 

Estuaries. National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver 

Spring, MD, pp. 1-71.

Brinson, M.M., 1993: A Hydrogeomorphic Classifi cation for 

Wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4, US Army Engineer 

Waterways Experiment Station; Available from National 

Technical Information Service, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Brinson, M.M. and R.R. Christian, 1999: Stability and response 

of Juncus roemerianus patches in a salt marsh. Wetlands, 

19(1), 65-70.

Brinson, M.M., R.R. Christian, and L.K. Blum, 1995: Multiple 

states in the sea-level induced transition from terrestrial 

forest to estuary. Estuaries, 18(4), 648-659.

plant communities. Oikos, 107(3), 531-540.

Burkett, V., D. Wilcox, R. Stottlemyer, W. Barrow, D. F

J. Baron, J. Price, J.L. Nielsen, C.D. Allen, D.L. Pe

G. Ruggerone, and T. Doyle, 2005: Nonlinear dyna

ecosystem response to climatic change: case studie

policy implications. Ecological Complexity, 2(4), 3

Buzzelli, C.P., R.A. Luettich Jr, S.P. Powers, C.H. Peter

McNinch, J.L. Pinckney, and H.W. Paerl, 2002: Est

the spatial extent of bottom-water hypoxia and hab

degradation in a shallow estuary. Marine Ecology P

Series, 230, 103-112.

Caldeira, K. and M.E. Wickett, 2003: Anthropogenic ca

ocean pH. Nature, 425(6956), 365-365.

Callaway, J.C., J.A. Nyman, and R.D. DeLaune, 1996: 

Sediment accretion in coastal wetlands: a review an

simulation model of processes. Current Topics in W

Biogeochemistry, 2, 2-23.

Carpenter, S., B. Walker, J.M. Anderies, and N. Abel, 2

From metaphor to neasurement: resilience of what 

Ecosystems, 4(8), 765-781.

Carpenter, S.R. and O. Kinne, 2003: Regime Shifts in L

Ecosystems: Pattern and Variation. International E

Institute, Luhe, Germany.

Carpenter, S.R., D. Ludwig, and W.A. Brock, 1999: 

Management of eutrophication for lakes subject to 

potentially irreversible change. Ecological Applica

9(3), 751-771.

Carson, R., 1962: Silent Spring. Houghton Miffl in.

Chmura, G.L., S.C. Anisfeld, D.R. Cahoon, and J.C. Ly

2003: Global carbon sequestration in tidal, saline w

soils. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 17(4).

Back Matter.indd 45 ack Matter.indd 45 
46

Dacey, J.W.H., B.G. Drake, and M.J. Klug, 1994: Stimulation 

methane emission by carbon dioxide enrichment of mar

vegetation. Nature, 370(6484), 47-49.

Dakora, F. and B.G. Drake, 2000: Elevated CO2 stimulates 

associative N2 fi xation in a C3 plant of the Chesapeake B

wetland. Plant, Cell and Environment, 23(9), 943-953.

Davis, M.B., 1983: Holocene vegetational history of the east

United States, [Wright, H.E., Jr. (ed.)]. University of 

Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, pp. 166-181.

Day, J.W., Jr., D.F. Boesch, E.J. Clairain, G.P. Kemp, S.B. La

W.J. Mitsch, K. Orth, H. Mashriqui, D.J. Reed, L. Shabm

C.A. Simenstad, B.J. Streever, R.R. Twilley, C.C. Watso

J.T. Wells, and D.F. Whigham, 2007: Restoration of the 

Mississippi Delta: lessons from Hurricanes Katrina and 

Science, 315(5819), 1679-1684.

Day, J.W., Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Aranc

1989: Estuarine Ecology. Wiley and Sons, New York, N

Dayton, P.K., S. Thrush, and F.C. Coleman, 2002: Ecologica

Effects of Fishing in Marine Ecosystems of the United 

States. Pew Oceans Commission.

Dennison, W.C., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore, J.C. Stevenson, V. 

Carter, S. Kollar, P.W. Bergstrom, and R.A. Batiuk, 1993

Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetat

BioScience, 43(2), 86-94.

Diaz, R.J. and R. Rosenberg, 1995: Marine benthic hypoxia: 

a review of its ecological effects and the behavioural 

responses of benthic macrofauna. Oceanography and 

Marine Biology Annual Review, 33, 245-303.

Dobson, A. and J. Foufopoulos, 2001: Emerging infectious 

pathogens of wildlife. Philosophical Transactions: 

Biological Sciences, 356(1411), 1001-1012.

, , g, , 

802-803.

Cloern, J.E., A.E. Alpine, B.E. Cole, R.L.J. Wong, J.F. 

Arthur, and M.D. Ball, 1983: River discharge controls 

phytoplankton dynamics in the Northern San Francisco Bay 

Estuary. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 16(4).

Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana, 

2007: Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a 

Sustainable Coast. Coastal Protection and Restoration 

Authority of Louisiana.

Coen, L.D., M. W. Luckenbach, and D. L. Breitburg, 1999: The 

role of oyster reefs as essential fi sh habitat: a review of 

current knowledge and some new perspectives, [Benaka, 

L.R. (ed.)]. Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 438-454.

Committee on Mitigating Shore Erosion along Sheltered 

Coasts, National Research Council, 2006: Mitigating Shore 

Erosion Along Sheltered Coasts. pp.1-188.

Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses, National Research 

Council, 2001: Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the 

Clean Water Act. National Academies Press, Washington, 

DC.

Conley, D.J., S. Markager, J. Andersen, T. Ellermann, and L.M. 

Svendsen, 2002: Coastal eutrophication and the Danish 

national aquatic monitoring and assessment program. 

Estuaries, 25(4), 848-861.

Cooper, S.R. and G.S. Brush, 1993: A 2,500-year history of 

anoxia and eutrophication in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries, 16, 

617-626.

Cooper, S.R., S.K. McGlothlin, M. Madritch, and D.L. Jones, 

2004: Paleoecological evidence of human impacts on the 

Neuse and Pamlico Estuaries of North Carolina, USA. 

Estuaries, 27(4), 617-633.

Copeland, B.J., 1966: Effects of decreased river fl ow on 

estuarine ecology. Journal Water Pollution Control 

Federation, 38, 1831-1839.

Back Matter.indd 46 ack Matter.indd 46 
, pp

Drake, B.G., M.S. Muehe, G. Peresta, M.A. Gonzalez-Meler, 

and R. Matamala, 1995: Acclimation of photosynthesis, 

respiration and ecosystem carbon fl ux of a wetland on 

Chesapeake Bay, Maryland to elevated atmospheric CO2

concentration. Plant and Soil, 187(2), 111-118.

Duarte, C.M., 1991: Seagrass depth limits. Aquatic Botany, 

40(4), 363-377.

Duffy, J.E., 2002: Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the 

consumer connection. Oikos, 99(2), 201-219.

Emanuel, K., 2005: Increasing destructiveness of tropical 

cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature, 436(7051), 

686-688.

Fagherazzi, S., L. Carniello, L. D’Alpaos, and A. Defi na, 2006: 

Critical bifurcation of shallow microtidal landforms in tidal 

fl ats and salt marshes. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(22), 

8337-8341.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1991: Projected 

Impact of Relative Sea Level Rise on the National Flood 

Insurance Program. Washington, DC.

Feely, R.A., C.L. Sabine, K. Lee, W. Berelson, J. Kleypas, V.J. 

Fabry, and F.J. Millero, 2004: Impact of anthropogenic CO2

on the CaCO3 system in the oceans. Science, 305(5682), 

362-366.

Foley, J.A., R. DeFries, G.P. Asner, C.C. Barford, G.B. Bonan, 

S.R. Carpenter, F.S. Chapin III, M.T. Coe, G.C. Daily, 

H.K. Gibbs, J.H. Helkowski, T. Holloway, E.A. Howard, 

C.J. Kucharik, C. Monfreda, J. Patz, I.C. Prentice, N. 

Ramankutty, and P.K. Snyder, 2005: Global consequences of 

land use. Science, 309(5734), 570-574.

Folke, C., S. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Elmqvist, 

L.H. Gunderson, and C.S. Holling, 2004: Regime shifts, 

resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. 

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 35, 557-581.

Galbraith, H., R. Jones, R. Park, J. Clough, S. Herrod-J

B. Harrington, and G. Page, 2002: Global climate c

and sea level rise: potential losses of intertidal habi

shorebirds. Waterbirds, 25(2), 173-183.

Gedney, N., P.M. Cox, R.A. Betts, O. Boucher, C. Hunt

and P.A. Stott, 2006: Detection of a direct carbon d

effect in continental river runoff records. Nature, 43

835-838.

Goldburg, R. and T. Triplett, 1997: Murky Waters: 

Environmental Effects of Aquaculture in the U.S.

Environmental Defense Fund.

González, J.L. and T.E. Törnqvist, 2006: Coastal Louisi

in crisis: subsidence or sea level rise? Eos, Transac

American Geophysical Union, 87(45), 493-498.

Greenberg, R., J.E. Maldonado, S. Droege, and M.V. 

McDonald, 2006: A global perspective on the evolu

and conservation of their terrestrial vertebrates. Bio

56(8), 675-685.

Griffi n, D.A. and P.H. LeBlond, 1990: Estuary/ocean ex

controlled by spring-neap tidal mixing. Estuarine C

and Shelf Science, 30(3), 275-297.

Groffman, P.M., J.S. Baron, T. Blett, A.J. Gold, I. Good

L.H. Gunderson, B.M. Levinson, M.A. Palmer, H.W

G.D. Peterson, N.L. Poff, D.W. Rejesk, J. Reynolds

Turner, K.C. Weathers, and J. Wiens, 2006: Ecolog

thresholds: the key to successful environmental ma

or an important concept with no practical applicatio

Ecosystems, 9(1), 1-13.

Grumbine, R.E., 1994: What is ecosystem management

Conservation Biology, 8(1), 27-38.

Guenette, S., T. Lauck, and C. Clark, 1998: Marine rese

from Beverton and Holt to the present. Reviews in F

Biology and Fisheries, 8(3), 251-272.

Back Matter.indd 47 ack Matter.indd 47 
48

f gy, (), 

Hall, S.R., A.J. Tessier, M.A. Duffy, M. Huebner, and C.E. 

Cbceres, 2006: Warmer does not have to mean sicker: 

temperature and predators can jointly drive timing of 

epidemics. Ecology, 87(7), 1684-1695.

Halpern, B.S., 2003: The impact of marine reserves: Do reserves 

work and does reserve size matter? Ecological Applications, 

13(1), S117-S137.

Harley, C.D.G. and R. Hughes, 2006: Reviews and synthesis: 

the impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. 

Ecology Letters, 9(2), 228-241.

Harris, L.D. and W. P. Cropper Jr., 1992: Between the devil 

and the deep blue sea: implications of climate change 

for Florida’s fauna, In: Global Warming and Biological 

Diversity, [Peters, R.L. and T.E. Lovejoy (eds.)]. Yale 

University Press, New Haven, CT, pp. 309-324.

Harvell, C.D., C.E. Mitchell, J.R. Ward, S. Altizer, A.P. Dobson, 

R.S. Ostfeld, and M.D. Samuel, 2002: Climate warming 

and disease risks for terrestrial and marine biota. Science, 

296(5576), 2158-2162.

Harvell, D., R. Aronson, N. Baron, J. Connell, A. Dobson, S. 

Ellner, L. Gerber, K. Kim, A. Kuris, and H. McCallum, 

2004: The rising tide of ocean diseases: unsolved problems 

and research priorities. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment, 2(7), 375-382.

Hauxwell, J., J. Cebrian, C. Furlong, and I. Valiela, 2001: 

Macroalgal canopies contribute to eelgrass (Zostera marina) 

decline in temperate estuarine ecosystems. Ecology, 82(4), 

1007-1022.

Hayden, B.P., M.C.F.V. Santos, G. Shao, and R.C. Kochel, 1995: 

Geomorphological controls on coastal vegetation at the 

Virginia Coast Reserve. Geomorphology, 13, 283-300.

Howarth, R.W., D.P. Swaney, T.J. Butler, and R. Marino, 200

Climatic control on eutrophication of the Hudson River 

estuary. Ecosystems, 3(2), 210-215.

Hughes, A.R. and J.J. Stachowicz, 2004: Genetic diversity 

enhances the resistance of a seagrass ecosystem to 

disturbance. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences of the United States of America 2004.

IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, an

Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the 

Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Pane

Climate Change. [McCarthy, J.J., O.F. Canziani, N.A. L

D.J. Dokken, and K.S. White (eds.)]. Cambridge Univer

Press, Cambridge, UK.

IPCC, 2007: Summary for policymakers, In: Climate Chang

2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Solomon

D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt

Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University P

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Jackson, J.B.C., M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjorndal, 

L.W. Botsford, B.J. Bourque, R.H. Bradbury, R. Cooke, 

J. Erlandson, and J.A. Estes, 2001: Historical overfi shin

and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science, 

293(5530), 629-638.

Jones, C.G., J.H. Lawton, and M. Shachak, 1994: Organisms 

ecosystem engineers. Oikos, 69(3), 373-386.

Kates, R.W., C.E. Colten, S. Laska, and S.P. Leatherman, 20

Reconstruction of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: 

research perspective. Proceedings of the National Acade

of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(40), 

14653-14660.

Kemp, W.M., P.A. Sampou, J. Garber, J. Tuttle, and W.R. 

Boynton, 1992: Seasonal depletion of oxygen from botto

waters of Chesapeake Bay: roles of benthic and plankton

respiration and physical exchange processes. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series, 85(1).

Back Matter.indd 48 ack Matter.indd 48 
Sabine, and L.L. Robbins, 2006: Impacts of Ocean 

Acidifi cation on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifi ers: 

a Guide for Future Research. Workshop Report, National 

Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Kuenzler, E.J., P.J. Mulholland, L.A. Ruley, and R.P. Sniffen, 

1977: Water Quality in North Carolina Coastal Plain 

Streams and Effects of Channelization. 127, Water 

Resources Research Institute of the University of North 

Carolina, Raleigh, NC.

Lafferty, K.D. and L.R. Gerber, 2002: Good medicine for 

conservation biology: the intersection of epidemiology and 

conservation theory. Conservation Biology, 16(3), 593-604.

Lafferty, K.D., J.W. Porter, and S.E. Ford, 2004: Are diseases 

increasing in the ocean? Annual Review of Ecology, 

Evolution and Systematics, 35, 31-54.

Lee, K.N., 1993: Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science 

and Politics for the Environment. Island Press, Washington, 

DC.

Lenihan, H.S. and C.H. Peterson, 1998: How habitat degradation 

through fi shery disturbance enhances impacts of hypoxia on 

oyster reefs. Ecological Applications, 8(1), 128-140.

Lenihan, H.S., C.H. Peterson, J.E. Byers, J.H. Grabowski, 

G.W. Thayer, and D.R. Colby, 2001: Cascading of habitat 

degradation: oyster reefs invaded by refugee fi shes escaping 

stress. Ecological Applications, 11(3), 764-782.

Leonard, L., T. Clayton, and O. Pilkey, 1990: An analysis of 

replenished beach design parameters on U. S. East Coast 

barrier islands. Journal of Coastal Research, 6(1), 15-36.

Leung, L.Y.R. and Y. Qian, 2003: Changes in seasonal and 

extreme hydrologic conditions of the Georgia Basin/Puget 

Sound in an ensemble regional climate simulation for the 

mid-century. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 28(4), 

605-631.

, , p, g

and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas

312(5781), 1806-1809.

Lyman, J.M., J.K. Willis, and G.C. Johnson, 2006: Rece

cooling of the upper ocean. Geophysical Research 

33, L18604.

Mallin, M.A., H.W. Paerl, J. Rudek, and P.W. Bates, 199

Regulation of estuarine primary production by wate

rainfall and river fl ow. Marine Ecology Progress Se

93(1/2), 1999-203.

Marks, D., J. Kimball, D. Tingey, and T. Link, 1998: Th

sensitivity of snowmelt processes to climate condit

forest cover during rain-on-snow: a case study of th

Pacifi c Northwest fl ood. Hydrological Processes, 1

1569-1587.

Marsh, A.S., D.P. Rasse, B.G. Drake, and J.P. Megoniga

Effect of elevated CO2 on carbon pools and fl uxes i

brackish marsh. Estuaries, 28, 695-704.

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, W.D. Collins, J.M. Arb

A. Hu, L.E. Buja, W.G. Strand, and H. Teng, 2005: 

much more global warming and sea level rise? Scie

307(5716), 1769-1772.

Meyer, D.L., E.C. Townsend, and G.W. Thayer, 1997: 

Stabilization and erosion control value of oyster cu

intertidal marsh. Restoration Ecology, 5(1), 93-99.

Meyer, J.N. and R.T. Di Giulio, 2003: Heritable adaptat

fi tness costs in killifi sh (Fundulus heteroclitus) inha

polluted estuary. Ecological Applications, 13(2), 49

Micheli, F., B.S. Halpern, L.W. Botsford, and R.R. Warn

Trajectories and correlates of community change in 

marine reserves. Ecological Applications, 14(6), 17

Micheli, F. and C.H. Peterson, 1999: Estuarine vegetate

as corridors for predator movements. Conservation 

13(4), 869-881.

Back Matter.indd 49 ack Matter.indd 49 
50

New York.

Mooney, H.A. and R.J. Hobbs, 2000: Invasive Species in a 

Changing World. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Moorhead, K.K. and M.M. Brinson, 1995: Response of wetlands 

to rising sea level in the lower coastal plain of North 

Carolina. Ecological Applications, 5(1), 261-271.

Morris, J.T., P.V. Sundareshwar, C.T. Nietch, B. Kjerfve, and 

D.R. Cahoon, 2002: Responses of coastal wetlands to rising 

sea level. Ecology, 83(10), 2869-2877.

Mote, P.W., 2006: Climate-driven variability and trends in 

mountain snowpack in western North America. Journal of 

Climate, 19(23), 6209-6220.

Mote, P.W., E.A. Parson, A.F. Hamlet, W.S. Keeton, D. 

Lettenmaier, N. Mantua, E.L. Miles, D.W. Peterson, D.L. 

Peterson, R. Slaughter, and A.K. Snover, 2003: Preparing 

for climatic change: the water, salmon, and forests of the 

Pacifi c Northwest. Climatic Change, 61(1), 45-88.

Mullins, P.H. and T.C. Marks, 1987: Flowering phenology and 

seed production of Spartina anglica. Journal of Ecology, 

25(4), 1037-1048.

Mydlarz, L.D., L.E. Jones, and C.D. Harvell, 2006: Innate 

immunity, environmental drivers, and disease ecology of 

marine and freshwater invertebrates. Annual Review of 

Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 37, 251-288.

Myers, R.A., J.K. Baum, T.D. Shapherd, S.P. Powers, and 

C.H. Peterson, 2007: Cascading effects of the loss of apex 

predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science, 315(5820), 

1846-1850.

Naeem, S., 2002: Ecosystem consequences of biodiversity loss: 

The evolution of a paradigm. Ecology, 83(6), 1537-1552.

National Assessment Synthesis Team, 2000: Climate Change 

Impacts on the United States: the Potential Consequences 

of Climate Variability and Change. U.S. Global Change 

Research Program, Washington, DC.

Newell, R.I.E., J.C. Cornwell, and M.S. Owens, 2002: Infl uen

of simulated bivalve biodeposition and microphytobenth

on sediment nitrogen dynamics: a laboratory study. 

Limnology and Oceanography, 47(5), 1367-1379.

Newell, R.I.E. and J. A. Ott, 1999: Macrobenthic communitie

and eutrophication, In: Ecosystems at the Land-Sea Mar

Drainage Basin to Coastal Sea, [Malone, T.C., A. Malej

L. Harding, N. Smodlaka, and R. Turner (eds.)]. Americ

Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 265-293.

Nixon, S.W., 1995: Coastal marine eutrophication: a defi nitio

social causes, and future concerns. Ophelia, 41, 199-219

Offi cer, C.B., R.B. Biggs, J.L. Taft, L.E. Cronin, M.A. Tyler, 

and W.R. Boynton, 1984: Chesapeake Bay anoxia: origi

development, and signifi cance. Science, 223(4631), 22-2

Orr, J.C., V.J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S.C. Doney, R.A. 

Feely, A. Gnanadesikan, N. Gruber, A. Ishida, and F. Joo

2005: Anthropogenic ocean acidifi cation over the twenty

fi rst century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nat

437(7059), 681-686.

Orth, R.J., T.J.B. Carruthers, W.C. Dennison, C.M. Duarte, J

Fourqurean, K.L. Keck, Jr., A.R. Hughes, G.A. Kendrick

W.H. Kenworthy, S. Olyarnik, F.T. Short, M. Waycott, a

S.L. Williams, 2006: A global crisis for seagrass ecosyst

BioScience, 56(12), 987-996.

Otto-Bliesner, B.L., S.J. Marshall, J.T. Overpeck, G.H. Mille

and A. Hu, 2006: Simulating arctic climate warmth and 

icefi eld retreat in the last interglaciation. Science, 311(57

1751-1753.

Overpeck, J.T., B.L. Otto-Bliesner, G.H. Miller, D.R. Muhs, 

R.B. Alley, and J.T. Kiehl, 2006: Paleoclimatic evidence 

future ice-sheet instability and rapid sea-level rise. Scien

311(5768), 1747-1750.

Paerl, H.W. and J.D. Bales, 2001: Ecosystem impacts of thre

sequential hurricanes (Dennis, Floyd, and Irene) on the 

United States’ largest lagoonal estuary, Pamlico Sound, 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America, 98(10), 5655-5660.

Back Matter.indd 50 ack Matter.indd 50 
y y

fi shing- global warming implications. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society, 127(6), 908-920.

Parmesan, C. and H. Galbraith, 2004: Observed Impacts of 

Global Climate Change in the US. Pew Center on Global 

Climate Change, Arlington, VA.

Parmesan, C. and G. Yohe, 2003: A globally coherent fi ngerprint 

of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature, 

421, 37-42.

Parmesan, C., 2006: Ecological and evolutionary responses to 

recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution 

and Systematics, 37, 637-669.

Parson, E.A., P. W. Mote, A. Hamlet, N. Mantua, A. Snover, 

W. Keeton, E. Miles, D. Canning, and K. G. Ideker, 2001: 

Potential consequences of climate variability and change for 

the Pacifi c Northwest, In: The Potential Consequences of 

Climate Variability and Change: Foundation Report, Report 

by the National Assessment Synthesis Team for the US 

Global Change Research Program, Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 247-281.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, and F. 

Torres, Jr., 1998: Fishing down marine food webs. Science, 

279(5352), 860-863.

Peterson, C.H. and R. Black, 1988: Density-dependent mortality 

caused by physical stress interacting with biotic history. 

American Naturalist, 131(2), 257-270.

Peterson, C.H. and J. A. Estes, 2001: Conservation and 

management of marine communities, [Bertness, M.D., S.D. 

Gaines, and M.E. Hay (eds.)]. pp. 469-508.

Peterson, C.H., S.D. Rice, J.W. Short, D. Esler, J.L. Bodkin, 

B.E. Ballachey, and D.B. Irons, 2003: Long-term ecosystem 

response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science, 302(5653), 

2082-2086.

Peterson, D., D. Cayan, J. DiLeo, M. Noble, and M. Dettinger, 

1995: The role of climate in estuarine variability. American 

Scientist, 83(1), 58-67.

Pielke, R., G. Prins, S. Rayner, and D. Sarewitz, 2007: C

change 2007: lifting the taboo on adaptation. Natur

597-598.

Pikitch, E.K., C. Santora, E.A. Babcock, A. Bakun, R. B

D.O. Conover, P. Dayton, P. Doukakis, D. Fluharty

Heneman, 2004: Ecosystem-based fi shery managem

Science, 305(5682), 346-347.

Pilkey, O.H. and H.L. Wright III, 1988: Seawalls versus 

Journal of Coastal Research, 4, 41-64.

Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Preste

B.D. Richter, R. Sparks, and J. Stromberg, 1997: T

fl ow regime: a new paradigm for riverine conservat

restoration. BioScience, 47, 769-784.

Postel, S., 1992: The Last Oasis-Facing Water Scarcity. 

& Co, New York.

Poulin, R., 2005: Global warming and temperature-med

increases in cercarial emergence in trematode paras

Parasitology, 132(01), 143-151.

Poulin, R. and K.N. Mouritsen, 2006: Climate change, p

and the structure of intertidal ecosystems. Journal o

Helminthology, 80(2), 183-191.

Pritchard, D.W., 1967: What Is an Estuary: Physical Vi

Publication Number 83, American Association for t

Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, pp.3-5.

Purcell, J.E., F.P. Cresswell, D.G. Cargo, and V.S. Kenn

1991: Differential ingestion and digestion of bivalv

larvae by the scyphozoan Chrysaora quinquecirrha 

ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi. Biological Bulletin, 

Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, 180(1), 103-11

Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, and D. Scavia, 2002: Beyo

science into policy: Gulf of Mexico hypoxia and th

Mississippi River. BioScience, 52(2), 129-142.

Back Matter.indd 51 ack Matter.indd 51 
52

Landforms, 20(1), 39-48.

Reed, D.J., 2002: Sea-level rise and coastal marsh sustainability: 

geological and ecological factors in the Mississippi Delta 

plain. Geomorphology, 48(1), 233-243.

Remane, A. and C. Schlieper, 1971: Biology of Brackish Water. 

Wiley Interscience Division, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 

NY.

Riggs, S.R., 2002: The Soundfront Series: Shoreline Erosion in 

North Carolina Estuaries. UNC-SG-01-11.

Riggs, S.R. and D.V. Ames, 2003: Drowning the North Carolina 

Coast: Sea-Level Rise and Estuarine Dynamics. UNCSG-03-04, NC Sea Grant College Program, Raleigh, NC, 

pp.1-152.

Rignot, E. and P. Kanagaratnam, 2006: Changes in the velocity 

structure of the Greenland ice sheet. Science, 311(5763), 

986-990.

Rinaldi, S. and M. Scheffer, 2000: Geometric analysis of 

ecological models with slow and fast processes. Ecosystems, 

3(6), 507-521.

Ritchie, K., 2006: Regulation of microbial populations by coral 

surface mucus and mucus-associated bacteria. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series, 322, 1-14.

Roberts, C.M., S. Andelman, G. Branch, R.H. Bustamante, J.C. 

Castilla, J. Dugan, B.S. Halpern, K.D. Lafferty, H. Leslie, 

and J. Lubchenco, 2003: Ecological criteria for evaluating 

candidate sites for marine reserves. Ecological Applications, 

13(1), S199-S214.

Robins, J.B., I.A. Halliday, J. Staunton-Smith, D.G. Mayer, and 

M.J. Sellin, 2005: Freshwater-fl ow requirements of estuarine 

fi sheries in tropical Australia: a review of the state of 

knowledge and application of a suggested approach. Marine 

& Freshwater Research, 56(3), 343-360.

Rozas, L.P., T.J. Minello, I. Munuera-Femandez, B. Fry, and 

Wissel, 2005: Macrofaunal distributions and habitat cha

following winter-spring releases of freshwater into the 

Breton Sound estuary, Louisiana(USA). Estuarine Coas

and Shelf Science, 65(1-2), 319-336.

Ruiz, G.M., J.T. Carlton, E.D. Grosholz, and A.H. Hines, 199

Global invasions of marine and estuarine habitats by non

indigenous species: Mechanisms, extent, and consequen

American Zoologist, 37(6), 621-632.

Salathé, E.P., 2006: Infl uences of a shift in North Pacifi c stor

tracks on western North American precipitation under gl

warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 33(19).

Sanchez-Arcilla, A. and J.A. Jimenez, 1997: Physical impac

climatic change on deltaic coastal systems (I): an approa

Climatic Change, 35(1), 71-93.

Sarmiento, J.L., R. Slater, R. Barber, L. Bopp, S.C. Doney, 

A.C. Hirst, J. Kleypas, R. Matear, U. Mikolajewicz, and 

Monfray, 2004: Response of ocean ecosystems to climat

warming. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 18(3).

Scavia, D., J.C. Field, D.F. Boesch, R.W. Buddemeier, V. 

Burkett, D.R. Cayan, M. Fogarty, M.A. Harwell, R.W. 

Howarth, C. Mason, D.J. Reed, T.C. Royer, A.H. Salleng

and J.G. Titus, 2002: Climate change impacts on U.S. 

coastal and marine ecosystems. Estuaries, 25(2), 149-16

Scavia, D., E.L.A. Kelly, and J.D. Hagy, 2006: A simple mod

for forecasting the effects of nitrogen loads on chesapea

bay hypoxia. Estuaries and coasts, 29(4), 674-684.

Scheffer, M. and S.R. Carpenter, 2003: Catastrophic regime 

shifts in ecosystems: linking theory to observation. Tren

Ecology and Evolution, 18(12), 648-656.

Scheffer, M., S. Carpenter, J.A. Foley, C. Folke, and B.H. 

Walker, 2001: Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature

413, 591-596.

Back Matter.indd 52 ack Matter.indd 52 
y, g, (), 

1304-1317.

Short, F.T. and D.M. Burdick, 1996: Quantifying eelgrass habitat 

loss in relation to housing development and nitrogen loading 

in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts. Estuaries, 19(3), 730-739.

Short, F.T. and S. Wyllie-Echeverria, 1996: Natural and 

human induced disturbance of seagrass. Environmental 

Conservation, 23, 17-27.

Simenstad, C.A., K. L. Fresh, and E. O. Salo, 1982: The role of 

Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in the life 

history of Pacifi c salmon: an unappreciated function, In: 

Estuarine Comparisons, [Kennedy, V.S. (ed.)]. Academic 

Press, New York, NY, pp. 343-364.

Simenstad, C.A., R. M. Thom, D. A. Levy, and D. L. Bottom, 

2000: Landscape structure and scale constraints on 

restoring estuarine wetlands for Pacifi c coast juvenile 

fi shes, In: Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh 

Ecology, [Weinstein, M.P. and D.A. Kreeger (eds.)]. Kluwer 

Academic Publishing, Dordrecht, pp. 597-630.

Sims, D.W., V.J. Wearmouth, M.J. Genner, A.J. Southward, 

and S.J. Hawkins, 2004: Low-temperature-driven early 

spawning migration of a temperate marine fi sh. Journal of 

Animal Ecology, 73(2), 333-341.

Sklar, F.H. and J.A. Browder, 1998: Coastal environmental 

impacts brought about by alterations to freshwater fl ow in 

the Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Management, 22(4), 

547-562.

Snover, A.K., P.W. Mote, L. Whitley Binder, A.F. Hamlet, 

and N.J. Mantua, 2005: Uncertain Future: Change and 

Its Effects on Puget Sound. A Report for the Puget Sound 

Action Team by the Climate Impacts Group. Center for 

Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study 

of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, 

Seattle.

Solan, M., B.J. Cardinale, A.L. Downing, K.A.M. Engelhardt, 

J.L. Ruesink, and D.S. Srivastava, 2004: Extinction 

and ecosystem function in the marine benthos. Science, 

306(5699), 1177-1180.

Stachowicz, J.J., R.B. Whitlatch, and R.W. Osman, 199

Species diversity and invasion resistance in a marin

ecosystem. Science, 286(5444), 1577-1579.

Stephan, C.D., R.L. Peuser, and M.S. Fonseca, 2001: E

Fishing Gear Impacts to Submreged Aquatic Vegeta

and Determining Mitigation Strategies. ASMFC H

Management Series No. 5, Atlantic States Marine F

Commission, Washington, DC.

Syvitski, J.P.M., C.J. Voeroesmarty, A.J. Kettner, and P. 

2005: Impact of humans on the fl ux of terrestrial se

the global coastal ocean. Science, 308(5720), 376-3

Tait, J.F. and G.B. Griggs, 1990: Beach response to the 

of a seawall; comparison of fi eld observations. Sho

Beach, 58(2), 11-28.

Tartig, E.K., F. Mushacke, D. Fallon, and A. Kolker, 20

A Wetlands Climate Change Impact Assessment for 

Metropolitan East Coast Region. Center for Interna

Earth Science Information Network.

Tenore, K.R., 1970: The macrobenthos of the Pamlico R

estuary, North Carolina. Ecological Monographs, 4

Tilman, D. and J.A. Downing, 1994: Biodiversity and s

grasslands. Nature, 367(6461), 363-365.

Titus, J.G., 1989: Sea Level Rise. EPA 230-05-89-052, U

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

Titus, J.G., 2000: Does the U.S. government realize that 

sea is rising? How to restructure federal programs s

wetlands can survive. Golden Gate University Law 

30(4), 717-778.

Titus, J.G., 2004: Maps That Depict the Business-As-Us

Response to Sea Level Rise in the Decentralized Un

States of America. paper presented at the OECD Gl

Forum on Sustainable Development: Development 

Climate Change ENV/EPOC/GF/SD/RD(2004)9/F

Paris.

Back Matter.indd 53 ack Matter.indd 53 
54

Titus, J.G. and C. Richman, 2001: Maps of lands vulnerable to 

sea level rise: modeled elevations along the U.S. Atlantic 

and Gulf Coasts. Climate Research, 18, 205-228.

Turgeon, J., R. Stoks, R.A. Thum, J.M. Brown, and M.A. 

McPeek, 2005: Simultaneous Quaternary radiations of three 

damselfl y clades across the holarctic. American Naturalist, 

165(4), E78-E107.

Turner, R.E., J.J. Baustian, E.M. Swenson, and J.S. Spicer, 

2006: Wetland sedimentation from Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita. Science, 314(5798), 449-452.

Turner, R.E., W.W. Schroeder, and W.J. Wiseman, 1987: Role 

of stratifi cation in the deoxygenation of Mobile Bay and 

adjacent shelf bottom waters. Estuaries, 10(1), 13-19.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in press: Louisiana coastal 

protection and restoration. To be submitted to Congress.

U.S. Climate Change Science Program, in press: Synthesis and 

assessment product 4.1: Coastal elevation and sensitivity 

to sea level rise. A report by the U. S. Climate Change 

Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change 

Research, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. [Titus, 

J.G. (ed.)]. 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004: An Ocean Blueprint 

for the 21st Century. 9, pp.15-18.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989: The Potential 

Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States: 

Report to Congress. EPA-230-05-89-052, Offi ce of Policy, 

Planning, and Evaluation, US Environmental Protection 

Agency.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000: Stressor 

Identifi cation Guidance Document. EPA-822-B-00-025, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Offi ce of Water 

and Offi ce of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, 

pp.1-208.

Ward, J.R. and K.D. Lafferty, 2004: The elusive baseline 

of marine disease: are diseases in ocean ecosystems 

increasing? PLoS Biology, 2(4), 542-547.

Whitfi eld, A.K., 2005: Fishes and freshwater in southern Afr

estuaries - a review. Aquatic Living Resources, 18(3), 

275-289.

Whitfi eld, A.K., 1994: Abundance of larval and 0+ juvenile 

marine fi shes in the lower reaches of 3 Southern African 

estuaries with differing fresh-water inputs. Marine Ecolo

Progress Series, 105(3), 257-267.

Williams, S.L. and K. L. Heck Jr., 2001: Seagrass communit

ecology, [Bertness, M.D., S.D. Gaines, and M.E. Hay 

(eds.)]. Sinauer Associates, Inc, MA, USA, pp. 317-337

Woerner, L.S. and C.T. Hackney, 1997: Distribution of Junc

roemerianus in North Carolina marshes: the importance 

physical and abiotic variables. Wetlands, 17(2), 284-291

Wolfe, D.A., 1986: Estuarine Variability. Academic Press, N

York, NY.

Wolock, D.M. and G.J. McCabe, 1999: Explaining spatial 

variability in mean annual runoff in the conterminous 

United States. Climate Research, 11, 149-159.

Worm, B., E.B. Barbier, N. Beaumont, J.E. Duffy, C. Folke, 

B.S. Halpern, J.B.C. Jackson, H.K. Lotze, F. Micheli, 

S.R. Palumbi, E. Sala, K.A. Selkoe, J.J. Stachowicz, and 

R. Watson, 2006: Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean 

ecosystem services. Science, 314(5800), 787-790.

Yohe, G., J. Neumann, P. Marshall, and H. Ameden, 1996: Th

economic cost of greenhouse-induced sea-level rise for 

developed property in the United States. Climatic Chang

32(4), 387-410.

Zedler, J.B., 1993: Canopy architecture of natural and plante

cordgrass marshes: Selecting habitat evaluation criteria. 

Ecological Applications, 3(1), 123-138.

Back Matter.indd 54 ack Matter.indd 54 
Rockstroem, 2005: Social-ecological resilience to coastal 

disasters. Science, 309(5737), 1036-1039.

Agardy, T., P. Bridgewater, M.P. Crosby, J. Day, P.K. Dayton, R. 

Kenchington, D. Laffoley, P. McConney, P.A. Murray, J.E. 

Parks, and L. Peau, 2003: Dangerous targets? Unresolved 

issues and ideological clashes around marine protected 

areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater 

Ecosystems, 13(4), 353-367.

Agardy, T.S., 1997: Marine Protected Areas and Ocean 

Conservation. R.G. Landes Company and Academic Press, 

Austin, TX, pp. 1-244.

Airamé, S., J.E. Dugan, K.D. Lafferty, H. Leslie, D.A. 

McArdle, and R.R. Warner, 2003: Applying ecological 

criteria to marine reserve design: a case study from the 

California Channel Islands. Ecological Applications, 13(1), 

S170-S184.

Albritton, D.L. and L. G. M. Filho, 2001: Technical summary, 

In: Climate Change 2001: the Scientifi c Basis. Contribution 

of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Houghton, 

J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, 

X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New 

York, NY, USA.

Allison, G.W., S.D. Gaines, J. Lubchenco, and H.P. Possingham, 

2003: Ensuring persistence of marine reserves: catastrophes 

require adopting an insurance factor. Ecological 

Applications, 13(1), S8-S24.

Allison, G.W., J. Lubchenco, and M.H. Carr, 1998: Marine 

reserves are necessary but not suffi cient for marine 

conservation. Ecological Applications, 8 SupplementEcosystem Management for Sustainable Marine 

Fisheries(1), S79-S92.

Almany, G.R., M.L. Berumen, S.R. Therrold, S. Planes, and 

G.P. Jones, 2007: Local replenishment of coral reef fi sh 

populations in a marine reserve. Science, 316(5825), 

742-744.

Bakun, A., 1990: Global climate change and intensifi ca

coastal ocean upwelling. Science, 247, 198-201.

Baldwin, A., M. Egnotovich, M. Ford, and W. Platt, 200

Regeneration in fringe mangrove forests damaged b

Hurricane Andrew. Plant Ecology, 157(2), 151-164

Baltz, D.M. and P.B. Moyle, 1993: Invasion resistance t

introduced species by a native assemblage of Califo

stream fi shes. Ecological Applications, 3, 246-255.

Barr, B.W., 2004: A seamless network of ocean parks an

marine sanctuaries: The National Park Service/Nati

Marine Sanctuary partnership. The George Wright F

21, 42-48.

Barry, J.P., C.H. Baxter, R.D. Sagarin, and S.E. Gilman

Climate-related, long-term faunal changes in a Cali

rocky intertidal community. Science, 267(5198), 67

Beger, M., G.P. Jones, and P.L. Munday, 2003: Conserv

coral reef biodiversity: a comparison of reserve sel

procedures for corals and fi shes. Biological Conser

111(1), 53-62.

Behrens, M.D. and K.D. Lafferty, 2004: Effects of mari

reserves and urchin disease on southern Californian 

reef communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series

129-139.

Bell, R.E., M. Studinger, C.A. Shuman, M.A. Fahnestoc

Joughin, 2007: Large subglacial lakes in East Antar

the onset of fast-fl owing ice streams. Nature, 445, 9

Bellwood, D.R. and T.P. Hughes, 2001: Regional-scale a

rules and biodiversity of coral reefs. Science, 292(5

1532-1534.

Bellwood, D.R., T.P. Hughes, C. Folke, and M. Nystroem

2004: Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature, 429

827-833.

Back Matter.indd 55 ack Matter.indd 55 
56

Bertness, M.D., S.D. Gaines, and M.E. Hay, 2001: Marine 

Community Ecology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, 

pp. 1-550.

Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A. Cazenave, J. Gregory, 

S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le Quere, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, 

C. K. Shum, L. D. Talley, and A. Unnikrishnan, 2007: 

Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level, 

In: Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

[Solomon, S., D. Quin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, 

K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New 

York, NY, USA, pp. 385-432.

Black, K., P. Moran, D. Burrage, and G. De’ath, 1995: 

Association of low-frequency currents and crown-of-thorns 

starfi sh outbreaks. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 125(1), 

185-194.

Black, K.P., P.J. Moran, and L.S. Hammond, 1991: Numerical 

models show coral reefs can be self-seeding. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series, 69, 55-65.

Boessenkool, K.P., I.R. Hall, H. Elderfi eld, and I. Yashayaev, 

2007: North Atlantic climate and deep-ocean fl ow speed 

changes during the last 230 years. Geophysical Research 

Letters, 34(L13614), 1-6.

Bohnsack, J.A., B. Causey, M.P. Crosby, R.B. Griffi s, M.A. 

Hixon, T.F. Hourigan, K.H. Koltes, J.E. Maragos, A. 

Simons, and J.T. Tilmant, 2002: A rationale for minimum 

20–30% no-take protection. In: Proceedings of the Ninth 

International Coral Reef Symposium 23, October 2000, pp. 

615-619.

Botsford, L.W., 2005: Potential contributions of marine reserves 

to sustainable fi sheries: recent modeling results. Bulletin of 

Marine Science, 76(2), 245-260.

Botsford, L.W., F. Micheli, and A. Hastings, 2003: Principles 

for the design of marine reserves. Ecological Applications, 

13(1), S25-S31.

f gf y

Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Burton, G.A., Jr. and R. Pitt, 2001: Stormwater Effects 

Handbook: a Toolbox for Watershed Mangers, Scientists 

and Engineers. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, pp.1-

Cabanes, C., A. Cazenave, and C. Le Provost, 2001: Sea lev

rise during past 40 years determined from satellite and in 

situ observations. Science, 294(5543), 840-842.

Caldeira, K. and M.E. Wickett, 2003: Anthropogenic carbon 

ocean pH. Nature, 425(6956), 365-365.

Caldeira, K. and M.E. Wickett, 2005: Ocean model predictio

of chemistry changes from carbon dioxide emissions to 

atmosphere and ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research

110(C09S04).

Carlton, J.T., 1996: Biological invasions and cryptogenic 

species. Ecology, 77(6), 1653-1655.

Carlton, J.T., 2000: Global change and biological invasions 

in the oceans, In: Invasive Species in a Changing World

[Mooney, H.A. and R.J. Hobbs (eds.)]. Island Press, 

Washington, DC, pp. 31-53.

Carpenter, S.R., N.F. Caraco, D.L. Correll, R.W. Howarth, 

A.N. Sharpley, and V.H. Smith, 1998: Nonpoint pollutio

of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecolog

Applications, 8(3), 559-568.

Carr, M.H., J.E. Neigel, J.A. Estes, S. Andelman, R.R. Warn

and J.L. Largier, 2003: Comparing marine and terrestria

ecosystems: Implications for the design of coastal marin

reserves. Ecological Applications, 13(1), S90-S107.

Chen, J.L., C.R. Wilson, and B.D. Tapley, 2006: Satellite gra

measurements confi rm accelerated melting of Greenland 

sheet. Science, 313, 1958-1960.

Cho, L., 2005: Marine protected areas: a tool for integrated 

coastal management in Belize. Ocean & Coastal 

Management, 48(11), 932-947.

Back Matter.indd 56 ack Matter.indd 56 
Climate Variability, Climate Change, and Fisheries, [Glantz, 

M.F. (ed.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 

pp. 89-119.

Corrigan, C., 2006: The Marine Learning Partnership: Effective 

Design and Management of Tropical Marine Protected Area 

Networks Through Cross-Institutional Learning. Year End 

Report, The Nature Conservancy.

Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. 

Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, 

R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt, 1997: The 

value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. 

Nature, 387(6630), 253-260.

Cowen, R.K., C.B. Paris, D.B. Olson, and J.L. Fortuna, 2003: 

The role of long distance dispersal versus local retention 

in replenishing marine populations. Gulf and Caribbean 

Research Supplement, 14, 129-137.

Cowen, R.K., C.B. Paris, and A. Srinivasan, 2006: Scaling of 

connectivity in marine populations. Science, 311(5760), 

522-527.

Cowie-Haskell, B.D. and J.M. Delaney, 2003: Integrating 

science into the design of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve. 

Marine Technology Society Journal, 37(1), 68-79.

Crossett, K.M., T.J. Culliton, P.C. Wiley, and T.R. Goodspeed, 

2004: Population Trends Along the Coastal United States: 

1980-2008. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Washington, DC, pp.1-54.

Crowder, L.B., S.J. Lyman, W.F. Figueira, and J. Priddy, 2000: 

Source-sink population dynamics and the problem of siting 

marine reserves. Bulletin of Marine Science, 66(3), 799-820.

Crowder, L.B., G. Osherenko, O.R. Young, S. Airamé, E.A. 

Norse, N. Baron, J.C. Day, F. Douvere, C.N. Ehler, B.S. 

Halpern, S.J. Langdon, K.L. McLeod, J.C. Ogden, R.E. 

Peach, A.A. Rosenberg, and J.A. Wilson, 2006: Resolving 

mismatches in U.S. ocean governance. Science, 313(5787), 

617-618.

Tilmant, 1994: Assessment of Hurricane Andrew Im

on Natural and Archeological Resources of Big Cyp

National Preserve, Biscayne National Park, and Ev

National Park. National Park Service, pp.1-158.

Day, J., L. Fernandes, A. Lewis, G. De’ath, S. Slegers, 

Barnett, B. Kerrigan, D. Breen, J. Innes, J. Oliver, T

and D. Lowe, 2002: The representative areas progr

protecting biodiversity in the Great Barrier Reef W

Heritage Area. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Interna

Coral Reef Symposium 23, October 2000, pp. 687-6

Dayton, P.K., S. Thrush, and F.C. Coleman, 2002: Ecolo

Effects of Fishing in Marine Ecosystems of the Uni

States. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA, pp

Delaney, J.M., 2003: Community capacity building in th

designation of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve. Gu

Caribbean Research, 12(2), 163-169.

Denny, M.W., 1988: Biology and the Mechanics of the W

Swept Environment. Princeton University Press, Pr

NJ, pp. 1-218.

Dickson, B., I. Yashayaev, J. Meincke, B. Turrell, S. Dy

Holfort, 2002: Rapid freshening of the deep North A

Ocean over the past four decades. Nature, (416), 83

Done, T. and R. Jones, 2006: Tropical coastal ecosystem

climate change prediction: global and local risks, In

Reefs and Climate Change: Science and Managem

[Phinney, J.T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, J. Kleypas, W. 

and A. Strong (eds.)]. American Geophysical Union

Washington, DC.

Done, T.J. and R.E. Reichelt, 1998: Integrated coastal zo

and fi sheries ecosystem management: generic goals 

performance indices. Ecological Applications, 8(1)

S110-S118.

Donner, S.D., T.R. Knutson, and M. Oppenheimer, 200

Model-based assessment of the role of human-indu

climate change in the 2005 Caribbean coral bleachi

Back Matter.indd 57 ack Matter.indd 57 
58

4(1), 25-64.

Edge, S.E., M.B. Morgan, D.F. Gleason, and T.W. Snell, 2005: 

Development of a coral cDNA array to examine gene 

expression profi les in Montastraea faveolata exposed 

to environmental stress. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 51, 

507-523.

Eng, C.T., J.N. Paw, and F.Y. Guarin, 1989: Environmental 

impact of aquaculture and the effects of pollution on 

coastal aquaculture development in southeast Asia. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 20(7), 335-343.

Engel, J. and R. Kvitek, 1998: Effects of otter trawling on a 

benthic Community in Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary. Conservation Biology, 12(6), 1204-1214.

Engie, K. and T. Klinger, 2007: Modeling passive dispersal 

through a large estuarine system to evaluate marine reserve 

network connections. Estuaries and coasts, 30(2), 201-213.

Estes, J.A., 2005: Carnivory and trophic connectivity in kelp 

forests, In: Large Carnivores and the Conservation of 

Biodiversity, [Ray, J.C., K.H. Redford, R.S. Steneck, and J. 

Berger (eds.)]. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 61-81.

Fabricius, K.E. and G. De’ath, 2004: Identifying ecological 

change and its causes: a case study on coral reefs. 

Ecological Applications, 14(5), 1448-1465.

Feely, R.A., C.L. Sabine, K. Lee, W. Berelson, J. Kleypas, V.J. 

Fabry, and F.J. Millero, 2004: Impact of anthropogenic CO2

on the CaCO3 system in the oceans. Science, 305(5682), 

362-366.

Fernandes, L., J. Day, A. Lewis, S. Slegers, B. Kerrigan, D. 

Breen, D. Cameron, B. Jago, J. Hall, D. Lowe, J. Tanzer, 

V. Chadwick, L. Thompson, K. Gorman, M. Simmons, B. 

Barnett, K. Sampson, G. De’ath, B. Mapstone, H. Marsh, 

H. Possingham, I. Ball, T. Ward, K. Dobbs, J. Aumend, D. 

Slater, and K. Stapleton, 2005: Establishing representative 

no-take areas in the Great Barrier Reef: large-scale 

implementation of theory on Marine Protected Areas. 

Conservation Biology, 19(6), 1733-1744.

Frank, K.T., B. Petrie, J.S. Choi, and W.C. Leggett, 2005: 

Trophic cascades in a formerly cod-dominated ecosystem

Science, 308(5728), 1621-1623.

Friedlander, A., J.S. Nowlis, J.A. Sanchez, R. Appeldoorn, P

Usseglio, C. Mccormick, S. Bejarano, and A. MitchellChui, 2003: Designing effective Marine Protected Areas 

Seafl ower biosphere reserve, Colombia, based on biolog

and sociological information. Conservation Biology, 17(

1769-1784.

Galbraith, H., R. Jones, R. Park, J. Clough, S. Herrod-Julius

B. Harrington, and G. Page, 2002: Global climate chang

and sea level rise: potential losses of intertidal habitat fo

shorebirds. Waterbirds, 25(2), 173-183.

Gardner, T.A., I.M. Cote, J.A. Gill, A. Grant, and A.R. 

Watkinson, 2003: Long-term region-wide declines in 

Caribbean corals. Science, 301(5635), 958-960.

Gardner, T.A., I.M. Cote, J.A. Gill, A. Grant, and A.R. 

Watkinson, 2005: Hurricanes and Caribbean coral reefs: 

impacts, recovery patterns, and role in long-term decline

Ecology, 86(1), 174-184.

Gattuso, J.P., M. Frankignoulle, and R. Wollast, 1998: Carbo

and carbonate metabolism in coastal aquatic ecosystems

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29, 405-434

Gerber, L.R. and S.S. Heppell, 2004: The use of demograph

sensitivity analysis in marine species conservation plann

Biological Conservation, 120(1), 121-128.

Gleason, D.F., P.J. Edmunds, and R.D. Gates, 2006: Ultravio

radiation effects on the behavior and recruitment of larv

from the reef coral Porites astreoides. Marine Biology, 

148(3), 503-512.

Gleason, D.F. and G.M. Wellington, 1993: Ultraviolet radiati

and coral bleaching. Nature, 365(836), 838.

Back Matter.indd 58 ack Matter.indd 58 
Goldberg, J. and C. Wilkinson, 2004: Global threats to coral 

reefs: coral bleaching, global climate change, disease, 

predator plagues, and invasive species, In: Status of Coral 

Reefs of the World: 2004, [Wilkinson, C. (ed.)]. Australian 

Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland, pp. 

67-92.

Graham, N.A.J., R.D. Evans, and G.R. Russ, 2003: The effects 

of marine reserve protection on the trophic relationships 

of reef fi shes on the Great Barrier Reef. Environmental 

Conservation, 30(2), 200-208.

Granek, E.F. and M.A. Brown, 2005: Co-management approach 

to marine conservation in Moheli, Comoros Islands. 

Conservation Biology, 19(6), 1724-1732.

Greene, C.H. and A.J. Pershing, 2007: Climate drives sea 

change. Science, 315(5815), 1084-1085.

Grigg, R.W., S.J. Dollar, A. Huppert, B.D. Causey, K. Andrews, 

W.L. Kruczynski, W.F. Precht, S.L. Miller, R.B. Aronson, 

and J.F. Bruno, 2005: Reassessing U.S. coral reefs. Science, 

308(5729), 1740-1742.

Grober-Dunsmore, R., L. Wooninck, and C. Wahle, in press: 

Vertical zoning in marine protected areas: ecological 

considerations for balancing pelagic fi shing with 

conservation of benthic communities. Fisheries.

Gucinski, H., R.T. Lackey, and B.C. Spence, 1990: Global 

climate change: policy implications for fi sheries. Fisheries, 

15(6), 33-38.

Gunderson, L.H., 2000: Resilience in theory and practice. 

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31, 425-439.

Hallock, P., 2005: Global change and modern coral reefs: 

new opportunities to understand shallow-water carbonate 

depositional processes. Sedimentary Geology, 175(1-4), 

19-33.

Halpern, B.S., 2003: The impact of marine reserves: do reserves 

work and does reserve size matter? Ecological Applications, 

13(1), S117-S137.

Hansen, L., J.L. Biringer, and J.R. Hoffman, 2003: Buy

a User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resil

to Climate Change in Natural Systems. [Hansen, L

J.L. Biringer, and J.R. Hoffman (eds.)]. World Wild

Foundation, Washington, DC, pp. 1-244.

Harley, C.D.G., R. Hughes, K.M. Hultgren, B.G. Miner

Sorte, C.S. Thornber, L.F. Rodriguez, L. Tomanek, 

Williams, 2006: The impacts of climate change in c

marine systems. Ecology Letters, 9(2), 228-241.

Harvell, C.D., K. Kim, J.M. Burkholder, R.R. Colwell, 

Epstein, D.J. Grimes, E.E. Hofmann, E.K. Lipp, A. 

Osterhaus, and R.M. Overstreet, 1999: Emerging m

diseases--climate links and anthropogenic factors. S

285, 1505-1510.

Harvell, C.D., C.E. Mitchell, J.R. Ward, S. Altizer, A.P. 

R.S. Ostfeld, and M.D. Samuel, 2002: Climate war

and disease risks for terrestrial and marine biota. Sc

296(5576), 2158-2162.

Harvell, D., K. Kim, C. Quirolo, J. Weir, and G. Smith, 

2001: Coral bleaching and disease: contributors to 

mass mortality in Briareum asbestinum (Octocoral

Gorgonacea). Hydrobiologia, 460(1), 97-104.

Hastings, A. and L.W. Botsford, 2003: Comparing desig

marine reserves for fi sheries and for biodiversity. E

Applications, 13(1), S65-S70.

Hatcher, B.G. and A.W.D. Larkum, 1983: An experime

analysis of factors controlling the standing crop of 

epilithic algal community on a coral reef. Journal o

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 69(1), 

Helmuth, B., 2002: How do we measure the environme

Linking intertidal thermal physiology and ecology 

biophysics. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 4

837-845.

Hiddink, J.G., S. Jennings, and M.J. Kaiser, 2006: Indic

the ecological impact of bottom-trawl disturbance o

communities. Ecosystems, 9(7), 1190-1199.

Back Matter.indd 59 ack Matter.indd 59 
60

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., 1999: Climate change, coral bleaching and 

the future of the world’s coral reefs. Marine & Freshwater 

Research, 50(8), 839-866.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., K. Anthony, R. Berkelmans, S. Dove, K. 

Fabricius, J. Lough, P. A. Marshall, M. J. H. van Oppen, A. 

Negri, and B. Willis, 2007: Vulnerability of reef-building 

corals on the Great Barrier Reef to Climate Change, In: 

Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef, [Johnson, J.E. 

and P.A. Marshall (eds.)]. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 

Authority & Australian Greenhouse Offi ce.

Hoffman, J., 2003: Designing reserves to sustain temperate 

marine ecosystems in the face of global climate change, In: 

Buying Time: a User’s Manual for Building Resistance and 

Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems, [Hansen, 

L.J., J.L. Biringer, and J.R. Hoffman (eds.)]. WWF Climate 

Change Program, Washington, DC, pp. 123-155.

Holling, C.S., 1995: What barriers? What bridges?, In: Barriers 

and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions, 

[Gunderson, L.H., C.S. Holling, and S.S. Light (eds.)]. 

Columbia University Press, New York, NY, pp. 3-34.

Hughes, T.P., A.H. Baird, D.R. Bellwood, M. Card, S.R. 

Connolly, C. Folke, R. Grosberg, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, 

J.B.C. Jackson, J. Kleypas, J.M. Lough, P. Marshall, M. 

Nystrom, S.R. Palumbi, J.M. Pandolfi , B. Rosen, and J. 

Roughgarden, 2003: Climate change, human impacts, and 

the resilience of coral reefs. Science, 301(5635), 929-933.

Hughes, T.P., D.R. Bellwood, C. Folke, R.S. Steneck, and J. 

Wilson, 2005: New paradigms for supporting the resilience 

of marine ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 

20(7), 380-386.

Husebø, Å., L. Nøttestad, J.H. Fosså, D.M. Furevik, and S.B. 

Jørgensen, 2002: Distribution and abundance of fi sh in deepsea coral habitats. Hydrobiologia, 471(1), 91-99.

Hyrenbach, K.D., K.A. Forney, and P.K. Dayton, 2000: Marine 

protected areas and ocean basin management. Aquatic 

Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 10(6), 

437-458.

IPCC, 2007b: Summary for policymakers, In: Climate Chan

2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contributi

of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Parry, M

O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.

Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

UK, pp. 7-22.

IPCC, 2007c: Summary for policymakers, In: Climate Chang

2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Solomon

D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt

Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University P

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 

1-21.

Iwama, G.K., 1991: Interactions between aquaculture and th

environment. Critical Reviews in Environmental Contro

21(2), 177-216.

Jackson, J.B.C., M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjorndal, 

L.W. Botsford, B.J. Bourque, R.H. Bradbury, R. Cooke, 

Erlandson, J.A. Estes, T.P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C.B. Lan

H.S. Lenihan, J.M. Pandolfi , C.H. Peterson, R.S. Stenec

M.J. Tegner, and R.R. Warner, 2001: Historical overfi sh

and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science, 2

629-638.

Jameson, S.C., M.H. Tupper, and J.M. Ridley, 2002: The thr

screen doors: can marine” protected” areas be effective? 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44(11), 1177-1183.

Johnson, J. and P. Marshall, 2007: Climate Change and the 

Great Barrier Reef: a Vulnerability Assessment. Great 

Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Jones, G.P., M.J. Milicich, M.J. Emslie, and C. Lunow, 1999

Self-recruitment in a coral reef fi sh population. Nature, 

402(6763), 802-804.

Jones, G.P., S. Planes, and S.R. Thorrold, 2005: Coral reef 

fi sh larvae settle close to home. Current Biology, 15(14)

1314-1318.

Back Matter.indd 60 ack Matter.indd 60 
fyg , [, ()]

Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 165-181.

Kelleher, G., C. Bleakley, and S. Wells, 1995: A global system of 

Marine Protected Areas. Vols I to IV.

Keller, B.D. and B.D. Causey, 2005: Linkages between the 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the South 

Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative. Ocean & Coastal 

Management, 48(11-12), 869-900.

Kennedy, V.S., R.R. Twilley, J.A. Kleypas, J.H. Cowan, Jr., and 

S.R. Hare, 2002: Coastal and Marine Ecosystems & Global 

Climate Change: Potential Effects on U.S. Resources. 

Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 

Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA.

Khamer, M., D. Bouya, and C. Ronneau, 2000: Metallic and 

organic pollutants associated with urban wastewater in the 

waters and sediments of a Moroccan river. Water Quality 

Research Journal of Canada, 35, 147-161.

Kim, K. and C.D. Harvell, 2004: The rise and fall of a six-year 

coral-fungal epizootic. American Naturalist, 164, S52-S63.

Kimball, M.E., J.M. Miller, P.E. Whitfi eld, and J.A. Hare, 2004: 

Thermal tolerance and potential distribution of invasive 

lionfi sh (Pterois volitans/miles complex) on the east coast 

of the United States. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 283, 

269-278.

Kinlan, B.P. and S.D. Gaines, 2003: Propagule dispersal 

in marine and terrestrial environments: a community 

perspective. Ecology, 84(8), 2007-2020.

Kleypas, J.A., R.W. Buddemeier, D. Archer, J.P. Gattuso, 

C. Langdon, and B.N. Opdyke, 1999: Geochemical 

consequences of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on 

coral reefs. Science, 284(5411), 118-120.

Kleypas, J.A. and C. Langdon, 2006: Coral reefs and changing 

seawater chemistry, In: Coral Reefs and Climate Change: 

Science and Management, [Phinney, J.T., O. HoeghGuldberg, J. Kleypas, W.J. Skirving, and A. Strong (eds.)]. 

American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 73-110.

()], g

232-246.

Lebel, L., J.M. Anderies, B. Campbell, C. Folke, S. Hat

Dodds, T.P. Hughes, and J. Wilson, 2006: Governan

and the capacity to manage resilience in regional so

ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 19

Lecchini, D., S. Planes, and R. Galzin, 2005: Experimen

assessment of sensory modalities of coral-reef fi sh 

in the recognition of their settlement habitat. Behav

Ecology and Sociobiology, 58(1), 18-26.

Lecchini, D., J. Shima, B. Banaigs, and R. Galzin, 2005

sensory abilities and mechanisms of habitat selectio

a coral reef fi sh during settlement. Oecologia, 143(

326-334.

Ledlie, M.H., N.A.J. Graham, J.C. Bythell, S.K. Wilson

Jennings, N.V.C. Polunin, and J.W. Harden, 2007: P

shifts and the role of herbivory in the resilience of c

reefs. Coral Reefs, 26, 641-653.

Lee, S.Y., 1995: Mangrove outwelling: a review. Hydrob

295(1-3), 203-212.

Lee, T.N., C. Rooth, E. Williams, M. McGowan, and A.

Szmant, 1992: Infl uence of Florida current, gyres a

driven circulation on transport of larvae and recruit

the Florida Keys coral reefs. Continental Shelf Rese

12(7/8), 971-1002.

Leis, J.M., B.M. Carson-Ewart, and J. Webley, 2002: Se

behaviour of coral-reef fi sh larvae at subsurface art

reef moorings. Marine & Freshwater Research, 53

319-327.

Leis, J.M. and M. I. McCormick, 2002: The biology, beh

and ecology of the pelagic, larval stage of coral ree

Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 171-199.

Lesser, M.P., J.C. Bythell, R.D. Gates, R.W. Johnstone, 

Hoegh-Guldberg, 2007: Are infectious diseases rea

corals? Alternative interpretations of the experimen

ecological data. Journal of Experimental Marine B

and Ecology, 346(1-2), 36-44.

Back Matter.indd 61 ack Matter.indd 61 
62

(), 

Lovelace, J.K. and B.F. MacPherson, 1998: Effects of Hurricane 

Andrew on Wetlands in Southern Florida and Louisiana. 

National Water Summary on Wetland Resources USGS 

Water Supply Paper #2425.

Lugo-Fernandez, A., K.J.P. Deslarzes, J.M. Price, G.S. Boland, 

and M.V. Morin, 2001: Inferring probable dispersal of 

Flower Garden Banks Coral Larvae (Gulf of Mexico) using 

observed and simulated drifter trajectories. Continental Shelf 

Research, 21(1), 47-67.

Mann, K.H. and J.R.N. Lazier, 2006: Dynamics of Marine 

Ecosystems. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp. 1-496.

Mantua, N.J., S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M. Wallace, and R.C. 

Francis, 1997: A pacifi c interdecadal climate oscillation with 

impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American 

Meteorological Society, 78(6), 1069-1079.

Marchetti, M.P., P.B. Moyle, and R. Levine, 2004: Invasive 

species profi ling? Exploring the characteristics of non-native 

fi shes across invasion stages in California. Freshwater 

Biology, 49(5), 646-661.

Marschke, M.J. and F. Berkes, 2006: Exploring strategies that 

build livelihood resilience: a case from Cambodia. Ecology 

and Society, 11(1), 42.

Marshall, N., in press: Can policy perception infl uence social 

resilience to policy change? Fisheries Research.

Marshall, P. and H. Schuttenberg, 2006: A Reef Manager’s 

Guide to Coral Bleaching. Great Barrier Reef Marine 

Park Authority, http://www.coris.noaa.gov/activities/reef_

managers_guide/, pp.1-178.

Marshall, P. and H. Schuttenberg, 2006: Adapting coral reef 

management in the face of climate change, In: Coral Reefs 

and Climate Change: Science and Management, [Phinney, 

J.T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, J. Kleypas, W.J. Skirving, and A. 

Strong (eds.)]. American Geophysical Union, Washington, 

DC, pp. 223-241.

McCoy, E.D., H.R. Mushinsky, D. Johnson, and W.E. Mesha

Jr, 1996: Mangrove damage caused by Hurricane Andre

on the southwestern coast of Florida. Bulletin of Marine 

Science, 59(1), 1-8.

McGowan, J.A., D.R. Cayan, L.M. Dorman, and A. Butler, 

1998: Climate-ocean variability and ecosystem response 

the Northeast Pacifi c. Science, 281(5374), 210-217.

McGregor, H.V., M. Dima, H.W. Fischer, and S. Mulitza, 

2007: Rapid 20th-century increase in coastal upwelling o

northwest Africa. Science, 315(5812), 637.

McLeod, E. and R.V. Salm, 2006: Managing Mangroves for 

Resilience to Climate Change. The World Conservation 

Union, Gland, Switzerland, pp.1-66.

McNaughton, S.J., 1977: Diversity and stability of ecologica

communities: a comment on the role of empiricism in 

ecology. The American Naturalist, 111(979), 515-525.

McNeil, B.I., R.J. Matear, and D.J. Barnes, 2004: Coral reef 

calcifi cation and climate change: the effect of ocean 

warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 31(22), L22309

McPhaden, M.J. and D. Zhang, 2002: Slowdown of the 

meridional overturning circulation in the upper Pacifi c 

Ocean. Nature, 415(6872), 603-608.

Michaelidis, B., B.C. Ouzounis, A. Paleras, and H.O. Portne

2005: Effects of long-term moderate hypercapnia on aci

base balance and growth rate in marine mussels Mytilus 

galloprovinciallis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 293

109-118.

Micheli, F., B.S. Halpern, L.W. Botsford, and R.R. Warner, 2

Trajectories and correlates of community change in no-t

marine reserves. Ecological Applications, 14(6), 1709-1

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Ecosystems and 

Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends. Findings 

of the Condition and Trends Working Group. Island Pres

Washington, DC.

Back Matter.indd 62 ack Matter.indd 62 
, 

Mosquera, I., I.M. Cote, S. Jennings, and J.D. Reynolds, 

2000: Conservation benefi ts of marine reserves for fi sh 

populations. Animal Conservation, 3(4), 321-332.

Moyle, P.B., 1986: Fish introductions into North America: 

patterns and ecological impact, In: Ecology of Biological 

Invasions of North America and Hawaii, [Mooney, H.A. and 

J.A. Drake (eds.)]. Springer, NY, pp. 27-43.

Mullineaux, L.S. and C.A. Butman, 1991: Initial contact, 

exploration and attachment of barnacle (Balanus amphitrite) 

cyprids settling in fl ow. Marine Biology, 110(1), 93-103.

Mumby, P.J., C.P. Dahlgren, A.R. Harborne, C.V. Kappel, F. 

Micheli, D.R. Brumbaugh, K.E. Holmes, J.M. Mendes, 

K. Broad, and J.N. Sanchirico, 2006: Fishing, trophic 

cascades, and the process of grazing on coral reefs. Science, 

311(5757), 98-101.

Mumby, P.J., A.J. Edwards, J.E. Arias-Gonzalez, K.C. 

Lindeman, P.G. Blackwell, A. Gall, M.I. Gorczynska, A.R. 

Harborne, C.L. Pescod, H. Renken, C.C.C. Wabnitz, and G. 

Llewellyn, 2004: Mangroves enhance the biomass of coral 

reef fi sh communities in the Caribbean. Nature, 427(6974), 

533-536.

Mumby, P.J., A.R. Harborne, J. Williams, C.V. Kappel, D.R. 

Brumbaugh, F. Micheli, K.E. Holmes, C.P. Dahlgren, C.B. 

Paris, and P.G. Blackwell, 2007: Trophic cascade facilitates 

coral recruitment in a marine reserve. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America, 104(20), 8362-8367.

Munn, C.B., 2006: Viruses as pathogens of marine 

organismsùfrom bacteria to whales. Journal of the Marine 

Biological Association of the UK, 86(3), 453-467.

Murawski, S.A., 1993: Climate change and marine fi sh 

distributions: forecasting from historical analogy. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 122(5), 

647-658.

pgy 

Series, 202, 175-192.

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2003: Annual Repo

to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries - 2002. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic a

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fish

Service, Silver Spring, MD, pp.1-156.

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2005: 2005 Report 

the Status of U.S. Marine Fish Stocks. National Ma

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, pp.1-20.

National Research Council, 1999: Sustaining Marine F

National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp.1-16

National Research Council, 2001: Marine Protected A

Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems. National A

Press, Washington, DC, pp.1-272.

National Safety Council, 1998: Coastal Challenges: a 

Coastal and Marine Issues. Environmental Health 

Washington, DC, pp.1-365.

Naylor, R.L., R.J. Goldburg, J. Primavera, N. Kautsky, 

Beveridge, J. Clay, C. Folke, J. Lubchenco, H. Moo

and M. Troell, 2000: Effects of aquaculture on wor

supplies. Nature, 405(6790), 1017-1024.

Nicholls, R.J. and S.P. Leatherman, 1996: Adapting to s

rise: relative sea-level trends to 2100 for the United 

Coastal Management, 24(4), 301-324.

Norse, E.A., 1993: Global marine biological diversity: a 

for building conservation into decision making, [N

(ed.)]. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 1-383.

Nyström, M., C. Folke, and F. Moberg, 2000: Coral ree

disturbance and resilience in a human-dominated 

environment. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15(

413-420.

Back Matter.indd 63 ack Matter.indd 63 
64

Ogden, J.C. and E.H. Gladfelter, 1983: Coral Reefs, Seagrass 

Beds and Mangroves: Their Interaction in the Coastal Zones 

of the Caribbean. UNESCO Reports in Marine Science 23, 

pp.1-133.

Ogden, J.C. and R. Wicklund, 1988: Mass Bleaching of 

Coral Reefs in the Caribbean: a Research Strategy. 

Research Report 88-2, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, Offi ce 

of Undersea Research, pp.1-51.

Orr, J.C., V.J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S.C. Doney, R.A. 

Feely, A. Gnanadesikan, N. Gruber, A. Ishida, F. Joos, R.M. 

Key, K. Lindsay, E. Maier-Reimer, R. Matear, P. Monfray, 

A. Mouchet, R.G. Najjar, G.K. Plattner, K.B. Rodgers, 

C.L. Sabine, J.L. Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R.D. Slater, I.J. 

Totterdell, M.F. Weirig, Y. Yamanaka, and A. Yool, 2005: 

Anthropogenic ocean acidifi cation over the twenty-fi rst 

century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature, 437, 

681-686.

Orth, R.J., T.J.B. Carruthers, W.C. Dennison, C.M. Duarte, J.W. 

Fourqurean, K.L.Jr. Heck, A.R. Hughes, G.A. Kendrick, 

W.J. Kenworthy, S. Olyarnik, F.T. Short, M. Waycott, and 

S.L. Williams, 2006: A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. 

BioScience, 56(12), 987-996.

Paine, R.T., 1993: A salty and salutary perspective on global 

change, In: Biotic Interactions and Global Change, 

[Kareiva, P.M., J.G. Kingsolver, and R.B. Huey (eds.)]. 

Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts, pp. 

347-355.

Paine, R.T., M.J. Tegner, and E.A. Johnson, 1998: Compounded 

perturbations yield ecological surprises. Ecosystems, 1(6), 

535-545.

Palumbi, S.R., 2001: The ecology of marine protected areas, In: 

Marine Community Ecology, [Bertness, M.D., S.D. Gaines, 

and M.E. Hay (eds.)]. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, 

MA, pp. 509-530.

Palumbi, S.R., 2002: Marine Reserves: a Tool for Ecosystem 

Management and Conservation. Pew Oceans Commission, 

Arlington, VA, pp.1-45.

Pandolfi, J.M., R.H. Bradbury, E. Sala, T.P. Hughes, K.A. 

Bjorndal, R.G. Cooke, D. McArdle, L. McClenachan, 

M.J.H. Newman, G. Paredes, R.R. Warner, and J.B.C. 

Jackson, 2003: Global trajectories of the long-term decli

of coral reef ecosystems. Science, 301(5635), 955-958.

Pandolfi, J.M., J.B.C. Jackson, N. Baron, R.H. Bradbury, H.M

Guzman, T.P. Hughes, C.V. Kappel, F. Micheli, J.C. Ogd

H.P. Possingham, and E. Sala, 2005: Are U. S. coral reef

the slippery slope to slime? Science, 307(5716), 1725-17

Pane, E.F. and J.P. Barry, 2007: Extracellular acid-base 

regulation during short-term hypercapnia is effective in 

a shallow-water crab, but ineffective in a deep-sea crab. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 334, 1-9.

Paris, C.B. and R.K. Cowen, 2004: Direct evidence of a 

biophysical retention mechanism for coral reef fi sh larva

Limnology and Oceanography, 49(6), 1964-1979.

Parks, J. and N. Salafsky, 2001: Fish for the Future? A 

Collaborative Test of Locally-Managed Marine Areas A

Biodiversity Conservation and Fisheries Management T

in the Indo-Pacifi c Region: Report on the Initiation of a 

Learning Portfolio. World Resources Institute, Washing

DC, pp.1-82.

Pauly, D., J. Alder, E. Bennett, V. Christensen, P. Tyedmers, 

and R. Watson, 2003: The future for fi sheries. Science, 

302(5649), 1359-1361.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, and F. 

Torres, Jr., 1998: Fishing down marine food webs. Scien

279(5352), 860-863.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guqnette, T.J. Pitcher, U.R. 

Sumaila, C.J. Walters, R. Watson, and D. Zeller, 2002: 

Towards sustainability in world fi sheries. Nature, 418, 

689-695.

Pechenik, J.A., 1999: On the advantages and disadvantages 

of larval stages in benthic marine invertebrate life cycles

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 177, 269-297.

Back Matter.indd 64 ack Matter.indd 64 
coupling processes under global warming. Geophysical 

Research Letters, 33(11), L11704.

Phinney, J.T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, J. Kleypas, W. Skirving, 

and A. Strong, 2006: Coral Reefs and Climate Change: 

Science and Management. American Geophysical Union, 

Washington, DC, pp. 1-244.

Porter, J.W., P. Dustan, W.C. Jaap, K.L. Patterson, V. Kosmynin, 

O.W. Meier, M.E. Patterson, and M. Parsons, 2001: 

Patterns of spread of coral disease in the Florida Keys. 

Hydrobiologia, 460(1-3), 1-24.

Porter, J.W., V. Kosmynin, K. L. Patterson, K. G. Porter, W. C. 

Jaap, J. L. Wheaton, K. Hackett, M. Lybolt, C. P. Tsokos, G. 

Yanev, G. M. Marcinek, J. Dotten, D. Eaken, M. Patterson, 

O. W. Meier, M. Brill, and P. Dustan, 2002: Detection 

of coral reef change by the Florida Keys Coral Reef 

Monitoring Project, In: The Everglades, Florida Bay, and 

Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys: an Ecosystem Sourcebook, 

[Porter, J.W. and K.G. Porter (eds.)]. CRC Press, Boca 

Raton, FL, pp. 749-769.

Precht, W.F. and R.B. Aronson, 2004: Climate fl ickers and 

range shifts of reef corals. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment, 2(6), 307-314.

Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, and W.J. Wiseman Jr, 2002: Gulf 

of Mexico hypoxia, aka “the dead zone”. Annual Review of 

Ecology and Systematics, 33, 235-263.

Raimondi, P.T. and A.N.C. Morse, 2000: The consequences 

of complex larval behavior in a coral. Ecology, 81(11), 

3193-3211.

Reaser, J.K., R. Pomerance, and P.O. Thomas, 2000: Coral 

bleaching and global climate change: scientifi c fi ndings 

and policy recommendations. Conservation Biology, 14(5), 

1500-1511.

Reed, J.K., 2002: Deep-water Oculina coral reefs of Florida: 

biology, impacts, and management. Hydrobiologia, 471(1), 

43-55.

Roberts, C.M., 2005: Marine protected areas and biodiv

conservation, In: Marine Conservation Biology: the 

of Maintaining the Sea’s Biodiversity, [Norse, E. an

Crowder (eds.)]. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 

Roberts, C.M., S. Andelman, G. Branch, R.H. Bustama

J.C. Castilla, J. Dugan, B.S. Halpern, K.D. Lafferty

Leslie, J. Lubchenco, D. MacArdle, H.P. Possingha

M. Ruckelshaus, and R.R. Warner, 2003a: Ecologic

criteria for evaluating candidate sites for marine res

Ecological Applications, 13(1), S199-S214.

Roberts, C.M., G. Branch, R.H. Bustamante, J.C. Castil

J. Dugan, B.S. Halpern, K.D. Lafferty, H. Leslie, J. 

Lubchenco, D. McArdle, M. Ruckelshaus, and R.R

2003b: Application of ecological criteria in selectin

reserves and developing reserve networks. Ecologi

Applications, 13, S215-S228.

Roberts, C.M., B. Halpern, S.R. Palumbi, and R.R. War

2001: Designing marine reserve networks: why sm

isolated protected areas are not enough. Conservati

Biology in Practice, 2(3), 11-17.

Roberts, J.M., A.J. Wheeler, and A. Freiwald, 2006: Re

of the deep: the biology and geology of cold-water 

ecosystems. Science, 312(5773), 543-547.

Roberts, S. and M. Hirshfi eld, 2004: Deep-sea corals: o

sight, but no longer out of mind. Frontiers in Ecolo

the Environment, 2(3), 123-130.

Robertson, D.R., J.H. Choat, J.M. Posada, J. Pitt, and J

Ackerman, 2005: Ocean surgeonfi sh Acanthurus ba

II. Fishing effects on longevity, size and abundance

Ecology Progress Series, 295, 245-256.

Roessig, J.M., C.M. Woodley, J.J. Cech, and L.J. Hanse

Effects of global climate change on marine and estu

fi shes and fi sheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and F

14(2), 251-275.

Back Matter.indd 65 ack Matter.indd 65 
66

py gy 

and Evolution, 20(2), 74-80.

Salm, R., J. Clark, and E. Siirila, 2000: Marine and Coastal 

Protected Areas: a Guide for Planners and Managers. 

Report Number 3, International Union for Conservation of 

Nature and Natural Resources, Washington, DC, pp.1-387.

Salm, R.V., T. Done, and E. McLeod, 2006: Marine protected 

area planning in a changing climate, In: Coral Reefs and 

Climate Change: Science and Management, [Phinney, J.T., 

O. Hoegh-Guldberg, J. Kleypas, W. Skirving, and A. Strong 

(eds.)]. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 

207-221.

Sammarco, P.W., 1980: Diadema and its relationship to coral 

spat mortality: grazing, competition, and biological 

disturbance. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and 

Ecology, 45, 245-272.

Sanford, E., 1999: Regulation of keystone predation by 

small changes in ocean temperature. Science, 283(5410), 

2095-2097.

Scavia, D., J.C. Field, D.F. Boesch, R.W. Buddemeier, V. 

Burkett, D.R. Cayan, M. Fogarty, M.A. Harwell, R.W. 

Howarth, C. Mason, D.J. Reed, T.C. Royer, A.H. Sallenger, 

and J.G. Titus, 2002: Climate change impacts on U.S. 

coastal and marine ecosystems. Estuaries, 25(2), 149-164.

Scheltema, R.S., 1986: On dispersal and planktonic larvae of 

marine invertebrates: an ecletic overview and summary of 

problems. Bulletin of Marine Science, 39, 290-322.

Schuttenberg, H.Z. and P. Marshall, 2007: Managing for 

Mass Coral Bleaching: Strategies for Supporting SocioEcological Resilience. Status of Caribbean coral reefs after 

bleaching and hurricanes in 2005 Reef and Rainforest 

Research Centre, Townsville.

Shanks, A.L., B.A. Grantham, and M.H. Carr, 2003: Propagule 

dispersal distance and the size and spacing of marine 

reserves. Ecological Applications, 13(1), S159-S169.

lionfi sh, Pterois volitans (Pisces: Scorpaenidae), new to 

Bahamian ichthyofauna. Coral Reefs, 26(1), 175.

Snyder, M.A., L.C. Sloan, N.S. Diffenbaugh, and J.L. Bell, 

2003: Future climate change and upwelling in the Califo

current. Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15).

Sobel, J.A. and C. Dahlgren, 2004: Marine Reserves: a Guid

Science, Design, and Use. Island Press, Washington, DC

pp. 1-383.

Sotka, E.E., J.P. Wares, J.A. Barth, R.K. Grosberg, and S.R. 

Palumbi, 2004: Strong genetic clines and geographical 

variation in gene fl ow in the rocky intertidal barnacle 

Balanus glandula. Molecular Ecology, 13(8), 2143-2156

Soto, C.G., 2001: The potential impacts of global climate cha

on marine protected areas. Reviews in Fish Biology and 

Fisheries, 11(3), 181-195.

Sousa, W.P., 1984: The role of disturbance in natural 

communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic

15, 353-391.

Stachowicz, J.J., J.R. Terwin, R.B. Whitlatch, and R.W. Osm

2002: Linking climate change and biological invasions: 

ocean warming facilitates nonindigenous species invasio

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America, 99(24), 15497-15500.

Steneck, R.S., 2006: Staying connected in a turbulent world. 

Science, 311(5760), 480-481.

Steneck, R.S. and J. T. Carlton, 2001: Human alterations 

of marine communities: students beware!, In: Marine 

Community Ecology, [Bertness, M.D., S.D. Gaines, and 

M.E. Hay (eds.)]. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, 

pp. 445-468.

Steneck, R.S. and M.N. Dethier, 1994: A functional group 

approach to the structure of algal-dominated communiti

Oikos, 69(3), 476-498.

Back Matter.indd 66 ack Matter.indd 66 
pyp y

western North Atlantic. Ecosystems, 7(4), 323-331.

Steneck, R.S. and C.J. Wilson, 2001: Large-scale and long-term, 

spatial and temporal patterns in demography and landings 

of the American lobster, Homarus americanus. Journal of 

Marine and Freshwater Research, 52, 1303-1319.

Stewart, R.R., T. Noyce, and H.P. Possingham, 2003: 

Opportunity cost of ad hoc marine reserve design decisions: 

an example from South Australia. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 253, 25-38.

Stillman, J.H., 2003: Acclimation capacity underlies 

susceptibility to climate change. Science, 301(5629), 65.

Stobutzki, I.C. and D.R. Bellwood, 1997: Sustained swimming 

abilities of the late pelagic stages of coral reef fi shes. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series, 149(1), 35-41.

Stocker, T.F. and O. Marchal, 2000: Abrupt climate change in 

the computer: is it real? In: Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , pp. 

1362-1365.

Swearer, S.E., J.E. Caselle, D.W. Lea, and R.R. Warner, 1999: 

Larval retention and recruitment in an island population of a 

coral-reef fi sh. Nature, 402(6763), 799-802.

Taylor, M.S. and M.E. Hellberg, 2003: Genetic evidence for 

local retention of pelagic larvae in a Caribbean reef fi sh. 

Science, 299(5603), 107-109.

The Group of Experts on Scientifi c Aspects of Marine 

Environmental Protection, 2001: Protecting the Oceans 

From Land-Based Activities. Land-based sources and 

activities affecting the quality and uses of the marine, 

coastal and associated freshwater environment United 

Nations Environment Program, Nairobi.

The Royal Society, 2005: Ocean Acidifi cation Due to Increasing 

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The Royal Society, London, 

-60.

Tilmant, J.T., R.W. Curry, R. Jones, A. Szmant, J.C. Zie

Flora, M.B. Robblee, D. Smith, R.W. Snow, and H. 

1994: Hurricane Andrew’s effects on marine resour

the small underwater impact contrasts sharply with 

destruction in mangrove and upland-forest commun

BioScience, 44(4), 230-237.

Tolimieri, N., A. Jeffs, and J.C. Montgomery, 2000: Am

sound as a cue for navigation by the pelagic larvae 

fi shes. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 207, 219-2

Tomanek, L. and G.N. Somero, 1999: Evolutionary and 

acclimation-induced variation in the heat-shock res

of congeneric marine snails (genus Tegula) from di

thermal habitats: implications for limits of thermoto

and biogeography. Journal of Experimental Biology

2925-2936.

Tompkins, E.L. and W.N. Adger, 2004: Does adaptive 

management of natural resources enhance resilienc

climate change? Ecology and Society, 9(2), 10.

Turgeon, D.D., R.G. Asch, B.D. Causey, R.E. Dodge, W

K. Banks, J. Delaney, B.D. Keller, R. Speiler, C.A. 

J.R. Garcia, E. Diaz, D. Catanzaro, C.S. Rogers, Z. 

Starr, R. Nemeth, M. Taylor, G.P. Schmahl, M.W. M

D.A. Gulko, J.E. Maragos, A.M. Friedlander, C.L. 

R.S. Brainard, P. Craig, R.H. Richmond, G. Davis, 

Starmer, M. Trianni, P. Houk, C.E. Birkeland, A. E

Y. Golbuu, J. Gutierrez, N. Idechong, G. Paulay, A. 

Tafi leichig, and N. Vander Velde, 2002: The State o

Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacifi c F

Associated States: 2002. National Oceanic and Atm

Administration/National Ocean Service/National C

Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD, pp.1-26

U.S. Census Bureau, 2001: County and city data book: 

(13th Edition), 1-895.

U.S. Climate Change Science Program and Subcomm

Global Change Research, 2003: Vision for the Pro

and Highlights of the Scientifi c Strategic Plan. U.S

Change Science Program, Washington, D.C..

Back Matter.indd 67 ack Matter.indd 67 
68

, g, 

from the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfi eld, VA, and online at http://www.epa.gov/ncea.

Wadell, J.E., 2005: The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the 

United States and Pacifi c Freely Associated States: 2005. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 11, NOAA/

NCCOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment’s 

Biogeography Team, Silver Spring, MD, pp.1-522.

Wainwright, P.C., 1994: Functional morphology as a tool in 

ecological research, In: Ecological Morphology: Integrative 

Organismal Biology, [Wainwright, P.C. and S.M. Reilly 

(eds.)]. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 42-59.

Walther, G.R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, 

T.J.C. Beebee, J.M. Fromentin, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and 

F. Bairlein, 2002: Ecological responses to recent climate 

change. Nature, 416, 389-395.

Warner, R.R., S.E. Swearer, and J.E. Caselle, 2000: Larval 

accumulation and retention: Implications for the design of 

marine reserves and essential fi sh habitat. Bulletin of Marine 

Science, 66(3), 821-830.

Watling, L. and M. Risk, 2002: Special issue on biology of cold 

water corals: proceedings of the fi rst international deep-sea 

coral symposium. Hydrobiologia, 471.

Wells, S., 2006: Establishing National and Regional Systems of 

MPAs – a Review of Progress With Lessons Learned. Second 

Draft, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, UNEP 

Regional Seas Programme, ICRAN, IUCN/WCPA – Marine.

West, J.M. and R.V. Salm, 2003: Resistance and resilience to 

coral bleaching: implications for coral reef conservation and 

management. Conservation Biology, 17(4), 956-967.

Whelan, K.R.T., J. Miller, O. Sanchez, and M. Patterson, 2007: 

Impact of the 2005 coral bleaching event on Porites porites

and Colpophyllia natans at Tektite Reef, US Virgin Islands. 

Coral Reefs, 26, 689-693.

pg g, (), 

Wilkinson, C.R., 1998: Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 

1998. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville

Australia.

Wilkinson, C.R., 2000: Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 

2000. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville

Australia.

Wilkinson, C.R., 2002: Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 

2002. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville

Australia.

Wilkinson, C.R., 2004: Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 

2004. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville

Australia.

Williams, D.M.B., E. Wolanski, and J.C. Andrews, 1984: 

Transport mechanisms and the potential movement of 

planktonic larvae in the central region of the Great Barri

Reef. Coral Reefs, 3(4), 229-236.

Williams, E.H.Jr. and L. Bunkley-Williams, 1990: The world

wide coral reef bleaching cycle and related sources of co

mortality. Atoll Research Bulletin, (355), 1-72.

Williams, E.H.Jr., C. Goenaga, and V. Vicente, 1987: Mass 

bleachings on Atlantic coral reefs. Science, 238, 877-878

Wooldridge, S., T. Done, R. Berkelmans, R. Jones, and 

P. Marshall, 2005: Precursors for resilience in coral 

communities in a warming climate: a belief network 

approach. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 295, 157-16

Wooninck, L. and C. Bertrand, 2004: Marine managed areas 

designated by NOAA fi sheries: a characterization study 

and preliminary assessment. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium, 42, 89-103.

World Resources Institute, 1996: World Resources 1996-97

the Urban Environment. United Nations Environment 

Programme, United Nations Development Programme, 

the World Bank, pp.1-384.

Back Matter.indd 68 ack Matter.indd 68 
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES

Araújo, M.B. and M. New, 2007: Ensemble forecasting of 

species distributions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 22, 

42-47.

Arvai, J., G. Bridge, N. Dolsak, R. Franzese, T. Koontz, A. 

Luginbuhl, P. Robbins, K. Richards, K.S. Korfmacher, B. 

Sohngen, J. Tansey, and A. Thompson, 2006: Adaptive 

management of the global climate problem: gridging the 

gap between climate research and climate policy. Climatic 

Change, 78, 217-225.

Aschmann, H., 1973: Distribution and peculiarity of 

Mediterranean ecosystems, In: Mediterranean Type 

Ecosystems: Origin and Structure, [Castri, F.D. and H. 

Mooney (eds.)]. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp. 11-19.

Battin, J., M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. 

Korb, K.K. Bartz, and H. Imaki, 2007: Projected impacts of 

climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America, 104(16), 6720-6725.

Behrenfeld, M.J., R.T. O’Malley, D.A. Siegel, C.R. McClain, 

J.L. Sarmiento, G.C. Feldman, A.J. Milligan, P.G. 

Falkowski, R.M. Letelier, and E.S. Boss, 2006: Climatedriven trends in contemporary ocean productivity. Nature, 

444(7120), 752-755.

Benestad, R.E., I. Hanssen-Bauer, and E.J. Fairland, 2007: 

An evaluation of statistical models for downscaling 

precipitation and their ability to capture long-term trends. 

International Journal of Climatology, 27(5), 649-665.

Bengtsson, J., P. Angelstam, T. Elmqvist, U. Emanuelsson, 

C. Folke, M. Ihse, F. Moberg, and M. Nystroem, 2003: 

Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. Ambio, 32(6), 

389-396.

Bennett, E.M., G.S. Cumming, and G.D. Peterson, 2005: 

A systems model approach to determining resilience 

surrogates for case studies. Ecosystems, 8, 945-957.

g y, (), 

Christensen, J., B. C. Hewistson, A. Busuioc, A. Chen, 

I. Held, R. Jones, R. K. Kolli, W.-T. Kwon, R. Lapr

Magaña Rueda, L. Mearns, C. G. Menéndez, J. Räi

A. Rinke, A. Sarr, and P. Whetton, 2007: Regional 

projections, In: Climate Change 2007: the Physica

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

Climate Change, [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Mannin

Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 848-940.

Dettinger, M.D., 2005: From climate-change spaghetti 

climate-change distributions for 21st century Califo

Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 3(1).

Dixon, G.E., 2003: Essential FVS: A User’s Guide to the 

Vegetation Simulator. U.S. Department of Agricultu

Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center

Collins, CO, pp.193p.

Field, C.B., 1999: Diverse controls on carbon storage un

elevated CO2: toward a synthesis, In: Carbon Diox

Environmental Stress, [Luo, Y. (ed.)]. Academic Pr

Diego, California, pp. 373-391.

Folke, C., S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, C. 

Holling, and B. Walker, 2002: Resilience and susta

development: building adaptive capacity in a world 

transformations. Ambio, 31(5), 437-440.

Folke, C., S. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Elmq

L.H. Gunderson, and C.S. Holling, 2004: Regime s

resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem managem

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 35, 557

Fried, J.S., M.S. Torn, and E. Mills, 2004: The impact o

change on wildfi re severity: a regional forecast for 

California. Climatic Change, 64(1), 169-191.

Back Matter.indd 69 ack Matter.indd 69 
70

ggpp, (), 

2411-2425.

Guinotte, J.M., J. Orr, S. Cairns, A. Freiwald, L. Morgan, and 

R. George, 2006: Will human-induced changes in seawater 

chemistry alter the distribution of deep-sea scleractinian 

corals? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4(3), 

141-146.

Gunderson, L.H., 2000: Ecological resilience-in theory and 

application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31, 

425-439.

Hall, M.H.P. and D.B. Fagre, 2003: Modeled climate-induced 

glacier change in Glacier National Park, 1850-2100. 

BioScience, 53(2), 131-140.

Holling, C.S., 1973: Resilience and stability of ecological 

systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 

1-23.

IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: the Scientifi c Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

[Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van 

der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom 

and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC, 2007: Summary for policymakers, In: Climate Change 

2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Solomon, S., 

D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. 

Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. University of Cambridge 

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, 

USA.

IPCC-TGICA, 2007: General Guidelines on the Use of Scenario 

Data for Climate Impact and Adaptation Assessment. 

Version 2, Prepared by T.R. Carter on behalf of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Task Group 

on Data and Scenario Support for Impact and Climate 

Assessment, pp.1-66.

Science, 309(5731), 100.

Lamy, F., J. Bolte, M. Santelmann, and C. Smith, 2002: 

Development and evaluation of multiple-objective decis

making methods for watershed management planning. 

Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 

38(2), 517-529.

Lawler, J.J., D. White, R.P. Neilson, and A.R. Blaustein, 200

Predicting climate-induced range shifts: model differenc

and model reliability. Global Change Biology, 12, 

1568-1584.

Leeworthy, V.R. and P.C. Wiley, 2003: Profi les and Econom

Contribution: General Visitors to Monroe County, 

Florida 2000-2001. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Silver Spring, MD, pp.1-24.

Leung, L.R., L.O. Mearns, F. Giorgi, and R.L. Wilby, 2003: 

Regional climate research: needs and opportunities. Bul

of the American Meteorological Society, 84, 89-95.

Logan, J.A., J. Regniere, and J.A. Powell, 2003: Assessing 

the impacts of global warming on forest pest dynamics. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(3), 130-13

Lovejoy, T.E. and L. Hannah, 2005: Climate Change and 

Biodiversity. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Luck, G.W., G.C. Daily, and P.R. Ehrlich, 2003: Population 

diversity and ecosystem services. Trends in Ecology and 

Evolution, 18(7), 331-336.

Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, R.P. Neilson, L. Hansen, and L. Hann

2006: Global warming and extinctions of endemic speci

from biodiversity hotspots. Conservation Biology, 20(2)

538-548.

Mau-Crimmins, T., A. Hubbard, D. Angell, C. Filippone, an

N. Kline, 2005: Sonoran Desert Network: Vitals Signs 

Monitoring Plan. National Park Service, Intermountain 

Region, Denver, CO.

Back Matter.indd 70 ack Matter.indd 70 
vulnerability to global change. International Journal of 

Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 7, 253-267.

Mitchell, T.D., T.R. Carter, P.D. Jones, M. Hulme, and M. New, 

2004: A Comprehensive Set of High-Resolution Grids of 

Monthly Climate for Europe and the Globe: the Observed 

Record (1901-2000) and 16 Scenarios (2001-2100). 

Working Paper 55, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change 

Research.

Moore, J.L., A. Balmford, T. Brooks, N.D. Burgess, L.A. 

Hansen, C. Rahbek, and P.H. Williams, 2003: Performance 

of sub-Saharan vertebrates as indicator groups for 

identifying priority areas for conservation. Conservation 

Biology, 17(1), 207-218.

Myers, N., 1979: The Sinking Arc. Pergamon Press, New York, 

NY.

National Research Council, 1999: Downstream: Adaptive 

Management of the Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado 

River Ecosystem. National Academies Press, Washington, 

DC.

Pan, Z., J.H. Christensen, R.W. Arritt, and W.J. Gutowski, 

2001: Evaluation of uncertainties in regional climate 

change simulations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 106, 

17735-17751.

Parmesan, C., 1996: Climate and species’ range. Nature, 382, 

765-766.

Parrish, J.D., D.P. Braun, and R.S. Unnasch, 2003: Are we 

conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological 

integrity within protected areas. BioScience, 53(9), 851-860.

Pauly, D., 1995: Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome 

of fi sheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10(10), 

430-430.

Pearson, R.G., T.P. Dawson, P.M. Berry, and P.A. Harrison, 

2002: SPECIES: A spatial evaluation of climate impact 

on the envelope of species. Ecological Modelling, 154(3), 

289-300.

marine fi shes through the oxygen limitation of ther

tolerance. Science, 315(5808), 95-97.

Root, T.L. and S. H. Schneider, 2002: Climate change: o

and implications for wildlife, In: Wildlife Response

Climate Change: North American Case Studies, [S

S.H. and T.L. Root (eds.)]. Island Press, Washingto

pp. 1-56.

Salathé, E.P., Jr., 2003: Comparison of various precipita

downscaling methods for the simulation of streamfl 

in a rainshadow river basin. International Journal o

Climatology, 23(8), 887-901.

Scheffer, M., S. Carpenter, J.A. Foley, C. Folke, and B.H

Walker, 2001: Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. N

413, 591-596.

Scholze, M., W. Knorr, N.W. Arnell, and I.C. Prentice, 2

A climate-change risk analysis for world ecosystem

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences o

United States of America, 103(35), 13116-13120.

Schwartz, P., 1996: Art of the Long View: Planning for 

Future in an Uncertain World. Currency Doubleday

York, NY, pp. 1-258.

Shongwe, M.E., W.A. Landman, and S.J. Mason, 2006: 

Performance of recalibration systems for GCM fore

for southern Africa. International Journal of Clima

26(12), 1567-1585.

Spak, S., T. Holloway, B. Lynn, and R. Goldberg, 2007: 

comparison of statistical and dynamical downscalin

for surface temperature in North America. Journal 

Geophysical Research, 112, 1029-1034.

Spittlehouse, D.L. and R.B. Stewart, 2003: Adaptation t

change in forest management. BC Journal of Ecosy

and Management, 4(1), 7-17.

Tallis, H.M. and P. Kareiva, 2006: Shaping global envir

decisions using socio-ecological models. Trends in 

and Evolution, 21, 562-568.

Back Matter.indd 71 ack Matter.indd 71 
72

y gf y 

of Sciences of the United States of America Early Edition, 

100(14).

U.S. Climate Change Science Program, in press: Synthesis and 

assessment product 4.1: Coastal elevation and sensitivity 

to sea level rise. A report by the U. S. Climate Change 

Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change 

Research, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. [Titus, 

J.G. (ed.)]. 

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam, 

2006: Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. 

forest wildfi re activity. Science, 313(5789), 940-943.

Wilby, R.L., S.P. Charles, E. Zorita, B. Timbal, P. Whetton, and 

L.O. Mearns, 2004: Guidelines for Use of Climate Scenarios 

Developed From Statistical Downscaling Methods. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Task Group 

on Data and Scenarios Support for Impact and Climate 

Assessment, pp.1-27.

Wilby, R.L., T.M.L. Wigley, D. Conway, P.D. Jones, B.C. 

Hewitson, J. Main, and D.S. Wilks, 1998: Statistical 

downscaling of general circulation model output: a 

comparison of methods. Water Resources Research, 34(11), 

2995-3008.

Willis, K.J. and H.J.B. Birks, 2006: What is natural? The need 

for a long-term perspective in biodiversity conservation. 

Science, 314(5803), 1261.

Wood, A.W., L.R. Leung, V. Sridhar, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 

2004: Hydrologic implications of dynamical and statistical 

approaches to downscaling climate model outputs. Climatic 

Change, 62(1), 189-216.

Worm, B., E.B. Barbier, N. Beaumont, J.E. Duffy, C. Folke, 

B.S. Halpern, J.B.C. Jackson, H.K. Lotze, F. Micheli, 

S.R. Palumbi, E. Sala, K.A. Selkoe, J.J. Stachowicz, and 

R. Watson, 2006: Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean 

ecosystem services. Science, 314(5800), 787-790.

Aeby, G.S., 2006: Baseline levels of coral disease in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin

543, 471-488.

Anil, A.C., D. Desai, and L. Khandeparker, 2001: Larval 

development and metamorphosis in Balanus amphitrite

Darwin (Cirripedia; Thoracica): signifi cance of food 

concentration, temperature and nucleic acids. Journal 

of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 263(2), 

125-141.

Antonelis, G.A., J.D. Baker, T.C. Johanos, R.C. Braun, and A

Harting, 2006: Hawaiian monk seal: status and conserva

issues. Atoll Research Bulletin, 543, 75-101.

Apple, D.D., 1996: Changing social and legal forces affectin

the management of national forests. Women in Natural 

Resources, 18, 1-13.

Arzel, C., J. Elmberg, and M. Guillemain, 2006: Ecology 

of spring-migrating Anatidae: a review. Journal of 

Ornithology, 147(2), 167-184.

Ault, J.S., J.A. Bohnsack, and G.A. Meester, 1998: A 

retrospective (1979-1996) multispecies assessment of co

reef fi sh stocks in the Florida Keys. Fishery Bulletin, 96

395-414.

Ault, J.S., S.G. Smith, J.A. Bohnsack, J. Luo, D.E. Harper, an

D.B. McClellan, 2006: Building sustainable fi sheries in 

Florida’s coral reef ecosystem: positive signs in the Dry 

Tortugas. Bulletin of Marine Science, 78(3), 633-654.

Austin, J.E., A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, R.G. Clark, C.M. 

Custer, J.S. Lawrence, J.B. Pollard, and J.K. Ringelman

2000: Declining scaup populations: issues, hypotheses, a

research needs. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(1), 254-263

Bachelet, D., R.P. Neilson, J.M. Lenihan, and R.J. Drapek, 2

Climate change effects on vegetation distribution and ca

budget in the United States. Ecosystems, 4, 164-185.

Back Matter.indd 72 ack Matter.indd 72 
Bohnsack, J.A., D.E. Harper, and D.B. McClellan, 1994

Fisheries trends from Monroe County, Florida. Bul

Marine Science, 54(3), 982-1018.

Boland, R., B. Zgliczynski, J. Asher, A. Hall, K. Hogref

Timmers, 2006: Dynamics of debris densities and r

at the northwestern Hawaiian Islands coral reefs. A

Research Bulletin, 543, 461-470.

Bricker, S.B., C.G. Clement, D.E. Pirhalla, S.P. Orlando

D.R.G. Farrow, 1999: National Estuarine Eutrophi

Assessment: Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the N

Estuaries. National Centers for Coastal Ocean Scie

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Spring, MD, pp. 1-71.

Brinson, M.M., 1991: Ecology of a Nontidal Brackish M

Coastal North Carolina. [Brinson, M.M. (ed.)]. U. 

and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Research C

Slidell, Louisiana.

Buddemeier, R.W., J.A. Kleypas, and R. Aronson, 2004

Reefs and Global Climate Change: Potential Contr

of Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosy

Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Bureau of Land Management, 2000: The Rio Grande 

Final Plan. U.S. Department of Interior, pp.1-54.

Burkholder, J.M., E.J. Noga, C.H. Hobbs, and H.B. Gla

1992: New ‘phantom’ dinofl agellate is the causativ

major estuarine fi sh kills. Nature, 358(6385), 407-4

Burns, T.P., 1985: Hard-coral distribution and cold-wate

disturbances in South Florida: variation with depth 

location. Coral Reefs, 4, 117-124.

Busenberg, G., 2004: Wildfi re management in the Unite

States: The evolution of a policy failure. Review of 

Research, 21(2), 145-156.

, , 

Barber, V.A., G.P. Juday, and B.P. Finney, 2000: Reduced 

growth of Alaskan white spruce in the twentieth century 

from temperature-induced drought stress. Nature, 

405(6787), 668-673.

Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, and R. Schnur, 2001: Detection 

of anthropogenic climate change in the world’s oceans. 

Science, 292, 270-274.

Barry, J.P., C.H. Baxter, R.D. Sagarin, and S.E. Gilman, 1995: 

Climate-related, long-term faunal changes in a California 

rocky intertidal community. Science, 267(5198), 672-675.

Barth, J.A., B.A. Menge, J. Lubchenco, F. Chan, J.M. Bane, 

A.R. Kirincich, M.A. McManus, K.J. Nielsen, S.D. Pierce, 

and L. Washburn, 2007: Delayed upwelling alters nearshore 

coastal ocean ecosystems in the northern California current. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America, 104(10), 3719-3724.

Battin, J., M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. 

Korb, K.K. Bartz, and H. Imaki, 2007: Projected impacts of 

climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America, 104(16), 6720-.

Bayne, B.L., R. J. Thompson, and J. Widdows, 1973: Some 

effects of temperature and food on the rate of oxygen 

consumption by Mytilus edulus, In: Effects of Temperature 

on Ectothermic Organisms, [Weiser, W. (ed.)]. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, pp. 181-193.

Beesley, D., 1996: Reconstructing the landscape: An 

environmental history, 1820-1960. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 

Project: Final report to Congress, 2, 3-24.

Beever, E.A., P.F. Brussard, and J. Berger, 2003: Patterns 

of apparent extirpation among isolated populations of 

pikas(Ochotona princeps) in the Great Basin. Journal of 

Mammalogy, 84(1), 37-54.

Back Matter.indd 73 ack Matter.indd 73 
74

California Climate Action Team, 2005: First Annual Report to 

the Governor and Legislators (Draft). 

Cayan, D., P. Bromirski, K. Hayhoe, M. Tyree, M. Dettinger, 

and R. Flick, 2006a: Projecting Future Sea Level. CEC500-2005-202-SF, White paper prepared for the California 

Climate Change Center.

Cayan, D., A.L. Luers, M. Hanemann, and G. Franco, 2006b: 

Scenarios of Climate Change in California: an Overview. 

Climate action team report to the Governor and Legislators. 

California Climate Change Center.

Cayan, D.R., M.D. Dettinger, H.F. Diaz, and N.E. Graham, 

1998: Decadal variability of precipitation over Western 

North America. Journal of Climate, 11(12), 3148-3166.

Chin, A., P. M. Kyne, T. I. Walker, R. B. McAuley, J. D. Stevens, 

C. L. Dudgeon, and R. D. Pillans, 2007: Vulnerability of 

chondrichthyan fi shes of the Great Barrier Reef to climate 

change, In: Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef, 

[Johnson, J. and P. Marshall (eds.)]. Great Barrier Reef 

Marine Park Authority, Townsville.

Christian, R.R., L. Stasavich, C. Thomas, and M. M. Brinson, 

2000: Reference is a moving target in sea-level controlled 

wetlands, In: Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh 

Ecology, [Weinstein, M.P. and D.A. Kreeger (eds.)]. Kluwer 

Press, The Netherlands, pp. 805-825.

Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, 2004: 

Overview of Climate Change Impacts in the U.S. Pacifi c 

Northwest. Climate Impacts Group, University of 

Washington, Seattle.

Clow, D.W., L. Schrott, R. Webb, D.H. Campbell, A. Torizzo, 

and M. Dornblaser, 2003: Ground water occurrence 

and contributions to streamfl ow in an alpine catchment, 

Colorado front range. Ground Water, 41(7), 937-950.

Coles, S.L. and Y.H. Fadlallah, 1991: Reef coral survival and 

mortality at low temperatures in the Arabian Gulf: new 

species-specifi c lower temperature limits. Coral Reefs, 9(4), 

231-237.

qg pg

Estuaries, 25(4), 848-861.

Cook, G.D., R.J. Williams, L.B. Hutley, A.P. O’Grady, and A

Liedloff, 2002: Variation in vegetative water use in the 

savannas of the North Australian Tropical Transect. Jour

of Vegetation Science, 13(3), 413-418.

Cooper, D.J., J. Dickens, N. Thompson Hobbs, L. Christense

and L. Landrum, 2006: Hydrologic, geomorphic and 

climatic processes controlling willow establishment in 

a montane ecosystem. Hydrological Processes, 20(8), 

1845-1864.

Cooper, S.R., S.K. McGlothlin, M. Madritch, and D.L. Jones

2004: Paleoecological evidence of human impacts on th

Neuse and Pamlico Estuaries of North Carolina, USA. 

Estuaries, 27(4), 617-633.

Copeland, B.J. and J.E. Hobbie, 1972: Phosphorus and 

Eutrophication in the Pamlico River Estuary, N. C., 

1966-1969- A SUMMARY. 1972-65, University of North 

Carolina Water Resources Research Institute, Raleigh, N

Carolina.

Cowie-Haskell, B.D. and J.M. Delaney, 2003: Integrating 

science into the design of the Tortugas Ecological Reser

Marine Technology Society Journal, 37(1), 68-79.

Cubasch, U., G. A. Meehl, G. J. Boer, R. J. Stouffer, M. Dix

A. Noda, C. A. Senior, S. Raper, and K. S. Yap, 2001: 

Projections of future climate change, In: Climate Chang

2001: The Scientifi c Basis. Contribution of Working Gro

I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernment

Panel on Climate Change, [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J

Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Mask

and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 

525-582.

Dameron, O.J., M. Parke, M.A. Albins, and R. Brainard, 200

Marine debris accumulation in the Northwestern Hawaii

Islands: an examination of rates and processes. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 54(4), 423-433.

Back Matter.indd 74 ack Matter.indd 74 
Delaney, J.M., 2003: Community capacity building in the 

designation of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve. Gulf and 

Caribbean Research, 12(2), 163-169.

Delaware River Basin Commission, 2004: Water Resource 

Plan for the Delaware River Basin. Delaware River Basin 

Commission, pp.1-100.

DeMartini, E.E. and A.M. Friedlander, 2004: Spatial patterns 

of endemism in shallow-water reef fi sh populations of the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 271, 281-296.

DeMartini, E.E. and A.M. Friedlander, 2006: Predation, 

endemism, and related processes structuring shallow-water 

reef fi sh assemblages of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. 

Atoll Research Bulletin, 543, 237-256.

DeMartini, E.E., A.M. Friedlander, and S.R. Holzwarth, 2005: 

Size at sex change in protogynous labroids, prey body size 

distributions, and apex predator densities at NW Hawaiian 

atolls. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 297, 259-271.

Dettinger, M.D., D.R. Cayan, M.K. Meyer, and A.E. Jeton, 

2004: Simulated hydrologic responses to climate variations 

and change in the Merced, Carson, and American River 

basins, Sierra Nevada, California, 1900-2099. Climatic 

Change, 62(1/3), 283-317.

Dollar, S.J. and R.W. Grigg, 2004: Anthropogenic and natural 

stresses on selected coral reefs in Hawaii: a multidecade 

synthesis of impact and recovery. Pacifi c Science, 58(2), 

281-304.

Done, T., P. Whetton, R. Jones, R. Berkelmans, J. Lough, W. 

Skirving, and S. Wooldridge, 2003: Global Climate Change 

and Coral Bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. State of 

Queensland Greenhouse Taskforce through the Department 

of Natural Resources and Mines.

Dye, D.G., 2002: Variability and trends in the annual sno

cover cycle in Northern Hemisphere land areas, 19

Hydrological Processes, 16(15), 3065-3077.

Edwards, M.S., 2004: Estimating scale-dependency in 

disturbance impacts: El Niños and giant kelp forest

northeast Pacifi c. Oecologia, 138(3), 436-447.

Ettl, G.J. and D.L. Peterson, 1995: Growth response of 

fi r (Abies lasiocarpa) to climate in the Olympic Mo

Washington, USA. Global Change Biology, 1(3), 2

Euskirchen, S., A.D. McGuire, D.W. Kicklighter, Q. Zh

J.S. Clein, R.J. Dargaville, D.G. Dye, J.S. Kimball, 

McDonald, J.M. Melillo, V.E. Romanovsky, and N

2006: Importance of recent shifts in soil thermal dy

on growing season length, productivity, and carbon 

sequestration in terrestrial high-latitude ecosystems

Change Biology, 12, 731-750.

Field, J.C., D. F. Boesch, D. Scavia, R. H. Buddemeier, 

R. Burkett, D. Cayan, M. Fogerty, M. A. Harwell, R

Howarth, C. Mason, L. J. Pietrafesa, D. J. Reed, T. 

Royer, A. H. Sallenger, M. Spranger, and J. G. Titu

Potential consequences of climate variability and c

coastal and marine resources, In: Climate Change I

in the United States: Potential Consequences of Cl

Change and Variability and Change, Report for the 

Global Change Research Program, Cambridge Uni

Press, Cambridge, UK.

Firing, J. and R.E. Brainard, 2006: Ten years of shipboa

measurements along the Northwestern Hawaiian Is

Atoll Research Bulletin, 543, 351-368.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 20

Wekiva River Basin State Parks, Multi-Unit Manag

Plan. pp.1-98.

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 2002: 

Comprehensive Science Plan. Available from http:/

fl oridakeys.noaa.gov/research_monitoring/fknms_s

plan.pdf.

Back Matter.indd 75 ack Matter.indd 75 
76

Friedlander, A.M. and E.E. DeMartini, 2002: Contrasts in 

density, size, and biomass of reef fi shes between the 

northwestern and the main Hawaiian Islands: the effects 

of fi shing down apex predators. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 230, 253-264.

Galbraith, H., D. Yates, D.D. Purkey, A. Huber-Lee, J. Sieber, 

J. West, S. Herrod-Julius, and B. Joyce, in press: Climate 

warming, water storage, and chinook salmon in California’s 

Sacramento Valley. Climatic Change.

Gardner, T.A., I.M. Cote, J.A. Gill, A. Grant, and A.R. 

Watkinson, 2003: Long-term region-wide declines in 

Caribbean corals. Science, 301(5635), 958-960.

Gavin, D.G., J.S. McLachlan, L.B. Brubaker, and K.A. Young, 

2001: Postglacial history of subalpine forests, Olympic 

Peninsula, Washington, USA. The Holocene, 11(2), 

177-188.

Giese, G.L., H.B. Wilder, and G.G. Parker, 1985: Hydrology 

of Major Estuaries and Sounds of North Carolina. USGS 

Water-Supply Paper 2221, USGS, pp.1-108.

Glynn, P.W., 1993: Coral reef bleaching: ecological perspectives. 

Coral Reefs, 12(1), 1-17.

Graham, M.H., 2004: Effects of local deforestation on the 

diversity and structure of southern California giant kelp 

forest food webs. Ecosystems, 7(4), 341-357.

Graham, M.H., P.K. Dayton, and J.M. Erlandson, 2003: Ice ages 

and ecological transitions on temperate coasts. Trends in 

Ecology and Evolution, 18(1), 33-40.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2007: Measuring 

the Economic and Financial Value of the Great Barrier Reef 

Marine Park 2005/06. Access Economics.

Grigg, R.W., 1981: Acropora in Hawaii. Part 2: zoogeography. 

Pacifi c Science, 35, 15-24.

Grigg, R.W., J. Polovina, A. Friedlander, and S. Rohman, 

2007: Biology and paleoceanography of the coral reefs i

the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, In: Coral Reefs of th

United States, [Riegl, B. and R. Dodge (eds.)]. Springer

Vergal Publishing.

Grigg, R.W., J. Wells, and C. Wallace, 1981: Acropora in Ha

Part 1: history of the scientifi c record, systematics and 

ecology. Pacifi c Science, 35, 1-13.

Guzmán, H.M. and J. Cortés, 2001: Changes in reef commun

structure after fi fteen years of natural disturbances in the 

eastern pacifi c (Costa Rica). Bulletin of Marine Science, 

69(1), 133-149.

Halpern, B.S., 2003: The impact of marine reserves: do rese

work and does reserve size matter? Ecological Applicati

13(1), S117-S137.

Halpern, B.S. and K. Cottenie, 2007: Little evidence for clim

effects on local-scale structure and dynamics of Californ

kelp forest communities. Global Change Biology, 13(1)

236-251.

Hamlet, A.F., P.W. Mote, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 

2005: Effects of temperature and precipitation variability 

on snowpack trends in the western United States. Journa

Climate, 18(21), 4545-4561.

Hamlet, A.F., P.W. Mote, M.P. Clark, and D.P. 

Lettenmaier, 2007: Twentieth-century trends in runoff, 

evapotranspiration, and soil moisture in the western Uni

States. Journal of Climate, 20(8), 1468-1486.

Harvell, C.D., K. Kim, J.M. Burkholder, R.R. Colwell, P.R. 

Epstein, D.J. Grimes, E.E. Hofmann, E.K. Lipp, A. 

Osterhaus, and R.M. Overstreet, 1999: Emerging marine 

diseases--climate links and anthropogenic factors. Scien

285, 1505-1510.

Harvell, C.D., C.E. Mitchell, J.R. Ward, S. Altizer, A.P. Dobs

R.S. Ostfeld, and M.D. Samuel, 2002: Climate warming 

and disease risks for terrestrial and marine biota. Science

296(5576), 2158-2162.

Back Matter.indd 76 ack Matter.indd 76 
, , , , 

Sheridan, and J.H. Verville, 2004: Emissions pathways, 

climate change, and impacts on California. Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America, 101, 34-.

Haynes, D., 2001: Great Barrier Reef Water Quality: Current 

Issues. [Haynes, D. (ed.)]. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 

Authority, Townsville, Australia.

Helmuth, B., B.R. Broitman, C.A. Blanchette, S. Gilman, P. 

Halpin, C.D.G. Harley, M.J. O’Donnell, G.E. Hofmann, B. 

Menge, and D. Strickland, 2006: Mosaic patterns of thermal 

stress in the rocky intertidal zone: implications for climate 

change. Ecological Monographs, 76(4), 461-479.

Herrlinger, T.J., 1981: Range Extension of Kelletia Kelletii. 

Veliger, pp. 1-78.

Heusser, C.J., 1974: Quaternary vegetation, climate, and 

glaciation of the Hoh River Valley, Washington. Geological 

Society of America Bulletin, 85(10), 1547-1560.

Hewatt, W.G., 1937: Ecological studies on selected marine 

intertidal communities of Monterey Bay, California. 

American Midland Naturalist, 18(2), 161-206.

Heyward, F., 1939: The relation of fi re to stand composition of 

longleaf pine forests. Ecology, 20(2), 287-304.

Hinzman, L.D., N.D. Bettez, W.R. Bolton, F.S. Chapin, III, 

M.B. Dyurgerov, C.L. Fastie, B. Griffi th, R.D. Hollister, A. 

Hope, H.P. Huntington, A.M. Jensen, G.J. Jia, T. Jorgenson, 

D.L. Kane, D.R. Klein, G. Kofi nas, A.H. Lynch, A.H. 

Lloyd, A.D. McGuire, F.E. Nelson, M. Nolan, W.C. Oechel, 

T.E. Osterkamp, C.H. Racine, V.E. Romanovsky, R.S. 

Stone, D.A. Stow, M. Sturm, C.E. Tweedie, G.L. Vourlitis, 

M.D. Walker, P.J. Webber, J. Welker, K.S. Winker, and K. 

Yoshikawa, 2005: Evidence and implications of recent 

climate change in northern Alaska and other arctic regions. 

Climatic Change, 72(3), 251-298.

Hobbie, J.E., B. J. Copeland, and W. G. Harrison, 1975: Sources 

and fates of nutrients in the Pamlico River estuary, North 

Carolina, In: Chemistry, Biology and the Estuarine System, 

[Cronin, L.E. (ed.)]. Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 

287-302.

()]

Authority & Australian Greenhouse Offi ce.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O. and J.S. Pearse, 1995: Temperatur

availability, and the development of marine inverte

larvae. American Zoologist, 35(4), 415-425.

Hoeke, R., R. Brainard, R. Moffi tt, and M. Merrifi eld, 2

role of oceanographic conditions and reef morpholo

2002 coral bleaching event in the Northwestern Ha

Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin, 543, 489-503.

Hoffman, J., 2003: Designing reserves to sustain tempe

marine ecosystems in the face of global climate cha

Buying Time: a User’s Manual for Building Resista

Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems, [

L.J., J.L. Biringer, and J.R. Hoffman (eds.)]. WWF 

Change Program, Washington, DC, pp. 123-155.

Hofmann, E.E., J.M. Klinck, S.E. Ford, and E.N. Powe

Disease dynamics: modeling of the effect of climat

on oyster disease. National Shellfi sheries Associati

329-.

Hogg, E.H., 2005: Impacts of drought on forest growth 

regeneration following fi re in southwestern Yukon, 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35(9), 2141-

Hogg, E.H. and P.Y. Bernier, 2005: Climate change imp

on drought-prone forests in western Canada. Fores

Chronicle, 81(5), 675-682.

Hogg, E.H., J.P. Brandt, and P. Hochtubajda, 2005: Fact

affecting interannual variation in growth of western 

Canadian aspen forests during 1951-2000. Canadia

Journal of Forest Research, 35(3), 610-622.

Holbrook, S.J., R.J. Schmitt, and J.S. Stephens, Jr., 199

Changes in an assemblage of temperate reef fi shes 

associated with a climate shift. Ecological Applicat

7(4), 1299-1310.

Back Matter.indd 77 ack Matter.indd 77 
78

ggpggp, (), 

325-335.

Inouye, D.W., B. Barr, K.B. Armitage, and B.D. Inouye, 2000: 

Climate change is affecting altitudinal migrants and 

hibernating species. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences of the United States of America, 97(4), 1630-1633.

IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: the Scientifi c Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

[Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van 

der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom 

and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC, 2007b: Summary for policymakers, In: Climate Change 

2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution 

of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Parry, M.L., 

O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. 

Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

UK, pp. 7-22.

IPCC, 2007a: Summary for policymakers, In: Climate Change 

2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Solomon, S., 

D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. 

Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Jaap, W.C., 1979: Observation on zooxanthellae expulsion 

at Middle Sambo Reef, Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marine 

Science, 29, 414-422.

Jaap, W.C., 1984: The Ecology of the South Florida Coral Reefs: 

a Community Profi le. FWS OBS-82/08 and MMS 84-0038, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Metaine, LA, pp.1-152.

Jaap, W.C. and P. Hallock, 1990: Coral reefs, In: Ecosystems of 

Florida, [Meyers, R.L. and J.J. Ewel (eds.)]. University of 

Central Florida Press, Orlando, Florida, pp. 574-616.

gy , 

(), 

Jokiel, P.L. and E.K. Brown, 2004: Global warming, regiona

trends and inshore environmental conditions infl uence 

coral bleaching in Hawaii. Global Change Biology, 10(1

1627-1641.

Jokiel, P.L., E.K. Brown, A. Friedlander, S.K. Rodgers, and W

Smith, 2004: Hawaii coral reef assessment and monitori

program: spatial patterns and temporal dynamics in reef 

coral communities. Pacifi c Science, 58(2), 159-174.

Jokiel, P.L. and S.L. Coles, 1990: Response of Hawaiian and 

other Indo-Pacifi c reef corals to elevated temperature. C

Reefs, 8(4), 155-162.

Kattsov, V.M. and E. Källén, 2005: Future climate change: 

modeling and scenarios for the Arctic, In: Arctic Climate 

Impact Assessment, Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, UK, pp. 99-150.

Kay, E.A. and S.R. Palumbi, 1987: Endemism and evolution 

in Hawaiian marine invertebrates. Trends in Ecology and 

Evolution, 2, 183-186.

Keller, B.D. and B.D. Causey, 2005: Linkages between the 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the South 

Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative. Ocean & Coas

Management, 48(11-12), 869-900.

Keller, B.D. and S. Donahue, 2006: 2002-03 Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary Science Report: an Ecosyste

Report Card After Five Years of Marine Zoning. Marine 

Sanctuaries Conservation Series NMSP-06-12, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Sanctuary 

Program, Silver Spring, MD, pp.1-358.

Kemp, W.M., P.A. Sampou, J. Garber, J. Tuttle, and W.R. 

Boynton, 1992: Seasonal depletion of oxygen from botto

waters of Chesapeake Bay: roles of benthic and plankton

respiration and physical exchange processes. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series, 85(1).

Back Matter.indd 78 ack Matter.indd 78 
Klein, E., E.E. Berg, and R. Dial, 2005: Wetland drying and 

succession across the Kenai Peninsula Lowlands, southcentral Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35(8), 

1931-1941.

Kleypas, J.A., 2006: Constraints on predicting coral reef 

response to climate change, In: Geological Approaches to 

Coral Reef Ecology, [Aronson, R. (ed.)]. Springer, Verlag, 

NY, pp. 386-424.

Kleypas, J.A., R.W. Buddemeier, and J.P. Gattuso, 2001: 

The future of coral reefs in an age of global change. 

International Journal of Earth Sciences, 90(2), 426-437.

Kleypas, J.A., J.W. McManus, and L.A.B. Mendez, 1999: 

Environmental limits to coral reef development: where do 

we draw the line? Integrative and Comparative Biology, 

39(1), 146-159.

Knowles, N., M.D. Dettinger, and D.R. Cayan, 2006: Trends 

in snowfall versus rainfall in the Western United States. 

Journal of Climate, 19(18), 4545-4559.

Korfmacher, K.S., 1998: Invisible successes, visible failures: 

paradoxes of ecosystem management in the AlbemarlePamlico estuarine study. Coastal Management, 26(3), 

191-212.

Korfmacher, K.S., 2002: Science and ecosystem management 

in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine study. Ocean & Coastal 

Management, 45, 277-300.

Krapu, G.L., D.A. Brandt, and R.R. Cox, Jr., 2004: Less waste 

corn, more land in soybeans, and the switch to genetically 

modifi ed crops: trends with important implications for 

wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32(1), 

127-136.

Kuta, K.G. and L.L. Richardson, 1996: Abundance and 

distribution of black band disease on coral reefs in the 

northern Florida Keys. Coral Reefs, 15(4), 219-223.

g

696-706.

Larson, D.L., 1995: Effects of climate on numbers of no

prairie wetlands. Climatic Change, 30(2), 169-180.

Lawrence, D.M. and A.G. Slater, 2005: A projection of 

near-surface permafrost degradation during the 21s

Geophysical Research Letters, 32(L24401).

Lee, T.N., E. Williams, E. Johns, D. Wilson, and N. P. S

2002: Transport processes linking south Florida coa

ecosystems, In: The Everglades, Florida Bay, and C

Reefs of the Florida Keys: an Ecosystem Sourceboo

[Porter, J.W. and K.G. Porter (eds.)]. CRC Press, B

Raton, FL, pp. 309-342.

Lemieux, C.J. and D.J. Scott, 2005: Climate change, bio

conservation and protected area planning in Canada

Canadian Geographer, 49(4), 384-399.

Lenihan, J.M., D. Bachelet, R. Drapek, and R.P. Neilso

The Response of Vegetation, Distribution, Ecosyste

Productivity, and Fire in California to Future Clim

Scenarios Simulated by the MC1 Dynamic Vegetati

Model. Climate action team report to the Governor 

and Legislators, available from http://www.energy.

ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-191/CEC-

2005-191-SF.PDF.

Lessios, H.A., D.R. Robertson, and J.D. Cubit, 1984: Sp

Diadema mass mortality through the Caribbean. Sc

226(4672), 335-337.

Levitus, S., J.I. Antonov, T.P. Boyer, and C. Stephens, 2

Warming of the world ocean. Science, 287, 2225-22

Lighty, R.G., I.G. Macintyre, and R. Stuckenrath, 1978

Submerged early Holocene barrier reef south-east F

shelf. Nature, 276(5683), 59-60.

Lins, H.F. and J.R. Slack, 1999: Streamfl ow trends in th

States. Geophysical Research Letters, 26(2), 227-2

Back Matter.indd 79 ack Matter.indd 79 
80

Lotze, H.K., H.S. Lenihan, B.J. Bourque, R.H. Bradbury, 

R.G. Cooke, M.C. Kay, S.M. Kidwell, M.X. Kirby, C.H. 

Peterson, and J.B.C. Jackson, 2006: Depletion, degradation, 

and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science, 

312(5781), 1806-1809.

Lough, J., 2007: Climate and climate change scenarios for the 

Great Barrier Reef, In: Climate Change and the Great 

Barrier Reef, [Johnson, J. and P. Marshall (eds.)]. Great 

Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Australia, 

pp. 15-50.

Luppi, T.A., E.D. Spivak, and C.C. Bas, 2003: The effects 

of temperature and salinity on larval development of 

Armases rubripes Rathbun, 1897 (Brachyura, Grapsoidea, 

Sesarmidae), and the southern limit of its geographical 

distribution. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 58(3), 

575-585.

Magnuson, J.J., D.M. Robertson, B.J. Benson, R.H. Wynne, 

D.M. Livingstone, T. Arai, R.A. Assel, R.G. Barry, V. Card, 

E. Kuusisto, N.G. Granin, T.D. Prowse, K.M. Stewart, and 

V.S. Vuglinski, 2000: Historical trends in lake and river 

ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere. Science, 289(5485), 

1743-1746.

Mallin, M.A., J.M. Burkholder, L.B. Cahoon, and M.H. Posey, 

2000: North and South Carolina coasts. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin, 41(1), 56-75.

Mantua, N.J., S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M. Wallace, and R.C. 

Francis, 1997: A pacifi c interdecadal climate oscillation with 

impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American 

Meteorological Society, 78(6), 1069-1079.

Maragos, J.E., D.C. Potts, G. Aeby, D. Gulko, J. Kenyon, D. 

Siciliano, and D. VanRavenswaay, 2004: 2000-2002 Rapid 

ecological assessment of corals (Anthozoa) on shallow reefs 

of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Part 1: species and 

distribution. Pacifi c Science, 58(2), 211-230.

, , p

sensitivity of moisture conditions in the conterminous 

United States. Climate Research, 20(1), 19-29.

McDonald, K.C., J.S. Kimball, E. Njoku, R. Zimmermann, 

and M. Zhao, 2004: Variability in springtime thaw in the 

terrestrial high latitudes: monitoring a major control on 

biospheric assimilation of atmospheric CO2 with spaceb

microwave remote sensing. Earth Interactions, 8(20), 1-

McGowan, J.A., D.R. Cayan, L.M. Dorman, and A. Butler, 

1998: Climate-ocean variability and ecosystem response 

the Northeast Pacifi c. Science, 281(5374), 210-217.

McGuire, A.D., M. Apps, F. S. Chapin III, R. Dargaville, M. 

Flannigan, E. S. Kasischke, D. Kicklighter, J. Kimball, W

Kurz, D. J. McCrae, K. A. McDonald, J. Melillo, R. My

B. J. Stocks, D. L. Verbyla, and Q. Zhuang, 2004: Land 

cover disturbances and feedbacks to the climate system 

Canada and Alaska, In: Land Change Science: Observin

Monitoring, and Understanding Trajectories of Change 

the Earth’s Surface, [Gutman, G. and A.C. Janetos (eds.

Kluwer Academic Publisher, Netherlands, pp. 139-162.

McLachlan, J.S. and L.B. Brubaker, 1995: Local and regiona

vegetation change on the northeastern Olympic Peninsu

during the Holocene. Canadian Journal of Botany, 73(1

1618-1627.

Melillo, J., A.D. McGuire, D.W. Kicklighter, B. Moore, III, C

Vorosmarty, and A.L. Schloss, 1993: Global climate cha

and terrestrial net primary production. Nature, 363(6426

234-240.

Mid-Atlantic Regional Assessment Team, 2000: Preparing 

a Changing Climate: Mid-Atlantic Overview. U.S. Glob

Change Research Program, U.S. Environmental Protecti

Agency and Pennsylvania State University.

Millar, C.I., R.D. Westfall, D.L. Delany, J.C. King, and L.J. 

Graumlich, 2004: Response of subalpine conifers in the 

Sierra Nevada, California, USA, to 20th-century warmin

and decadal climate variability. Arctic, Antarctic, and Al

Research, 36(2), 181-200.

Back Matter.indd 80 ack Matter.indd 80 
Mote, P.W., 2003: Trends in temperature and precipitation in the 

Pacifi c Northwest during the twentieth century. Northwest 

Science, 77(4), 271-282.

Mote, P.W., 2006: Climate-driven variability and trends in 

mountain snowpack in western North America. Journal of 

Climate, 19(23), 6209-6220.

Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2005: 

Declining mountain snowpack in Western North America. 

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 86(1), 

39-49.

Munday, P.L., G. P. Jones, M. Sheaves, A. J. Williams, and G. 

Goby, 2007: Vulnerability of fi shes of the Great Barrier 

Reef to climate change, In: Climate Change and the Great 

Barrier Reef, [Johnson, J. and P. Marshall (eds.)]. Great 

Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.

Mundy, B.C., 2005: Checklist of the Fishes of the Hawaiian 

Archipelago. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Murray, S.N. and M.M. Littler, 1981: Biogeographical analysis 

of intertidal macrophyte fl oras of southern California. 

Journal of Biogeography, 8(5), 339-351.

Myers, R.A. and B. Worm, 2003: Rapid worldwide depletion of 

predatory fi sh communities. Nature, 423(6937), 280-283.

Myers, R.A. and B. Worm, 2005: Extinction, survival 

or recovery of large predatory fi shes. Philosophical 

Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: 

Biological Sciences, 360(1453), 13-20.

Najjar, R.G., H.A. Walker, P.J. Anderson, E.J. Barron, R.J. Bord, 

J.R. Gibson, V.S. Kennedy, C.G. Knight, J.P. Megonigal, 

and R.E. O’Connor, 2000: The potential impacts of 

climate change on the mid-Atlantic coastal region. Climate 

Research, 14, 219-233.

, , 

Resources Division, Fort Collins, CO, pp.1-163.

National Park Service, 2004: Rio Grande Wild and Sce

River: Final General Management Plan / Environm

Impact Statement. 

Nearing, M.A., 2001: Potential changes in rainfall erosi

in the U.S. with climate change during the 21st cen

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 56(3), 229

Neilson, R.P. and R.J. Drapek, 1998: Potentially comple

biosphere responses to transient global warming. G

Change Biology, 4(5), 505-521.

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, 2006: 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for 

Mexico. New Mexico Department of Game and Fis

Fe, New Mexico, pp.1-526.

O’Connor, M.I., J.F. Bruno, S.D. Gaines, B.S. Halpern, 

Lester, B.P. Kinlan, and J.M. Weiss, 2007: Tempera

control of larval dispersal and the implications for m

ecology, evolution, and conservation. Proceedings 

National Academy of Sciences of the United States 

America, 104, 1266-1271.

Oechel, W.C., S.J. Hastings, R.C. Zulueta, G.L. Vourliti

Hinzman, and D. Kane, 2000: Acclimation of ecosy

CO2 exchange in the Alaskan Arctic in response to 

climate warming. Nature, 406(6799), 978-981.

Paerl, H.W., R.L. Dennis, and D.R. Whitall, 2002: Atmo

deposition of nitrogen: Implications for nutrient 

overenrichment of coastal waters. Estuaries, 25, 67

Paerl, H.W., L.M. Valdes, A.R. Joyner, B.L. Peierls, M.

Piehler, S.R. Riggs, R.R. Christian, L.A. Eby, L.B. 

J.S. Ramus, E.J. Clesceri, C.P. Buzzelli, and R.A. L

Jr., 2006: Ecological response to hurricane events i

Pamlico Sound System, North Carolina, and implic

for assessment and management in a regime of incr

frequency. Estuaries and coasts, 29(6A), 1033-104

Back Matter.indd 81 ack Matter.indd 81 
82

quality and phytoplankton as indicators of hurricane impacts 

on a large estuarine ecosystem. Estuaries, 26(5), 1329-1343.

Peterson, C.H. and M.J. Bishop, 2005: Assessing the 

environmental impacts of beach nourishment. BioScience, 

55(10), 887-896.

Peterson, C.H., M.J. Bishop, G.A. Johnson, L.M. D’Anna, 

and L.M. Manning, 2006: Exploiting beach fi lling as 

an unaffordable experiment: benthic intertidal impacts 

propagating upwards to shorebirds. Journal of Experimental 

Marine Biology and Ecology, 338(2), 205-221.

Peterson, C.H. and J. A. Estes, 2001: Conservation and 

management of marine communities, [Bertness, M.D., S.D. 

Gaines, and M.E. Hay (eds.)]. pp. 469-508.

Peterson, D.W. and D.L. Peterson, 2001: Mountain hemlock 

growth responds to climatic variability at annual and 

decadal time scales. Ecology, 82(12), 3330-3345.

Petraitis, P.S., 1992: Effects of body size and water temperature 

on grazing rates of four intertidal gastropods. Australian 

Journal of Ecology, 17(4), 409-414.

Philippart, C.J.M., H.M. van Aken, J.J. Beukema, O.G. Bos, 

G.C. Cadee, and R. Dekker, 2003: Climate-related changes 

in recruitment of the bivalve Macoma balthica. Limnology 

and Oceanography, 48(6), 2171-2185.

Phillips, N.E., 2005: Growth of fi lter-feeding benthic 

invertebrates from a region with variable upwelling 

intensity. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 295, 79-89.

Piehler, M.F., L.J. Twomey, N.S. Hall, and H.W. Paerl, 

2004: Impacts of inorganic nutrient enrichment on the 

phytoplankton community structure and function in Pamlico 

Sound, NC USA. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 

61(197), 207-.

Pimentel, D. and N. Kounang, 1998: Ecology of soil erosion in 

ecosystems. Ecosystems, 1(5), 416-426.

g gg

resources. Progress in Oceanography, 49(1), 469-483.

Polovina, J.J., P. Kleiber, and D.R. Kobayashi, 1999: Applica

of TOPEX-POSEIDON satellite altimetry to simulate 

transport dynamics of larvae of spiny lobster, Panulirus 

marginatus, in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 

1993-1996. Fishery Bulletin, 97(1), 132-143.

Polovina, J.J., G.T. Mitchum, N.E. Graham, M.G. Craig, E.E

DeMartini, and E.N. Flint, 1994: Physical and biologica

consequences of a climate event in the central North Pac

Fisheries Oceanography, 3(1), 15-21.

Polovina, J.P., G.T. Mitchem, and G.T. Evans, 1995: Decada

basin-scale variation in mixed layer depth and the impac

on biological production in the Central and North Pacifi 

1960-1988. Deep-sea Research, 42, 1701-1716.

Porter, J.W., J.F. Battey, and G.J. Smith, 1982: Perturbation 

and change in coral reef communities. Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America, 79, 1678-1681.

Porter, J.W. and O.W. Meier, 1992: Quantifi cation of loss an

change in Floridian reef coral populations. Integrative a

Comparative Biology, 32(6), 625-.

Porter, J.W. and J.I. Tougas, 2001: Reef ecosystems: threats 

their biodiversity. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 5, 73-95

Precht, W.F. and R.B. Aronson, 2004: Climate fl ickers and 

range shifts of reef corals. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment, 2(6), 307-314.

Precht, W.F. and S. L. Miller, 2006: Ecological shifts along 

the Florida reef tract: the past as a key to the future, In: 

Geological Approaches to Coral Reef Ecology, [Aronso

R.B. (ed.)]. Springer, New York, NY, pp. 237-312.

Puglise, K.A. and R. Kelty, 2007: NOAA Coral Reef Ecosyst

Research Plan for Fiscal Years 2007 to 2011. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum CRCP 1, NOAA Coral Reef 

Conservation Program, Silver Spring, MD, pp.1-128.

Back Matter.indd 82 ack Matter.indd 82 
bleaching and global climate change: scientifi c fi ndings 

and policy recommendations. Conservation Biology, 14(5), 

1500-1511.

Richardson, R.B. and J.B. Loomis, 2004: Adaptive recreation 

planning and climate change: a contingent visitation 

approach. Ecological Economics, 50, 83-99.

Riggs, S.R., 1996: Sediment evolution and habitat function of 

organic-rich muds within the Albemarle estuarine system, 

North Carolina. Estuaries, 19(2A), 169-185.

Riggs, S.R. and D.V. Ames, 2003: Drowning the North Carolina 

Coast: Sea-Level Rise and Estuarine Dynamics. UNCSG-03-04, NC Sea Grant College Program, Raleigh, NC, 

pp.1-152.

Riordan, B., D. Verbyla, and A.D. McGuire, 2006: Shrinking 

ponds in subarctic Alaska based on 1950-2002 remotely 

sensed images. Journal of Geophysical ResearchBiogeosciences, 111, G04002-.

Robblee, M.B., T.R. Barber, P.R. Carlson Jr, M.J. Durako, 

J.W. Fourqurean, L.K. Muehlstein, D. Porter, L.A. Yarbro, 

R.T. Zieman, and J.C. Zieman, 1991: Mass mortality of 

the tropical seagrass Thalassia testudinum in Florida Bay 

(USA). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 71(3), 297-299.

Roberts, C.M., C.J. McClean, J.E.N. Veron, J.P. Hawkins, G.R. 

Allen, D.E. McAllister, C.G. Mittermeier, F.W. Schueler, M. 

Spalding, and F. Wells, 2002: Marine biodiversity hotspots 

and conservation priorities for tropical reefs. Science, 

295(5558), 1280-1284.

Roberts, C.M., J. D. Reynolds, I. M. Côté, and J. P. Hawkins, 

2006: Redesigning coral reef conservation, In: Coral Reef 

Conservation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 

pp. 515-537.

Roberts, H.H., L.J.Jr. Rouse, and N.D. Walker, 1983: Evolution 

of cold-water stress conditions in high-latitude reef systems: 

Florida Reef Tract and the Bahama Banks. Caribbean 

Journal of Science, 19(55), 60-.

Saavedra, F., D.W. Inouye, M.V. Price, and J. Harte, 20

Changes in fl owering and abundance of Delphinium 

nuttallianum (Ranunculaceae) in response to a suba

climate warming experiment. Global Change Biolo

885-894.

Saether, B.E., J. Tufto, S. Engen, K. Jerstad, O.W. Roes

J.E. Skaatan, 2000: Population dynamical conseque

of climate change for a small temperate songbird. S

287(5454), 854-856.

Sagarin, R.D., J.P. Barry, S.E. Gilman, and C.H. Baxter

Climate-related change in an intertidal community 

short and long time scales. Ecological Monographs

465-490.

Sala, E., 2006: Top predators provide insurance against 

change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21, 479-4

Salathé, E.P., Jr., 2005: Downscaling simulations of futu

global climate with application to hydrologic mode

International Journal of Climatology, 25(4), 419-4

Sanford, E., 1999: Regulation of keystone predation by 

small changes in ocean temperature. Science, 283(5

2095-2097.

Sanford, E., 2002: The feeding, growth, and energetics 

rocky intertidal predators (Pisaster ochraceus and N

canaliculata) under water temperatures simulating 

upwelling. Journal of Experimental Marine Biolog

Ecology, 273(2), 199-218.

Schmidt, J.C., B. L. Everitt, and G. A. Richard, 2003: H

and geomorphology of the Rio Grande and implica

for river rehabilitation, In: Aquatic Fauna of the No

Chihuahuan Desert.Museum of Texas Tech Univers

[Garrett, G.P. and N.L. Allan (eds.)]. Museum of Te

University, Special Publications, Lubbock, TX, pp. 

Serreze, M.C., J.E. Walsh, F.S. Chapin III, T. Osterkamp

Dyurgerov, V. Romanovsky, W.C. Oechel, J. Moris

Zhang, and R.G. Barry, 2000: Observational eviden

recent change in the northern high-latitude environ

Climatic Change, 46(1-2), 159-207.

Back Matter.indd 83 ack Matter.indd 83 
84

, , pp

Shinn, E.A., 1989: What is really killing the corals. Sea 

Frontiers, 35, 72-81.

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Science Team, 1996: 

Fire and Fuels. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, fi nal 

report to Congress, Volume I, Assessment Summaries and 

Management Strategies Report No. 37, Chapter 4, Centers 

for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, 

Davis, pp.61-71.

Skeat, H., 2003: Sustainable Tourism in the Great Barrier Reef 

Marine Park. 2003 Environment by numbers: selected 

articles on Australia’s environment 4617, Australian Bureau 

of Statistics.

Smith, A., J. Monkivitch, P. Koloi, J. Hassall, and G. Hamilton, 

2004: Environmental impact assessment in the Great Barrier 

Reef Marine Park. The Environmental Engineer, 5(4), 

14-18.

Smith, J.B., S.E. Ragland, and G.J. Pitts, 1996: Process for 

evaluating anticipatory adaptation measures for climate 

change. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 92(1), 229-238.

Smith, N.V., S.S. Saatchi, and J.T. Randerson, 2004: Trends in 

high northern latitude soil freeze and thaw cycles from 1988 

to 2002. Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D12101-.

Smith, S.G., D.W. Swanson, J.S. Ault, M. Chiappone, and S.L. 

Miller, forthcoming: Sampling survey design for multiple 

spatial scale coral reef assessments in the Florida Keys. 

Coral Reefs.

Smith, S.V. and R.W. Buddemeier, 1992: Global change and 

coral reef ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology and 

Systematics, 23, 89-118.

Smith, T.M. and R.W. Reynolds, 2004: Improved extended 

seconstruction of SST (1854-1997). Journal of Climate, 

17(12), 2466-2477.

Supply Assessment and Water Supply Plan. Palatka, Flor

pp.1-4.

Stanley, D.W., 1992: Historical Trends: Water Quality and 

Fisheries, Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds, With Emphasis o

the Pamlico River Estuary. UNC-SG-92-04, University 

North Carolina Sea Grant College Program Publication, 

Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources, East Carolin

University, Greenville, NC.

Stanley, D.W. and S.W. Nixon, 1992: Stratifi cation and botto

water hypoxia in the Pamlico River Estuary. Estuaries, 

15(3), 270-281.

Stanturf, J.A., D. D. Wade, T. A. Waldrop, D. K. Kennard, an

G. L. Achtemeier, 2002: Background paper: fi re in south

forest landscapes, In: Southern Forest Resource Assessm

General Technical Report SRS-53, [Wear, D.N. and J.G. 

Greis (eds.)]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, pp. 

607-630.

Steel, J. and N. Carolina, 1991: Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarin

System: Technical Analysis of Status and Trends. Albem

Pamlico Estuarine Study Report 91-01, Environmental 

Protection Agency National Estuary Program, Raleigh, N

Steneck, R.S., M.H. Graham, B.J. Bourque, D. Corbett, J.M. 

Erlandson, J.A. Estes, and M.J. Tegner, 2002: Kelp fore

ecosystems: biodiversity, stability, resilience and future. 

Environmental Conservation, 29(4), 436-459.

Stewart, I.T., D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger, 2004: Chang

in snowmelt runoff timing in Western North America un

a ‘business as usual’ climate change scenario. Climatic 

Change, 62, 217-232.

Stewart, I.T., D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger, 2005: Chang

toward earlier streamfl ow timing across western North 

America. Journal of Climate, 18(8), 1136-1155.

Sun, G., S.G. McNulty, J. Lu, D.M. Amatya, Y. Liang, and 

R.K. Kolka, 2005: Regional annual water yield from for

lands and its response to potential deforestation across th

southeastern United States. Journal of Hydrology, 308(1

258-268.

Back Matter.indd 84 ack Matter.indd 84 
Toy, T.J., G.R. Foster, and K.G. Renard, 2002: Soil Erosion: 

Processes, Predicition, Measurement, and Control. John 

Wiley and Sons.

U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2007: Synthesis and 

Assessment Product 4.1: Coastal Elevation and Sensitivity 

to Sea Level Rise. A report by the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change 

Research, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1996: Final Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for the Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary, Volume I. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD, pp.1-319.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000: Tortugas Ecological 

Reserve: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement/Final Supplemental Management Plan. National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, 

MD, pp.1-315.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2006: Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan / Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Sanctuary 

Program, Silver Spring, MD.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006: Waterfowl Population 

Status 2006. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, 

DC.

USDA Forest Service, 2000a: National Fire Plan. 

USDA Forest Service, 2000b: Water and the Forest Service. 

FS-660, Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service, 2003: An Analysis of the Timber Situation 

in the United States: 1952 to 2050. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-560, Pacifi c Northwest Research Station, 

Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service, 2004: Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment (SNFPA). 2004-ROD, USDA Forest Service, 

Pacifi c Southwest Region.

Walker, N.D., L.J. Rouse, and O.K. Huh, 1987: Respon

of subtropical shallow-water environments to cold-

outbreak events: satellite radiometry and heat fl ux m

Continental Shelf Research, 7, 735-757.

Wang, G., N.T. Hobbs, K.M. Giesen, H. Galbraith, D.S. 

and C.E. Braun, 2002a: Relationships between clim

population dynamics of white-tailed ptarmigan (La

leucurus) in Rocky Mountain National Park, Color

USA. Climate Research, 23, 81-87.

Wang, G., N.T. Hobbs, H. Galbraith, and K.M. Giesen, 

2002b: Signatures of large-scale and local climates 

demography of white-tailed ptarmigans in Rocky M

National Park, Colorado, USA. International Journ

Biometeorology, 46, 197-201.

Wang, G., N.T. Hobbs, F.J. Singer, D.S. Ojima, and B.C

2002c: Impacts of climate changes on elk populatio

dynamics in Rocky Mountain National Park, Color

U.S.A. Climate Change, 54(1-2), 205-224.

Wear, D.N. and J.G. Greis, 2002: The Southern Forest R

Assessment: Summary Report: United States Fores

General Technical Report SRS-54, Washington, DC

-103.

Weiler, S., J. Loomis, R. Richardson, and S. Shwiff, 200

Driving regional economic models with a statistica

hypothesis testing for economic impact analysis. Re

Regional Studies, 32(1), 97-111.

West, J.M., P. A. Marshall, R. V. Salm, and H. Z. Schutt

2006: Coral bleaching: managing for resilience in a 

changing world, In: Principles of Conservation Bio

[Groom, M.J., G.K. Meffe, and C.R. Carroll (eds.)]

West, J.M. and R.V. Salm, 2003: Resistance and resilien

coral bleaching: implications for coral reef conserv

management. Conservation Biology, 17(4), 956-96

Back Matter.indd 85 ack Matter.indd 85 
86

Wilkinson, C.R., 2004: Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 

2004. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, 

Australia.

Williams, J.W., S.T. Jackson, and J.E. Kutzbach, 2007: Projected 

distributions of novel and disappearing climates by 2100 

AD. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America, 104(14), 5738-5742.

Willis, B.L., C. A. Page, and E. A. Dinsdale, 2004: Coral disease 

on the Great Barrier Reef, In: Coral Health and Disease, 

[Rosenberg, E. and Y. Loya (eds.)]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 

Germany, pp. 69-104.

Woodhouse, B., 2005: An end to Mexico’s Rio Grande defi cit? 

Southwest Hydrology, 4(5), 19-.

Woodward, A., E.G. Schreiner, and D.G. Silsbee, 1995: Climate, 

geography, and tree establishment in subalpine meadows 

of the Olympic Mountains, Washington, USA. Arctic and 

Alpine Research, 27(3), 217-225.

Wooldridge, S., T. Done, R. Berkelmans, R. Jones, and 

P. Marshall, 2005: Precursors for resilience in coral 

communities in a warming climate: a belief network 

approach. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 295, 157-169.

Yamada, S.B., B.R. Dumbauld, A. Kalin, C.E. Hunt, R. FiglarBarnes, and A. Randall, 2005: Growth and persistence 

of a recent invader Carcinus maenas in estuaries of the 

northeastern Pacifi c. Biological Invasions, 7(2), 309-321.

Yoshikawa, K. and L.D. Hinzman, 2003: Shrinking thermokarst 

ponds and groundwater dynamics in discontinuous 

permafrost near council, Alaska. Permafrost and Periglacial 

Processes, 14(2), 151-160.

Zacherl, D., S.D. Gaines, and S.I. Lonhart, 2003: The limits to 

biogeographical distributions: insights from the northward 

range extension of the marine snail, Kelletia kelletii (Forbes, 

1852). Journal of Biogeography, 30(6), 913-924.

Adger, W.N., S. Agrawala, M. M. Q. Mirza, C. Conde, K. 

O’Brien, J. Pulhin, R. Pulwarty, B. Smit, and K. Takaha

2007: Assessment of adaptation practices, options, 

constraints and capacity, In: Climate Change 2007: 

Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of 

Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of th

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Parry, M

O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.

Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

UK, pp. 717-743.

Allen, C.D., M. Savage, D.A. Falk, K.F. Suckling, T. Schulke

T.W. Swetnam, P.B. Stacey, P. Morgan, M. Hoffman, an

J.T. Klingel, 2002: Ecological restoration of southwester

ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecolog

Applications, 12(5), 1418-1433.

Allison, G.W., J. Lubchenco, and M.H. Carr, 1998: Marine 

reserves are necessary but not suffi cient for marine 

conservation. Ecological Applications, 8 SupplementEcosystem Management for Sustainable Marine 

Fisheries(1), S79-S92.

Babcock, R.C., S. Kelly, N.T. Shears, J.W. Walker, and T.J. 

Willis, 1999: Changes in community structure in temper

marine reserves. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 189, 

125-134.

Baron, J.S., H.M. Rueth, A.M. Wolfe, K.R. Nydick, E.J. Alls

J.T. Minear, and B. Moraska, 2000: Ecosystem response

to nitrogen deposition in the Colorado Front Range. 

Ecosystems, 3(4), 352-368.

Battin, J., M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. 

Korb, K.K. Bartz, and H. Imaki, 2007: Projected impact

climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedin

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United State

America, 104(16), 6720.

Bengtsson, J., P. Angelstam, T. Elmqvist, U. Emanuelsson, 

C. Folke, M. Ihse, F. Moberg, and M. Nystroem, 2003: 

Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. Ambio, 32

389-396.

Back Matter.indd 86 ack Matter.indd 86 
Silver Spring, MD.

Bruno, J.F. and E.R. Selig, 2007: Regional decline of coral 

cover in the Indo-Pacifi c: timing, extent, and subregional 

comparisons. PLoS ONE, 2(8), 1-8.

Brussaard, L., P.C. de Ruiter, and G.G. Brown, 2007: Soil 

biodiversity for agricultural sustainability. Agriculture, 

Ecosystems and Environment, 121(3), 233-244.

Burke, L.M. and J. Maidens, 2004: Reefs at Risk in the 

Caribbean. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Camp, A.E., P.F. Hessburg, R.L. Everett, and C.D. Oliver, 1995: 

Spatial Changes in Forest Landscape Patterns Resulting 

From Altered Disturbance Regimes on the Eastern Slope of 

the Washington Cascades. General Technical Report INTGTR-320, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, pp.1-283.

Chen, C.Y., R.S. Stemberger, N.C. Kamman, B.M. Mayes, 

and C.L. Folt, 2005: Patterns of Hg bioaccumulation and 

transfer in aquatic food webs across multi-lake studies in the 

Northeast US. Ecotoxicology, 14(1), 135-147.

Chornesky, E.A., A.M. Bartuska, G.H. Aplet, K.O. Britton, J. 

Cummings-carlson, F.W. Davis, J. Eskow, D.R. Gordon, 

K.W. Gottschalk, and R.A. Haack, 2005: Science priorities 

for reducing the threat of invasive species to sustainable 

forestry. BioScience, 55(4), 335-348.

Coles, S.L. and B.E. Brown, 2003: Coral bleaching-capacity 

for acclimatization and adaptation. Advances in Marine 

Biology, 46, 183-223.

Collingham, Y.C. and B. Huntley, 2000: Impacts of habitat 

fragmentation and patch size upon migration rates. 

Ecological Applications, 10(1), 131-144.

Driscoll, C.T., Y.J.I. Han, C.Y. Chen, D.C. Evers, K.F. Lambert, 

T.M. Holsen, N.C. Kamman, and R.K. Munson, 2007: 

Mercury contamination in forest and freshwater ecosystems 

in the Northeastern United States. BioScience, 57, 17-28.

, ggp

the western United States. BioScience, 53(4), 404-4

Fernandes, L., J. Day, A. Lewis, S. Slegers, B. Kerrigan

Breen, D. Cameron, B. Jago, J. Hall, D. Lowe, J. T

V. Chadwick, L. Thompson, K. Gorman, M. Simmo

Barnett, K. Sampson, G. De’ath, B. Mapstone, H. M

H. Possingham, I. Ball, T. Ward, K. Dobbs, J. Aum

Slater, and K. Stapleton, 2005: Establishing represe

no-take areas in the Great Barrier Reef: large-scale 

implementation of theory on Marine Protected Area

Conservation Biology, 19(6), 1733-1744.

Fischer, J., D.B. Lindenmayer, and A.D. Manning, 2006

Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: te

principles for commodity production landscapes. F

in Ecology and the Environment, 4(2), 80-86.

Gunderson, L., 2007: Ecology: a different route to reco

coral reefs. Current Biology, 17(1), 27-28.

Gunderson, L.H., 2000: Ecological resilience-in theory 

practice. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic

425-439.

Halpin, P.N., 1997: Global climate change and natural-a

protection: management responses and research dir

Ecological Applications, 7(3), 828-843.

Harris, J.A., R.J. Hobbs, E. Higgs, and J. Aronson, 200

Ecological restoration and global climate change. 

Restoration Ecology, 14(2), 170-176.

Hooper, D.U., F.S. Chapin, III, J.J. Ewel, A. Hector, P. I

S. Lavorel, J.H. Lawton, D.M. Lodge, M. Loreau, S

B. Schmid, H. Setälä, A.J. Symstad, J. Vandermeer

D.A. Wardle, 2005: Effects of biodiversity on ecosy

functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Eco

Monographs, 75(1), 3-35.

Hughes, A.R. and J.J. Stachowicz, 2004: Genetic divers

enhances the resistance of a seagrass ecosystem to 

disturbance. In: Proceedings of the National Acade

Sciences of the United States of America 2004.

Back Matter.indd 87 ack Matter.indd 87 
88

p, , , g, , 

Shaul, 2006: Coral reef restoration with case studies from 

Florida, In: Coral Reef Conservation, [Côté, I.M. and J.D. 

Reynolds (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

UK, pp. 478-514.

Jameson, S.C., M.H. Tupper, and J.M. Ridley, 2002: The three 

screen doors: can marine” protected” areas be effective? 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44(11), 1177-1183.

Joyce, L.A., J. Aber, S. McNulty, D. H. Vale, A. Hansen, L. 

C. Irland, R. P. Neilson, and K. Skog, 2001: Potential 

consequences of climate variability and change for the 

forests of the United States, In: Climate Change Impacts on 

the United States: the Potential Consequences of Climate 

Variability and Change, National Assessment Synthesis 

Team Report for the US Global Change Research Program, 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 489-522.

Lacey, J.R., C.B. Marlow, and J.R. Lane, 1989: Infl uence of 

spotted knapweed (Centaurea-maculosa) on surface runoff 

and sediment yield. Weed Technology, 3(4), 627-631.

Landres, P.B., P. Morgan, and F.J. Swanson, 1999: Overview 

of the use of natural variability concepts in managing 

ecological systems. Ecological Applications, 9(4), 

1179-1188.

Lenihan, H.S., C.H. Peterson, J.E. Byers, J.H. Grabowski, 

G.W. Thayer, and D.R. Colby, 2001: Cascading of habitat 

degradation: oyster reefs invaded by refugee fi shes escaping 

stress. Ecological Applications, 11(3), 764-782.

Levey, D.J., B.M. Bolker, J.J. Tewksbury, S. Sargent, and N.M. 

Haddad, 2005: Effects of landscape corridors on seed 

dispersal by birds. Science, 309, 146-148.

Lippincott, C.L., 2000: Effects of Imperata cylindrica (L.) 

Beauv. (Cogongrass) invasion on fi re regime in Florida 

sandhill (USA). Natural Areas Journal, 20(2), 140-149.

Loreau, M., S. Naeem, P. Inchausti, J. Bengtsson, J.P. Grime, 

A. Hector, D.U. Hooper, M.A. Huston, D. Raffaelli, B. 

Schmid, D. Tilman, and D.A. Wardle, 2001: Biodiversity 

and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future 

challenges. Science, 294(5543), 804-808.

, gg, yp, g, 

Strong (eds.)]. American Geophysical Union, Washingto

DC, pp. 223-241.

McClanahan, T.R., S. Mwaguni, and N.A. Muthiga, 2005: 

Management of the Kenyan coast. Ocean and Coastal 

Management, 48, 901-931.

McClanahan, T.R., N. V. C. Polunin, and T. J. Done, 2002: 

Ecological states and the resilience of coral reefs, In: 

Resilience and Behaviour of Large-Scale Ecosystems, 

[Gunderson, L.H. and L. Pritchard, Jr. (eds.)]. Island Pre

Washington, DC, pp. 111-163.

McCook, L.J., C. Folke, T. Hughes, M. Nyström, D. Obura, a

R. Salm, 2007: Ecological resilience, climate change an

the Great Barrier Reef, Chapter 4, In: Climate Change a

the Great Barrier Reef: a Vulnerability Assessment, Gre

Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

McLachlan, J.S., J.J. Hellmann, and M.W. Schwartz, 2007: 

A framework for debate of assisted migration in an era o

climate change. Conservation Biology, 21(2), 297-302.

McLaughlin, S.B., M. Nosal, S.D. Wullschleger, and G. Sun

2007a: Interactive effects of ozone and climate on tree 

growth and water use in a southern Appalachian forest in 

USA. New Phytologist, 174(1), 109-124.

McLaughlin, S.B., S.D. Wullschleger, G. Sun, and M. Nosal

2007b: Interactive effects of ozone and climate on water 

use, soil moisture content and streamfl ow in a southern 

Appalachian forest in the USA. New Phytologist, 174(1)

125-136.

Millar, C.I., 1989: Allozyme variation of bishop pine associa

with pygmy-forest soils in northern California. Canadia

Journal of Forest Research, 19(7), 870-879.

Millar, C.I., J.C. King, R.D. Westfall, H.A. Alden, and D.L. 

Delany, 2006: Late Holocene forest dynamics, volcanism

and climate change at Whitewing Mountain and San Joa

Ridge, Mono County, Sierra Nevada, CA, USA. Quater

research, 66, 273-287.

Back Matter.indd 88 ack Matter.indd 88 
Brumbaugh, F. Micheli, K.E. Holmes, C.P. Dahlgren, C.B. 

Paris, and P.G. Blackwell, 2007: Trophic cascade facilitates 

coral recruitment in a marine reserve. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America, 104(20), 8362-8367.

National Research Council, 2004: Air Quality Management 

in the United States. National Academies Press, National 

Academies of Science.

Noss, R.F., 2001: Beyond Kyoto: Forest management in a time of 

rapid climate change. Conservation Biology, 15(3), 578-590.

Novacek, M.J. and E.E. Cleland, 2001: The current biodiversity 

extinction event: scenarios for mitigation and recovery. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America, 98(10), 5466-5470.

Ottawa National Forest, 2006: Affected environment and 

environmental consequences, Chapter 3, In: Draft 

Environmental Impact Assessment, USDA Forest Service, 

available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/ottawa/forest_

management/forest_plan/revision/fp_fi nal/volume_1_fi nal_

eis/fi nal_eis_chapter_3.pdf.

Palumbi, S.R., 2002: Marine Reserves: a Tool for Ecosystem 

Management and Conservation. Pew Oceans Commission, 

Arlington, VA, pp.1-45.

Parker, B.R. and D.W. Schindler, 2006: Cascading trophic 

interactions in an oligotrophic species-poor alpine lake. 

Ecosystems, 9(2), 157-166.

Peterson, S.A., J. Van Sickle, A.T. Herlihy, and R.M. Hughes, 

2007: Mercury concentration in fi sh from streams and rivers 

throughout the western united states. Environmental Science 

& Technology, 41(1), 58-65.

Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison, 2000: 

Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous 

species in the United States. BioScience, 50(1), 53-64.

py 

Geological Approaches to Coral Reef Ecology, [Ar

R.B. (ed.)]. Springer, New York, NY, pp. 237-312.

Rahel, F.J., 2000: Homogenization of fi sh faunas across 

United States. Science, 288(5467), 854-856.

Rice, K.J. and N.C. Emery, 2003: Managing microevolu

restoration in the face of global change. Frontiers i

Ecology and the Environment, (1), 469-478.

Riegl, B. and W.E. Piller, 2003: Possible refugia for reef

times of environmental stress. International Journa

Earth Sciences, 92(4), 520-531.

Roberts, C.M., J. D. Reynolds, I. M. Côté, and J. P. Haw

2006: Redesigning coral reef conservation, In: Cor

Conservation, Cambridge University Press, Cambr

pp. 515-537.

Salm, R.V., T. Done, and E. McLeod, 2006: Marine prot

area planning in a changing climate, In: Coral Reef

Climate Change: Science and Management, [Phinn

O. Hoegh-Guldberg, J. Kleypas, W. Skirving, and A

(eds.)]. American Geophysical Union, Washington, 

207-221.

Scavia, D., J.C. Field, D.F. Boesch, R.W. Buddemeier, V

Burkett, D.R. Cayan, M. Fogarty, M.A. Harwell, R

Howarth, C. Mason, D.J. Reed, T.C. Royer, A.H. S

and J.G. Titus, 2002: Climate change impacts on U

coastal and marine ecosystems. Estuaries, 25(2), 14

Schneider, S.H., S. Semenov, A. Patwardhan, I. Burton, 

D. Magadza, M. Oppenheimer, A. B. Pittock, A. Ra

J. B. Smith, A. Suarez, and F. Yamin, 2007: Assessi

vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change, In

Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerabili

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Ass

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

[Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van 

Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge Unive

Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 779-810.

Back Matter.indd 89 ack Matter.indd 89 
90

America’s Least Wanted: Alien Species Invasions of US 

Ecosystems. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

Tilman, D., P.B. Reich, and J.M.H. Knops, 2006: Biodiversity 

and ecosystem stability in a decade-long grassland 

experiment. Nature, 441(7093), 629-632.

Tomback, D.F. and K. C. Kendall, 2002: Rocky road in the 

Rockies: challenges to biodiversity, In: Rocky Mountain 

Futures, an Ecological Perspective, [Baron, J. (ed.)]. Island 

Press, Washington, DC, pp. 153-180.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2005: The State of the Colorado 

River Ecosystem in Grand Canyon. USGS Circular 1282, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 

pp.1-220.

USDA Forest Service, 2004: National Strategy and 

Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management. 

FS-805.

Von Holle, B. and D. Simberloff, 2005: Ecological resistance to 

biological invasion overwhelmed by propagule pressure. 

Ecology, 86(12), 3212-3218.

Walker, B., 1995: Conserving biological diversity through 

ecosystem resilience. Conservation Biology, 9(4), 747-752.

Walker, B., A. Kinzig, and J. Langridge, 1999: Plant attribute 

diversity, resilience, and ecosystem function: the nature and 

signifi cance of dominant and minor species. Ecosystems, 

2(2), 95-113.

Welch, D., 2005: What should protected areas managers do in the 

face of climate change? The George Wright Forum, 22(1), 

75-93.

West, J.M. and R.V. Salm, 2003: Resistance and resilience to 

coral bleaching: implications for coral reef conservation and 

management. Conservation Biology, 17(4), 956-967.

(), 

Back Matter.indd 90 ack Matter.indd 90 
ACKNOWL

Stephen Solem, Nick Reyna, Ken Karkula, Al Abee, 

John Townsley, Allen Solomon, and Phil Mattson for 

their comments on the March draft. We would like 

to thank Sharon Friedman, Andy Kratz, and Claudia 

Regan for their comments on the March draft and the 

staff from Region 2 that participated in discussions 

on the draft report. We thank Tim Davis for several 

helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript 

and Robert Norheim for the map in Figure A1.4 in 

Annex A and David P. Coulson for the map in Figure 

3.3. Robin Stoddard helped us with access to photos 

of ONF. We would also like to thank the respondents 

to the public review and the members of the Peer 

Review panel.

Workshop Participants

• Chris Bernabo, National Council on Science for 

the Environment

• Bob Davis, U.S.D.A. Forest Service

• Lee Frelich, The University of Minnesota Center 

for Hardwood Ecology

• Jeremy Littell, University of Washington

• Douglas W. MacCleery, U.S.D.A. Forest Service

• Kathy A. O’Halloran, Olympic National Forest

• Lindsey Rustad, U.S.D.A. Forest Service

• Hugh Safford, U.S.D.A. Forest Service

• Allen Solomon, U.S.D.A. Forest Service

• Jeff Sorkin, U.S.D.A. Forest Service

• Chris Weaver, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency

CHAPTER 4

Authors’ Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the USGS Western 

Mountain Initiative, and advice, comments, and 

reviews from Abby Miller, Bob Krumenaker, 

David Graber, Vaughn Baker, Jeff Connor, and 

 David Graber, Sequoia and Kings Can

tional Parks

• John Gross, National Park Service Vit

Program

• Elizabeth Johnson, National Park Servic

east Regional Office

• Sharon Klewinsky, National Park Servic

• Bob Krumenaker, Apostle Islands Nation

shore

• Abby Miller, The Coalition of National P

vice Retirees

• Shawn Norton, National Park Service

• Mike Soukup, National Park Service

• Lee Tarnay, Yosemite National Park

• Julie Thomas, National Park Service

• Leigh Welling, Crown of the Continent R

Learning Center

• Mark Wenzler, National Parks Conserva

sociation

CHAPTER 5

Authors’ Acknowledgements

We extend our sincere thanks to Michael Hi

writing the section on Water Quality and Q

David Rupp and Emmi Blades for use 

unpublished information; Jane Austin for re

earlier versions of this manuscript; Jennife

for GIS assistance; Jenn Miller and Gina 

for citation assistance; and Mark Bertram

Bright, Vernon Byrd, Danielle Jerry, Rex R

Ron Reynolds, and David Sharp for their in

comments and suggestions for the develop

this report.

Back Matter.indd 91 ack Matter.indd 91
92

• Maribeth Oakes, The Wilderness Society

• Michael Woodbridge, National Wildlife Refuge Association

Alaska Refuges Workshop Participants

• Mark Bertram, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Philip Martin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Julian Fischer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Vernon Byrd, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Keith Mueller, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• David Douglas, U. S. Geological Survey

• Bill Hanson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Cynthia Wentworth, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Patrick Walsh, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Cathy Rezabeck, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

CHAPTER 6

Authors’ Acknowledgements

Cassie Thomas of the National Park Service provided 

assistance with the Alaska text box. Mary Brabham, Rob 

Mattson and Brian McGurk of the St. Johns River Water 

Management District; and Jaime Doubek-Racine of the 

National Park Service provided assistance with the Wekiva 

River Case Study. Jeff Bennett of the National Park Service, 

Gary Garrett of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 

and Greg Gustina of the Bureau of Land Management 

provided input to the Rio Grande River Case Study. Don 

Hamilton and Dave Forney of the National Park Service 

provided assistance with the Delaware River Case Study.

Workshop Participants

• Daniel M. Ashe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Donita Cotter, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Jackie Diedrich, U.S. Forest Service

• Andrew Fahlund, American Rivers

• Dave Forney, National Park Service

Workshop Participants

• Mark Alderson, Sarasota Bay Project

• Carol Auer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm

istration

• Rich Batiuk, U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc

• Dean E. Carpenter, Albemarle-Pamlico National E

ary Program

• Derb Carter, Southern Environmental Law Center

• Holly Greening, Tampa Bay Estuary Program

• Michael J. Kennish, Rutgers University

• Karen L. McKee, U.S. Geological Survey National W

lands Research Center

• Doug Rader, Environmental Defense

• Curtis J. Richardson, Duke University

• Stan Riggs, East Carolina University

• Ron Shultz, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Tea

• Jan Smith, Massachusetts Bays National Estuary 

gram

• Katrina Smith Korfmacher, University of Rochester

CHAPTER 8

Authors’ Acknowledgements

The case studies were prepared by Billy Causey 

Steven Miller (Florida Keys National Marine Sanctua

Johanna Johnson (Great Barrier Reef Marine Pa

Alan Friedlander (Papahānaumokuākea Marine Nati

Monument), and Satie Airamé (Channel Islands Nati

Marine Sanctuary). Johanna Johnson would like to th

all the expert scientists who contributed to assessing 

vulnerability of the Great Barrier Reef to climate cha

Without their leadership and knowledge we would 

have such an in-depth understanding of the implication

climate change for Great Barrier Reef species, habitats, 

processes and the ecosystem, or have been able to dev

the management strategies outlined in this case st

Elizabeth McLeod (The Nature Conservancy) drafted 

Back Matter.indd 92 ack Matter.indd 92 
DeVogelaere, E. Druffel, W. Fisher, H. Galbraith, P. Hallock 

Muller, J. Lang, J. Martinich, J. Ogden, W. Wiltse, and J. 

Yang. Finally, we are grateful to Susan Julius and Jordan 

West for their guidance, support, and suggestions for 

improving this chapter.

Workshop Participants

• Maria Brown, Gulf of the Farallones National Marine 

Sanctuary

• Deborah Cramer, Gloucester Maritime Heritage Center 

and Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council

• Daniel Gleason, Georgia Southern University and Gray’s 

Reef National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council

 Teresa Scott, Washington Department of F

Wildlife and Olympic Coast National Marine S

Advisory Council

• Jack Sobel, The Ocean Conservancy

• Steve Tucker, Cape Cod Commission and Ste

Bank National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Co

• Lauren Wenzel, National Oceanic and Atm

Administration

• Bob Wilson, The Marine Mammal Center and 

the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary A

Council

Back Matter.indd 93 ack Matter.indd 93 
Authors:

National Forests Case Studies

Tahoe National Forest

Constance I. Millar, U.S.D.A. Forest Service 

Linda A. Joyce, U.S.D.A. Forest Service

Geoffrey M. Blate, AAAS Fellow at U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency

Olympic National Forest

David L. Peterson, U.S.D.A. Forest Service

Jeremy S. Littell, JISAO CSES Climate Impacts 

Group, University of Washington

Kathy A. O’Halloran, U.S.D.A. Forest Service

Uwharrie National Forest

Steven G. McNulty, U.S.D.A. Forest Service

National Parks Case Study

Rocky Mountain National Park

Jill S. Baron, U.S. Geological Survey and Colorado 

State University

Jill Oropeza, Colorado State University

National Wildlife Refuges Case Study

Alaska and the Central Flyway

Brad Griffi th, U.S. Geological Survey and 

University of Alaska Fairbanks

A. David McGuire, U.S. Geological Survey and 

University of Alaska Fairbanks

Wild and Scenic Rivers Case Studies

Wekiva River

Rio Grande River

Upper Delaware River

Margaret A. Palmer, University of Maryland

Dennis Lettenmaier, University of Washington

N. LeRoy Poff, Colorado State University

Sandra Postel, Global Water Policy Project

Brian Richter, The Nature Conservancy

Richard Warner, Kinni Consulting

National Estuaries Case Study

The Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System

Robert R. Christian, East Carolina Univers

Charles H. Peterson, University of North 

Michael F. Piehler, University of North Car

Richard T. Barber, Duke University

Kathryn L. Cottingham, Dartmouth Colleg

Heike K. Lotze, Dalhousie University

Charles A. Simenstad, University of Washi

John W. Wilson, U.S. Environmental Prote

Agency

Marine Protected Areas Case Studie

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

Billy Causey, National Oceanic and Atmos

Administration

Steven L. Miller, University of North Caro

Wilmington

Brian D. Keller, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Johanna Johnson, Great Barrier Reef Marin

Authority

Papahãnaumokuãkea (Northwestern Hawaiia

Islands) Marine National Monument

Alan Friedlander, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctua

Satie Airamé, University of California, Sant

Barbara

Annex A.indd 1 nnex A.indd 1 
2

Annex A.indd 2 nnex A.indd 2 
365 m (1,200 ft) at the edge on the western slope to 2,788 

m (9,148 ft) at the crest of the Sierra. The eastern slopes of 

TNF abut high-elevation (~1,525 m; 5,000 ft) arid steppes 

of the Great Basin. TNF experiences a Mediterranean-type 

climate with warm, dry summers alternating with cool, wet 

winters. The orientation of the Sierra Nevada paralleling the 

Pacific coast creates a steep west-east climatic gradient that 

contributes to strong orographic effects in temperature and 

a precipitation rainshadow. Near TNF’s western boundary, 

average precipitation is low (125 cm; 50 in), highest at westside mid-elevations (200 cm; 80 in), and lowest near the 

eastern boundary (50 cm; 20 in). Snow dominates winter 

precipitation in the upper elevations, providing critical water 

reserves for the long annual summer drought.

and aquatic environments of TNF support critical h

a large number of plant and animal species, many 

have long been subjects of intense conservation 

The TNF environments are used by 387 vertebrat

and more than 400 plant species (Tahoe Nationa

1990; Shevock, 1996). Several keystone species at t

rangewide scale depend on now-limited old-grow

conditions or other rare habitats.

Cultural legacies have played significant roles in 

present forest conditions and vulnerabilities in TNF

water, mining, and grazing, which started in the mi

remained intensive uses until the late 20th century

mid-elevation forests were denuded in the mid-1800s 

early 1900s to provide wood for settlement (Beesle

Figure A1.1. Map and location of the Tahoe National Forest, within California (a) and the Forest boundaries (b).1

a) b)

1 USDA Forest Service, 2007: Tahoe National Forest map. USDA Forest Service Website, http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/tahoe/maps_b

images/05_nov_01_tnf_map.jpg, accessed on 7-30-2007. And USDA Forest Service, 2007: National Forests in California. US

Service Website, http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/forests.html, accessed on 7-30-2007.

Annex A.indd 3 nnex A.indd 3 
4

resource values of new residents have forced reevaluation of 

TNF goals and practices, many of which limit the capacity of 

TNF to implement adaptive but manipulative practices in the 

face of changing climates. Recreation is now a primary use 

of TNF lands; timber management is minor. Fuels reduction 

is a key issue both for protection of TNF resources and of 

adjacent rural communities. 

A1.1.2 Recent and Anticipated Regional Climate 

Changes and Impacts 

The trend of temperature increase over the 20th century for 

California has paralleled the global pattern (IPCC, 2007a), 

although at greater magnitude (1.5–2°C; Millar et al., 2004).2

Precipitation has not shown strong directional changes, but 

has been variable at annual and interannual scales (Cayan

et al., 1998). Forest insect and disease, mortality, and fire 

events have become more severe in TNF, as throughout the 

West (Logan and Powell, 2001; Westerling et al., 2006). 

Decreases in average snowpack up to 80% are documented 

throughout much of the West; snowpacks peak as much as 

45 days earlier (Hamlet et al., 2005; Mote et al., 2005) and 

peak streamflow peaks up to three weeks earlier in spring 

(Stewart, Cayan, and Dettinger, 2005) than during the 1950s, 

based on an analysis of the last 50 years.

Many of the climate and ecological trends documented for 

the 20th century are projected to continue and exacerbate 

in the 21st century. Future climate scenarios and effects 

on water, forests, fires, insects, and disease for California 

are summarized in Hayhoe et al. (2004) and the California 

Climate Action Team reports (California Climate Action 

Team, 2005). All models project increased annual 

temperatures over California ranging from 2.3–5.8°C 

(4.1–10.4°F) (range of models to show model uncertainties). 

Model projections also indicate slight drying, especially in 

winter; interannual and interdecadal variability is projected 

to remain high in the next century. Snowpacks, however, 

are consistently projected to decline by as much as 97% 

2 See also, Western Regional Climate Center, 2005: Instrumental 

weather databases for western climate stations. Western Regional 

Climate Center Database, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/, accessed on 

4-27-2007.

shrublands by 75%, and mixed evergreen woodland by 5

In contrast, mixed evergreen forest and grasslands are e

projected to expand by 100%. The following conditions 

expected to be exacerbated in TNF as a result of anticip

changes (Dettinger et al., 2004; Hayhoe et al., 2004; Ca

et al., 2006b):

• Increased fuel build-up and risk of uncharacteristic

severe and widespread forest fire. 

• Longer fire seasons; year-round fires in some a

(winter fires have already occurred).

• Higher-elevation insect and disease and wildfire ev

(large fires already moving into true fir and subal

forests, which is unprecedented).

• Increased interannual variability in precipitation, lea

to fuels build up and causing additional forest stress. 

situation promotes fire vulnerabilities and sensitivit

• Increased water temperatures in rivers and lakes 

lower water levels in late summer.

• Increased stress to forests during periodic multi-

droughts; heightened forest mortality.

• Decreased water quality as a result of increased w

shed erosion and sediment flow. 

• Increased likelihood of severe flood events.

• Loss of seed and other germplasm sources as a resu

population extirpation events.

A1.1.3 Current TNF Natural-Resource Policy and 

Planning Context

In addition to national laws and regional managem

directives, management goals and direction for the la

and resources of TNF are specified by several overarch

planning documents. These relate to different landsc

scales and locations. The 1990 Tahoe National Forest L

and Resource Management Plan (LMP) (Tahoe Nati

Forest, 1990) remains the comprehensive document 

all resource management in TNF. The primary missio

TNF is to “serve as the public’s steward of the land, an

manage the forest’s resources for the benefit of all Amer

people...[and]...to provide for the needs of both current 

future generations” (Tahoe National Forest, 1990). Wi

this broad mission, specific goals, objectives, desired fu

Annex A.indd 4 nnex A.indd 4 
wildlife habitats, watersheds, and communities on the 11 

NFs of the Sierra Nevada and Modoc Plateau. Goals for 

old-growth forests focus on protection, enhancement, and 

maintenance of old forest ecosystems and their associated 

species through increasing density of large trees, increasing 

structural diversity of vegetation, and improving continuity 

of old forests at the landscape scale. A 2003 decision by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to not list the California 

Spotted Owl as endangered was conditioned on the 

assumption that NFs (including TNF) would implement the 

direction of the FPA.

In regard to aquatic, riparian, and meadow habitat, the FPA 

goals and management direction are intended to improve the 

quantity, quality, and extent of highly degraded wetlands 

throughout the Sierra Nevada, and to improve habitat for 

aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species such as the 

willow flycatcher and the Yosemite toad. 

Fire and fuels goals are among the most important in the 

FPA. In general, direction is given to provide a coordinated 

strategy for addressing the risk of catastrophic wildfire by 

reducing hazardous fuels while maintaining ecosystem 

functions and providing local economic benefits. The 

specific approaches to these goals are conditioned by the 

National Fire Plan of 2000 (USDA Forest Service, 2000a) 

and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003,4 which 

emphasize strategic placement of fuel treatments across the 

landscape, removing only enough fuels to cause fires to burn 

at lower intensities and slower rates than in untreated areas, 

and are cost-efficient fuel treatments. 

The FPA contained a Sierra-wide adaptive management and 

monitoring strategy. This strategy is being implemented as a 

pilot project on two NFs in the Sierra Nevada, one of which 

includes TNF. This seven-year pilot project, undertaken 

via a Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. 

Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 

University of California, applies scientifically rigorous 

design, treatment, and analysis approaches to fire and forest 

3 Title 4, Section 401(j), P.L. 103-354

4 H. R. 1904

in the northern Sierra Nevada. The Act launche

project to test alternative strategies for managing 

species, a new fire and fuels strategy, and a new 

management strategy. The Herger-Feinstein Quincy 

Group Pilot is the resulting project with goals to tes

and demonstrate the effectiveness of fuelbreak

selection, individual tree selection, avoidance or p

of specified areas; and to implement a program for 

restoration.

A1.1.4 TNF Management and Planning Appro

to Climate Change 

Management practices identified by TNF staff 

relevant to climate issues are listed below, relativ

three categories of responses described in the N

Forests chapter of this report: unplanned, reactive ad

or no adaptation measures planned or taken; man

responses reacting to crisis conditions or ta

disturbance, extreme events; and proactive man

anticipating climate changes.

A1.1.4.1 No Active Adaptation

Few if any of TNF’s management policies o

specifically mention or address climate or climate ad

Thus, while it would appear that “no adaptation

dominant paradigm at TNF, many practices are 

“climate-smart,” where climatic trends or potential 

in climate are qualitatively or quantitatively inco

into management consideration, as indicated in f

sections.

A1.1.4.2 Management Responses Reacting to Changing 

Disturbance and Extreme Events

Most post-disturbance treatments planned by TN

developed to meet goals of maintaining ecosyste

(e.g., watershed protection, succession to fore

wildfire, fuel reduction after insect mortality) rat

catalyzing climate-adaptive conditions. Nonethele

of these best-forest-management practices are co

with adaptive conditioning for climate contexts as 

the example here suggests.

Annex A.indd 5 nnex A.indd 5 
6

pg

discussing climate change and climate implications for many 

years. This proactive thinking in itself has pre-conditioned 

TNF to taking climate into account in early management 

actions, and has started the discussion among staff regarding 

potential changes in strategic planning areas. Further, 

advances have been made in integrated planning processes 

that may be useful vehicles for incorporating climate-related 

treatments, thus pre-adapting TNF institutionally to move 

forward with proactive climate management. The following 

examples of actions and opportunities demonstrate how the 

TNF is moving forward with dynamic management.

Staff Support by Line Officers

The leadership team at TNF promotes broad science-based 

thinking and rewards adaptive and proactive behaviors. This 

practice clearly sets a stage where management responses 

to climate can be undertaken where possible, providing an 

incentive and the intellectual environment to do so.

Fireshed Assessment

The new Fireshed Assessment process is a major step 

toward integrated management of TNF lands. Effective 

implementation of this process already provides a vehicle 

for other dynamic and whole-landscape planning processes 

such as are needed for climate adaptation.

Fuel Reduction Projects

Strategies implemented by TNF as a result of FPA and 

Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Pilot directions 

to reduce fuels and minimize chances of catastrophic fires 

are increasing the adaptability and resilience of TNF forests 

(Fig. A1.2). Strategically placed area treatments, a form of 

adaptive and dynamic approach to fuel management, are 

being tested on the adaptive management pilot of TNF.

Riparian Management Policies

New policies in the FPA for riparian and watershed 

management restrict road construction for timber 

management (e.g., near or across perennial streams). 

Helicopters are used for logging in all situations where roads 

5 Levings, W., 2003: Economics of Delay. Unpublished report on 

file at the Tahoe National Forest, pp.1-6.

cannot be built. This allows more flexibility, adaptabi

and reduces fragmentation and watershed erosion.

Post-Event Recovery

While certain kinds of standardized post-fire restora

practices (e.g., Burned Area Emergency Rehabilita

procedures) are not climate-proactive, a post-event reco

team at the Pacific Southwest regional level is investiga

dynamic approaches to recovery post-major disturba

These approaches might include planning for long-t

changes on disturbed sites and taking advantage of 

planting mixes, broadening gene pool mixes, plantin

new spacing and designs, etc.

Revegetation and Silvicultural Choices

In stand improvement projects and revegetation effo

choices are being considered to favor and/or plant diffe

species and species mixes. For instance, where appropr

based on anticipated changes, white fir could be fav

over red fir, pines would be preferentially harvested at 

elevations over fir, and species would be shifted ups

within seed transfer guides.

Forest Plan Revision

The TNF LMP is due for revision. Climate considerat

are being evaluated as the plan revision unfolds, inclu

such options as flexible spotted owl (Strix occiden

occidentalis) “Protected Activity Center” boundar

species shifts in planting and thinning, and priority-set

for sensitive-species management.

Resisting Planned Projects That May Not Succeed Under 

Future Climate Conditions

Restoring salmon to TNF rivers is a goal in the cur

LMP (Fig. A1.3). With waters warming, however, fu

conditions of TNF rivers are not likely to provide suit

habitat for salmon. Thus, TNF is considering the op

to not restore salmon. Meadow restoration is ano

Figure A1.2. Thinned stands for fuel reduction and resili

management, part of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library 

Project. Photo courtesy of Tahoe National Forest.

Annex A.indd 6 nnex A.indd 6 
example: Rather than proceeding with plans for extensive 

and intensive meadow restoration, some areas are being 

considered for non-treatment due to possible succession of 

non-meadow conditions in these locations.

Resilience Management

All forms of proactive management that improve the 

resilience of natural resources are improving the adaptiveness 

of TNF by decreasing the number of situations where TNF 

must take crisis-reaction responses.

Dynamic Management

TNF staff is using opportunities available at present 

(i.e., under current policy) to manage dynamically and 

experimentally. An example is cases in which plans treat 

critical species’ range margins differently, favoring active 

management at advancing edges or optimal habitat rather 

than static or stressed margins. 

Managing for Process

TNF staff is also using opportunities available at present to 

manage for process rather than structure or composition in 

proposed projects; for example, those involving succession 

after fires, where novel mixes of species and spacing may 

reflect likely natural dynamic processes of adaptation.

documents (e.g., the LMP and project plans) cou

on the level of climate adaptedness, pitfalls, a

for improvement in current TNF plans and op

Such an audit could focus on current manage

rection (written policy); current management p

(implementation); and priorities of species (e.g., 

targeted species) and processes (fire, insects/

The audit would highlight concrete areas of t

and projects that are ill-adapted as well as th

are proactive and already climate-proactive, an

recommend a set of specific areas where cha

needed and improvements could be made.

• Assessment/audit of the Sierra Nevada FPA. Th

be a similar assessment to that above, but would b

taken at the FPA scale. The FPA did not originall

climate, and the science consistency review hig

this problem. A more comprehensive assessme

FPA’s strengths and weaknesses is needed, with 

revision as appropriate.

• TNF as a pilot for the U.S. Forest Service Ec

Services program. Tapping into the ecosystem 

market opportunities and acting as a pilot nati

est within the ecosystem services goals and o

may provide management flexibility needed fo

adaptation.

• Management unit size. Increase sizes of man

units on the forest, so whole landscapes (wat

forest types) could be managed in a single resou

decrease administrative fragmentation. Whole ec

management, rather than piecemeal by small 

ment unit or by single species or single issue, wo

adaptability to climate-related challenges.

• Watershed management; water storage. To 

groundwater storage capacities, treatments to 

infiltration could be implemented. For instance

consider decreasing road densities and other a

(evaluate grazing) in order to change surfaces f

pervious to permeable.

• Watershed management; salvage harvest. To 

erosion and sediment loss following disturban

is widespread need in TNF to salvage-harvest 

trees and reforest soon after disturbance. This is 

at present, but mostly cannot be implemented in 

Figure A1.3. Former salmon habitat (rivers marked in bold 

black) of the Sierra Nevada. Tahoe National Forest (TNF) rivers 

are scheduled to have salmon restored to them in current national 

forest planning. Adaptive approaches suggest that future waters 

may be too warm on the TNF for salmon to survive, and thus 

restoration may be inappropriate to begin. Map adapted from 

(Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Science Team, 1996).

Annex A.indd 7 nnex A.indd 7 
8

climate change. 

• Public opposition. Appeals and litigation of proposed 

active management projects directly restrict ability of 

TNF to implement adaptive practices.5 There is a large 

public constituency that opposes active management of 

any kind. Thus, no matter the purpose, if adaptive management proposals involve on-the-ground disturbance, 

these publics attempt to prohibit their implementation. 

The likelihood of appeals and litigation means that a 

large proportion of staff time must necessarily be used 

to develop “appeal-proof” NEPA documents, rather than 

undertaking active management projects on the ground. 

This often results in a situation in which no-management 

action can be taken, regardless of the knowledge and 

intent to implement active and adaptive practices.

• Funding. Overall lack of funds means that adaptive projects, while identified and prioritized, cannot be implemented. General funding limitations are barriers throughout 

TNF operations. The annual federal budget process limits 

capacity to plan or implement long-term projects.

• Staff capacity. Loss of key staff areas (e.g., silviculture) 

and general decline in resource staff and planning capacity translate to lower capacity to respond adaptively to 

needed changes.

• Scope of on-the-ground needs. As a result of legacy issues (fire-suppression, land-use history, etc.), as well as 

responses to changing climates (increasing densification 

of forests, increasing forest mortality), the area of land 

needing active management is rapidly escalating, and far 

exceeds staff capacity or available funds to treat it. 

• Crisis reaction as routine planning approach. Inadequate TNF funding and staff capacity, combined with 

persistent legal opposition by external publics, force a 

continuous reactive approach to priority-setting. This 

results in crisis-management being the only approach 

to decision-making that is possible, as opposed to conducting or implementing long-term, skillful, or phased 

management plans. 

• Checkerboard ownership pattern. The alternating sections of TNF and private land create barriers to planning 

or implementing landscape-scale management, which 

is needed for adaptive responses to climate challenges. 

Act are highly static, inhibit dynamic planning, and 

pede adaptive responses.5 Further, these laws do not a

the option of not managing any specific situation—

choices may be necessary as triage-based adaptatio

the future. Finally, while coarse-filter approaches 

more adaptive, many existing laws force a fine-f

approach to management.

• Current agency management concepts and policies. 

rent agency-wide management paradigms limit capa

to plan in a proactive, forward-looking manner. 

instance, the policies requiring use of historic-ran

of-variability or other historic-reference approache

goal-setting restrict dynamic, adaptive approache

management. This problem was identified in veg

tion management, dam construction (“100-year” f

references), and sensitive-species management (o

salmon). Certain current regional policies and proced

limit adaptive responses. An example is the Burned A

Emergency Rehabilitation approach to post-fire reha

tation. Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation is a s

and short-term set of practices that does not incorpo

the capacity to respond flexibly and adaptively post-

such as taking actions to actively move the site in 

ecological trajectories with different germplasm sou

and different species mixes.

• Static management. Other current management p

digms that limit dynamic planning and managing inc

the focus on “maintaining,” “retaining,” and “restor

conditions. The consequence of these imperatives in p

ning documents is to enforce static rather than dyna

management.

• Air quality standards. Regional regulatory standard

smoke and particulates are set low in order to optimiz

quality. These levels, however, limit the capacity of T

to conduct prescribed fires for adaptive fuel reductio

silvicultural stand treatment purposes.

• Community demographics and air quality/urban fu

Changing demographics of foothill Sierran commun

adjacent to TNF are moving toward less acceptanc

smoke. Older and urban residents moving into the are

the past few years have little experience with fire an

effects, and have little understanding of or tolerance 

smoke from prescribed fire treatments. Similarly, t

Annex A.indd 8 nnex A.indd 8 
agement units; small unit sizes also restrict the capacity 

for full understanding of ongoing dynamics and process. 

For instance, even the adaptive management pilot projects 

under the FPA are too small to be meaningful under the 

conditions anticipated in the future—at least 20,000 acres 

(8,093 ha) are needed.

A1.1.6.2 Barriers Opportunities

The activities listed below were identified by TNF staff 

as current or potential future opportunities to enhance 

managers’ ability to proactively manage for climate change, 

some of which are currently employed at TNF.

• Year-round management opportunities. TNF is experiencing later winters (snow arriving later in the year), 

lower snowpacks, and earlier runoff. The TNF staff has 

taken advantage of these changes by continuing fuel 

treatments far beyond the season where historically these 

treatments could be done. At present, winter-prescribed 

fires are being undertaken, and conditions are ideal to do 

so. This enables treating more acres in adaptive practices 

than could be done if only summer were available for 

these management activities.

• Responses to public concerns through active dialog. 

TNF has effectively maintained a capacity to implement 

adaptive projects when in-depth, comprehensive analysis 

has been done on NEPA process. In addition, intensive 

education of the interested publics through workshops, 

scoping meetings, face-to-face dialog, and informal 

disposition processes have helped to develop support 

for plans (avoiding appeal), and thus these activities are 

enabling TNF’s adaptive projects to be conducted. 

• Responses to public concerns by demonstration. Specifically, TNF was able to gain public approval to cut largerdiameter classes (needed for active management to achieve 

dynamic goals) than had been previously acceptable, 

through the use of 3-D computer simulations (visualizations), on-the-ground demonstration projects, “show-me” 

field trips, and other field-based educational efforts.

• Emerging carbon markets are likely to promote the (re-)

development of regional biomass and biofuels industries. 

These industries will provide economic incentives for active adaptive management, in particular funds to support 

cate the local public about the scientific bases fo

change, the implications for the northern Sierra 

and TNF, and the need for active resource mana

A1.1.7 Increasing Adaptive Capacity to Respo

Climate Change

The ideas listed below were identified by TNF staff 

scientific, administrative, legal, or societal needs th

improve the capacity to respond adaptively to climat

challenges.

• New management strategies. Operationally app

and practical management strategies to address t

challenges and contexts implied by changing 

are needed.

• Scientifically supported practices for integrated 

ment. Integration of resource management goals 

els, sensitive species, water, fire) rather than par

tasks into individual plans is already a barrier to 

ecosystem management. Changing climates ar

pated to increase the need for integration and in

plans. Input from the science community on in

knowledge, synthesis assessments, and toolb

integrated modeling, etc. will improve the cap

respond adaptively.

• Projections and models. Modeled simulations 

climate, vegetation, species movements; rates of 

of all of these; and probabilities/uncertainties as

with the projections are needed.

• Case studies. Case studies of management plan

practices implemented as adaptive responses to 

are needed. Demonstration and template exampl

allow ideas to disseminate quickly and be it

improved.

• Prioritization tools for managing a range of spe

diverse ecosystems on TNF. Given the large nu

species in the forest, it is impossible to mana

them. Thus, new tools for adaptive decision-ma

needed, as well as development of strategic pro

assist effective prioritizing of actions. 

• Dynamic landscape and project planning. Scien

sistance is needed to help define targets and man

goals that are appropriate in a changing climate 

Annex A.indd 9 nnex A.indd 9 
10

center, such as a website, with 

current and practical climaterelated material. To be useful 

at the scale of individual forests 

such as TNF, the information 

needs to be locally relevant, simply written, and presented in one 

clear, consistent voice.

• Scientific support and assistance 

to individual and specific TNF 

proposed actions. A consistent, clear voice from science 

is needed to help build the most 

appropriate and adaptive plans and actions. There is also 

a need for clear scientific evidence that demonstrates 

both the appropriateness of proposed TNF actions and 

the problems that would result from no action. A website 

could include such information as brief and extended 

fact sheets, regional assessments, archives of relevant 

long-term data or links to other websites with climaterelevant data, model output and primers (climate-relevant 

ecological, economic, and planning models), training 

packages on climate change that can be delivered through 

workshops and online tutorials, and access to climatebased decision-support tools.

• Seed banks. Seed banks need to be stocked to capacity as 

buffer for fire, insects and disease, and other population 

extirpation events.

A1.2 Olympic National Forest

A1.2.1 Setting and Context of the Olympic National 

Forest

A1.2.1.1 Biogeographic Description

The Olympic Peninsula, in western Washington State (Fig. 

A1.4), consists of a mountain range and foothills surrounded 

by the Pacific Ocean (west); the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

(north); Puget Sound (east); and low elevation, forested 

land (south). Its elevation profile extends from sea level to 

nearly 2,500 m (8,200 ft.) at Mount Olympus in the Olympic 

Mountains. The range creates a strong precipitation gradient, 

with historic precipitation averages of about 500 cm (197 in.) 

in the lowlands of the southwestern peninsula, 750 cm 

in.) in the high mountains, and only 40 cm (16 in.) in 

drier northeastern lowlands. The climate is mild tempe

rainy, with a Mediterranean (dry) summer. Most of 

precipitation falls in winter and at higher elevations; ne

all of it is snow that persists well into summer. The resul

biophysical landscape is a diverse array of seasonal clim

and ecological conditions, including coastal estuaries 

forests, mountain streams and lakes, temperate rainfor

alpine tundra, mixed conifer forests, and prairies. 

The ecosystems on the peninsula are contained wi

a mosaic of federal, state, tribal, and private owners

Olympic National Forest (ONF), comprising ~257,00

(~635,000 acres) (including five wilderness areas), surrou

Olympic National Park (ONP, ~364,000 ha (~899,000 acr

the core of the peninsula. ONP is both a World Heritage 

and an International Biosphere Reserve. There are 12 Na

American tribes on the peninsula. Approximately 3.5 mi

people live within four hours’ travel of the ONF, and th

is considered an urban forest because of its proximity to 

cities of the greater Seattle area. Ecosystem services f

ONF are notably diverse and include water supply to sev

municipal watersheds, nearly pristine air quality, abun

fish and wildlife (including several unique/ende

species of plants and animals, such as the Olympic mar

(Marmota Olympus) and the Roosevelt elk (Cervus elap

roosevelti), as well as critical habitat for four threate

species of birds and anadromous fish), recreation, 

Figure A1.4. Olympic Peninsula land ownership and Northwest Forest Plan alloca

map. Olympic National Forest contains lands (dark boundary) with different land 

mandates and regulations. These include adaptive management areas, late-success

reserves, and Wilderness areas. Map courtesy of Robert Norheim, Climate Imp

Group, University of Washington.

Annex A.indd 10 nnex A.indd 10 
Peninsula. 

A1.2.2 Recent and Anticipated Climate Change and 

Impacts

The Pacific Northwest has warmed approximately 1°C 

(1.8°F) since 1920; most of this warming (0.9°C (1.6°F)) 

has been since 1950, and winter has warmed faster than 

summer (Mote, 2003). The trend in annual precipitation 

is less clear, though most sites show an increase between 

1920 and 2000; decadal variability, rather than trends, best 

characterizes the region’s 20th century precipitation (Mote, 

2003). However, the winter temperature increase has caused 

the form of winter precipitation to change at mid- and lowelevation sites, and 30–60% declines in April 1 snow water 

equivalent have been observed in the Olympics and Cascade 

Range (Mote et al., 2005). The timing of spring runoff was 

10–30 days earlier in 2000 compared with 1948 (Stewart, 

Cayan, and Dettinger, 2004).

Proxy records indicate that climatic variability has affected 

ecological processes on the Olympic Peninsula for millennia 

(Heusser, 1974; Gavin et al., 2001). For example, pollen 

spectra from subalpine lakes in the Olympics indicate 

common responses after the retreat of Pleistocene glaciers, 

divergent vegetation in the early Holocene, and convergent 

responses in the late Holocene (McLachlan and Brubaker, 

1995). More recently, tree growth for many lower elevation 

species increased with water supply and decreased with high 

summer temperatures (Ettl and Peterson, 1995; Nakawatase 

and Peterson, 2006). A common lesson from both paleo and 

modern studies is that, for a given regional shift in climate, the 

ecological and climatic context of a particular site determines 

the degree and nature of the response (Holman and Peterson, 

2006)—so much so that high versus low elevations and 

the wet versus the dry side of the Olympics may have very 

different responses to a uniform climatic change.

Hydrological resources also respond to climate. The 

timing, duration, and magnitude of stream runoff depend 

on the abundance of winter snowpack and winter-to-spring 

temperatures. The Olympic Mountains mirror regional 

patterns of decadal climatic variability and trends in climatic 

response and sensitivity of the climatic system. H

by comparing a range of scenarios and models fo

events, climate modelers can estimate future 

conditions. Regional climate models suggest an in

mean temperature of 1.2–5.5°C (2.2–9.9°F), with 

of 3.2°C (5.8°F) by 2090 (Salathé, Jr., 2005). 

temperatures are projected to increase more tha

temperatures. Precipitation changes are less certa

large natural variability, but slight increases in an

winter precipitation are projected, while slight dec

summer precipitation are possible (Salathé, Jr., 20

Projected changes in temperature and precipitatio

lead to lower snowpacks at middle and lower ele

shifts in timing of spring snowmelt and runoff, and i

in summer evapotranspiration (Mote et al., 2005

et al., 2007). Runoff in winter (October to March

increase, and summer runoff (April to Septembe

decrease (Hamlet et al., 2007). For basins with vu

snowpack (i.e., mid-elevations), streamflow would 

in winter and decrease in summer. Higher temperat

lower summer flows would have serious conseque

anadromous and resident fish species (salmon, st

bull trout). Floods may increase in frequency bec

buffering effect of snowpacks would decrease and 

the severity of storms is projected to increase (altho

snow can decrease the maximum impacts of rain-

events due to lower water storage in snow). Sea l

would exacerbate flooding in coastal areas. Some 

especially the timing of snowmelt and peak stream

likely to vary substantially with topography.

Increased summer temperature may lead to no

increases in evapotranspiration from vegetation 

surfaces (McCabe and Wolock, 2002). This, 

would decrease the growth (Littell, 2006; Nakawa

Peterson, 2006), vigor, and fuel moisture in lower e

(e.g., Douglas-fir and western hemlock) fores

6 Mote, P.W., W.S. Keeton, and J.F. Franklin, 1999: Deca

tions in forest fire activity in the Pacific Northwest. In

ings of the 11th Conference on Applied Climatology, 

Meteorological Society, pp. 155-156.

Annex A.indd 11 nnex A.indd 11 
12

a result of climatic variability in the range projected for 

future warming. This change may be difficult to observe 

at small scales, and would be facilitated in many cases by 

large-scale disturbances such as fire or windstorms that 

remove much of the overstory and “clear the slate” for a 

new cohort of vegetation. The regeneration phase will be the 

key stage at which species will compete and establish in a 

warmer climate, thus determining the composition of future 

vegetative assemblages and habitat for animals. 

Thus, ecosystem services in ONF are likely to be affected 

by climatic change. Water quality for threatened fish species 

may decline as temperatures increase and, potentially, 

as increasing storm intensity causes road failures. Water 

quantity may decline in summer when it is most needed, 

as streamflow timing shifts with temperature changes. Air 

quality will decline if drought frequencies or durations 

increase and cause increased area burned by fire. The 

influence of climate change on habitat for threatened species 

is less certain, but high elevation and currently rare species 

would be more vulnerable (e.g., Olympic marmot, bull trout, 

whitebark pine).

A1.2.3 Current ONF Policy Environment, Planning 

Context and Management Goals

Current natural resources management in ONF is directed 

primarily from policy mandates and shaped by historical 

land use and forest fragmentation (Fig. A1.4). ONF is a 

“restoration forest” charged with managing large, contiguous 

areas of second-growth forest. Natural resource objectives 

include managing for native biodiversity and promoting 

the development of late-successional forests (e.g., NWFP); 

restoring and protecting aquatic ecosystems from the 

impacts of an aging road infrastructure; and managing for 

individual threatened and endangered species as defined by 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or other policies related 

to the protection of other rare species. 

Most ONF natural resources management activities are 

focused on restoring important habitats (e.g., native prairies, 

old-growth forests, pristine waterways), rehabilitation or 

restoration of impacts related to unmaintained logging roads, 

comments from the public served by ONF. Project plann

is carried out at a site-specific level, so incorpora

regional climatic change information into Environme

Assessment/Environmental Impact Statement docum

can be difficult because assessment takes place at the 

scale, while there is still substantial uncertainty surroun

climate change predictions—especially precipitation

sub-regional scales. 

Adaptation to climatic change is not yet addressed form

in the OLMP or included in planning for most managem

activities. Current management objectives are attemp

to confer resilience by promoting landscape diversity 

biodiversity and this is in keeping with adapting to clim

change. To this end, tools available to ONF managers inc

restoration of aquatic systems (especially the minimiza

of the impacts of roads, bridges, and culverts); ac

management of terrestrial systems (through thinning 

planting); and, increasingly, treatment of invasive spe

Prescribed fire and wildland use fire are unlikely t

because of the low historical area burned, limitation

the Clean Air Act, and low funding levels. The rang

strategies and information in using these tools varies ac

ONF land use designations. Late-successional reserves 

wilderness have less leeway than adaptive managem

areas, because there are more explicit restrictions on 

use and silvicultural treatment. 

A1.2.4 Proactive Management Actions Anticipatin

Climate Change

ONF’s policy and regulatory environment encompass

great deal of responsibility, but little scientific informatio

specific guidance is available to guide adaptation to clim

change. The scope of possible adaptation, clear strategie

successful outcomes, and the tools available to manager

all limited. Under current funding restrictions, most t

would need to be adapted from management response

current stresses (Table A1.1). Future impacts on ecolog

and socioeconomic sensitivities can result in poten

tradeoffs or conflicts. For example, currently threate

species may become even more rare in the future (e.g., 

Annex A.indd 12 nnex A.indd 12 
trout, spotted owl, marbled murrelet, Olympic marmot) due 

to stress complexes, undermining the likelihood of successful 

protection. Another example is when short-term impacts must 

be weighed against long-term gains. Fish species may be 

vulnerable to failures of unmaintained, closed roads caused 

by increased precipitation/storminess, but road rehabilitation 

may produce temporary sedimentation and may invite 

invasive weeds. Ideally, triage situations could be avoided, but 

in the face of climate change and limited resources it may be 

necessary to prioritize management actions with the highest 

likelihood of success, at the expense of actions that divert 

resources and have less-certain outcomes.

Generally, success of adaptation strategies should be defined 

by their ability to reduce the vulnerability of resources to a 

changing climate while attaining current management goals. 

Strategies include prioritizing treatments with the greatest 

likelihood of being effective (resources are too limited to do 

otherwise) and recognizing that some treatments may cause 

short-term detrimental effects but have long-term 

For structures, using designs and engineering s

that match future conditions (e.g., culvert size) w

minimize future crises. Specific strategies likely to 

in ONF terrestrial ecosystems are to increase la

diversity, maintain biological diversity, and empl

detection/rapid response for invasive species.

Landscape diversity and resilience can be achi

(1) targeted thinning (increases diversity, can d

vulnerability by increasing tree vigor, and can 

vulnerability to disturbance); (2) avoiding a “one 

all” toolkit, and using a variety of treatments eve

prescriptions are required; (3) creating openin

enough for elk habitat, but small enough to minimize 

exotics; (4) considering preserves at many elevations

high-elevation wilderness; and (5) considering “b

ownerships (land trades) to reduce edges, maintain c

and consolidate habitat. 

Protect old-growth 

dependent species

ment

Same as above

Currently, the main disturbance legacy on ON

century logging.

Aquatic ecosystem 

degradation

Restore aquatic 

ecosystems to conditions that support 

endangered species

Riparian restoration, 

culvert rehabilitation

Warming waters, changes in timing of seasona

rain/runoff will increase need for restoration, 

potentially limit its success rate as well. 

Impacts of unmaintained, closed roadsRemove potential effects of unmaintained 

roads

Road restoration/

rehabilitation; 

occasionally removal

If intense storms, flooding, or rain-on-snow ev

increase in frequency, closed road failures will 

increase in frequency. Multiple failures on the 

road limit response/access. This will require su

tial investment in new management efforts.

Invasive exotic 

species

Limit spread of new 

invasives

Treat established 

invasive species

Preventive educ./

strategies

Treatment limited to 

hand pulling in most 

locations; herbicide 

where permitted.

If disturbances or recreational travel increase 

mate changes the competitive balance betwee

and exotics , efficacy of current strategies unc

Endemic Insects Currently none Monitoring Uncertain

Fire Currently none Suppression (rare) Depends on interplay between climate-mediat

and climate-mediated regeneration

Annex A.indd 13 nnex A.indd 13 
14

become established in small, treatable patches, and are best 

addressed at early stages of invasion. Although designed 

for other problems like invasives, it is also appropriate for 

climate change because it could allow managers to respond 

quickly to the impacts of extreme events (disturbances, 

floods, windstorms) with an eye toward adaptation.

Large-scale disturbance can cause sudden and major 

changes in ecosystems, but can be used as occasions to 

apply adaptation strategies. ONF is currently climatically 

buffered from chronic disturbance complexes already 

evident in drier forests, but age-class studies and paleoproxy 

evidence indicate that large-scale disturbances occurred 

in the past. For comparison, fire suppression and harvest 

practices in British Columbia played a role in the current 

pine beetle outbreak by homogenizing forest structure over 

very large areas. In ONF, the amount of young forest (as a 

result of 20th century harvest) is both a risk (hence ONF’s 

“restoration” status) and an opportunity. Large disturbances 

that may occur in the future could be used to influence the 

future structure and function of forests. Carefully designed 

management experiments for adapting to climatic change 

could be implemented. There is a clear need to have concepts 

and plans in place in anticipation of large fire and wind 

events, so that maximum benefit can be realized.

Information and tools needed to assist adaptation are 

primarily a long-term, management-science partnership 

with decision-specific scientific information. ONF relayed 

a critical request of scientists: natural resource managers 

need a manager’s guide with important scientific concepts 

and techniques. Critical gaps in scientific information 

hinder adaptation by limiting assessment of risks, efficacy, 

and sustainability of actions. Managers would also like 

assistance and consultation on interpreting climate and 

ecosystem model output so that the context and relevance 

of model predictions can be reconciled with managers’ 

priorities for adaptation. Managers identified a need to 

determine effectiveness of prevention and control efforts 

for invasive species; monitoring is critical (and expensive). 

There is a strong need for data on genetic variability of key 

species, as well as recent results of hydrologic modeling 

Forest, and Gifford Pinchot National Forest. The ta

date for beginning this forest planning effort is 2012. 

effort would facilitate further cooperation and planning 

adaptation in similar ecosystems subject to similar stress

ONF has implemented a strategic plan that has sim

capacity for guiding prioritization and can incorpo

climatic change elements now, rather than waiting for 

multi-forest plan effort. By explicitly addressing resilienc

climatic change (and simultaneously developing any sci

needed to do so) in the OLMP, ONF can formalize the u

climate change information in management actions.

A second, related opportunity is to integrate climatic cha

into region-wide NWFP guidelines that amended Pac

Northwest forest plans. The legacy of the 20th cen

timber economy in the Pacific Northwest has cre

ecological problems, but also opportunities (Fig. A

Landscapes predominately in early seral stages are m

easily influenced by management actions, such as targ

thinning and planting, than are late seral forests, so t

is an opportunity to anticipate climate change and pre

for its impacts with carefully considered managem

actions. By recognizing the likely future impacts of clim

change on forest ecosystems (such as shifts in disturba

regimes), the revised forest plans can become an evolv

set of guidelines for forest managers. Specifically, 

the NWFP network of late successional reserves rem

resilient to climatic change and its influence on disturba

regimes? Are there specific management practice

adaptive management areas that would change given 

likely impacts of climatic change? 

Collaboration among multiple organizations is ke

successful management. ONF staff believe that the “s

is set” for continued and future collaboration am

organizations and agencies on the Olympic Penins

Climatic change and ecosystems do not recognize poli

boundaries, and significant adaptive leverage can be ga

by cooperation. Initiatives by coalitions and partnerships 

include climatic change (e.g., the Puget Sound Partners

and are conducive to an environment in which adapta

actions are well supported. In some cases, working with o

Annex A.indd 14 nnex A.indd 14 
management, etc. in forests that do not have as much fire on the 

ground but may, in the future, be equally vulnerable. Multiple 

agency collaboration can be difficult because of conflicting 

legislation, mandates, and cultures, but such collaboration is 

likely to be a hallmark of successful adaptation to climatic 

change. Certainly increased collaboration between scientists 

sustainable and a more efficient use of funding t

systems and landscape diversity than to plan for an

many individual species. The NWFP partially embr

strategy, but does not focus specifically on climate 

The Clean Water Act could become an important b

the future as stream temperatures increase; this m

Figure A1.5. Olympic National Forest is charged with mitigating the legacy of 20th century timber harvest. Landscape fragm

and extensive road networks (upper left) are consequences of this legacy that influence strategies for adaptation to climat

The old-growth forest dependent northern spotted owl (upper right) is one focus of the NWFP, which prescribes forest 

but does not address climatic change. Changes in the timing and intensity of runoff expected with climate change are likely t

with this legacy to have negative impacts on unmaintained roads (lower left) that in turn will impact water quality for five th

or endangered species of anadromous and resident fish. Photo Credits: All photos courtesy Olympic National Forest.

Annex A.indd 15 nnex A.indd 15 
16

wildland fire use (likely limited in ONF to natural ignitions 

within wilderness areas) would need to be weighed against 

the cost of authorization. Authorization to use this tool in 

the short term would require a Forest Plan amendment and 

associated NEPA process. A less costly but longer-horizon 

alternative is to include wildland fire use in the 2012 Forest 

Plan revision effort. Benefits would be limited to wildland 

fire use that could be approved within the confines of the 

ESA and other regulations. Olympic National Park recently 

completed a fire management plan that authorizes wildland 

fire use, but has restrictions related to ESA requirements. 

For ONF the role of wildland fire use in management would 

also be limited by the ESA and the adjacency of non-federal 

land concerns.

A1.2.6 Increasing the Adaptive Capacity to Respond 

to Climate Change

The ecosystem stressors ONF manages for currently (Table 

A1.1) are likely to be exacerbated by climatic change, but 

little work has focused on quantifying the direct linkages 

between the climate system and future ecosystem services 

on the Olympic Peninsula. Resilience to climate change 

is therefore only describable qualitatively. Past timber 

harvest has resulted in a very large area of lower-elevation 

forest consisting of second growth, in an ecosystem that 

was characterized by resilient old growth. This landscape 

homogenization has occurred in other forest types, and, at 

least in theory, results in less resilience to climate-mediated 

disturbances. However, such characterization is at the 

moment speculative. Aquatic ecosystems are probably 

less resilient, and measuring resilience there is similarly 

underdeveloped.

The primary conclusions of this case study are:

1. Climate change and its impacts are identifiable 

regionally, and adaptation to climate change is necessary 

to ensure the sustainability of ecosystem services.

2. ONF management priorities (Table A1.1) are consistent 

with adaptation to climatic change and promoting 

resilience to the impacts of climate change. However, 

available resources do not allow adaptation at sufficient 

4. These limitations can be overcome by:

a. developing a manager’s guide to climate imp

and adaptation;

b. developing an ongoing science-managem

partnership focused on climate change;

c. incorporating climatic change explicitly 

national, regional, and forest-level policy;

d. re-examining the appropriateness of la

regulations, and policies on management act

in the context of adaptation to climatic chang

e. creating clear, consistent priorities that pro

guidance but allow for local/forest level strate

and management actions that increase resilie

and reduce vulnerability to climatic change;

f. allocating resources sufficient for adaptat

and

g. increasing educational and outreach effort

promote awareness of climate change impact

ecosystem services.

ONF is at a crossroads. The effects of climatic cha

on forest ecosystems and natural resources are alre

detectable. Adapting to those changes and sustain

ecosystem services is an obvious and urgent priority

adaptive capacity is limited by the policy environm

current allocation of scarce resources, and lack of rele

scientific information on the effects of climate cha

and, more crucially, on the likely outcomes of adap

strategies. Adaptive management is one potential stra

for learning how to predict, act on, and mitigate the imp

of climatic change on a forest ecosystem, but if there i

leeway for management actions or those actions must o

quickly, then adaptation options are limited in the cur

environment. ONF staff indicated that if they were mana

for climate change, given what they know now and t

current levels of funding and personnel, they would cont

to emphasize management for biodiversity. It is poss

for example, that they might further increase their cur

emphasis on restoration and diversity. Another poss

change, reminiscent of the earlier Forest Service priori

Annex A.indd 16 nnex A.indd 16 
management actions should not, in aggregate, 

lead to the extirpation of rare species. Clear 

and consistent mandates, priorities, and 

policies are needed to support sustainability 

of ecosystem services in the face of a warmer 

climate and changing biophysical conditions.

We envision a future in which the policy, 

planning, and scientific aspects of ecosystembased management co-evolve with changes in 

climate and ecosystems. This vision requires 

trust, collaboration, and education among 

policy makers, land managers, and scientists 

as well as the publics they serve. Climate will 

continue to change, effects on ecosystems will 

be complex, and land managers will struggle 

to adapt to those changes with limited 

resources. Collaboration with scientists is 

certain to produce information that relates 

directly to on-the-ground decision making. 

Less certain is how opportunities for adaptation will 

be realized while retaining public support for resource 

management actions. ONF has already transitioned from 

producing a few commodities to producing a broad array 

of ecosystem services, but the more ambitious vision of 

coevolution must progress rapidly in order for adaptation to 

keep pace with anticipated effects of climatic change.

A1.3 Uwharrie National Forest

A1.3.1 Setting and Context of the Uwharrie National 

Forest

The Uwharrie National Forest (originally called the 

Uwharrie Reservation) was first purchased by the federal 

government in 1931 during the Great Depression. In 1961, 

President John F. Kennedy proclaimed the federal lands in 

Montgomery, Randolph, and Davidson Counties (Fig. A1.6). 

The UNF is within a two-hour drive of North Carolina’s 

largest population centers, including Winston-Salem, 

Greensboro, Charlotte, Raleigh, and Durham. The forest 

is fragmented into 61 separate parcels, which pose unique 

forest management challenges (Fig. A1.6). Therefo

of UNF has been modified from a natural to a m

ecological condition. UNF has a rolling topograp

elevation ranging from 122 to 305 m above se

Although small by most national forest standards 

ha), the UNF provides a variety of natural re

including clean rivers and streams, diverse veget

scenery, wildlife habitat, and wood products. Ther

a wide variety of recreational activities, and UNF is 

setting for tourism and economic development. 7

The UNF is rich in history. It is named for the U

Mountains, some of the oldest in North America. A

to geologists, the Uwharries were created from an 

chain of volcanoes. The 1,000-foot hills of today w

20,000-foot peaks.

7 USDA Forest Service, 2007: Uwharrie National Forest 

Ranger District. University of North Carolina at Ashevill

Forest Service Website, http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/uwha

maps/uwharrie_map.pdf, accessed on 7-30-2007.

Figure A1.6. Map of the Uwharrie National Forest in North Carolin

Annex A.indd 17 nnex A.indd 17 
18

recreation opportunities, and a natural setting for tourism 

and economic development. Recreational use is growing, 

especially in the Badin Lake area and along the 20-mile 

Uwharrie National Recreation Trail. Badin Lake is one of 

the largest bodies of water included in the series of reservoirs 

within the Yadkin-PeeDee River drainage system. The 

entire watershed is known as the Uwharrie Lakes Region. 

Badin Lake is a popular setting for many different recreation 

activities, including camping, hiking, fishing, boating, and 

hunting. The area is rich game land for deer and wild turkey, 

and a home for bald eagles.

A1.3.2 Current Uwharrie NF Planning Context, 

Forest Plan Revision and Climate Change

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 requires that 

all NFs periodically revise their forest management plan.8

Existing environmental and economic situations within the 

forest are examined. Then plans are revised to move the 

forest closer to a desired future condition. The current UNF 

forest management plan was originally developed in 1986, 

and UNF is now undergoing a Forest Plan Revision (FPR). 

The revised forest plan focuses on three themes. Two of the 

themes—restoring the forest to a more natural ecological 

condition, and providing outstanding and environmentally 

friendly outdoor recreation opportunities—will likely be 

affected by a changing climate. The third theme of the FPR 

(i.e., better managing heritage (historical and archeological) 

resources) will likely not be significantly affected by climate 

change. Thus, this case study examines potential impacts 

on the first two UNF FPR themes. 

The revised forest plan will suggest management strategies 

that help reduce risks to the health and sustainability of 

UNF associated with projected impacts of a changing 

climate. Therefore, the UNF case study focuses on specific 

recommended modifications to the forest plan. This level of 

specificity was not possible with either the Tahoe or Olympic 

National Forest case studies because neither has recently 

8 16 U.S.C. §1600-1614

rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and t

poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), while leaving the m

fire-resistant oaks and hickories alive. Pine ecosyst

had a shorter fire return interval of 3–5 years, with fl

heights reaching 1–2 m (3.3–6.6 ft.), thus favoring fire- 

drought-resistant longleaf (Pinus palustris) and short

(Pinus echinata) pines more than loblolly pines. The f

also removed much of the mid-canopy vegetation 

promoted light-demanding grasses and herbs.9 Decidu

and coniferous tree species are equally represented in U

However, a higher percent of the conifers are in lobl

pine (Pinus taeda) plantations than would have historic

occurred, because of the planting emphasis of this spe

over the past 40 years.9

Climate change is projected to increase the number 

severity of wildfires across the southern United State

the coming years (Bachelet et al., 2001). As part of its F

UNF plans to restore approximately 120 ha (296 acre

loblolly pine plantation to more fire-resistant ecosys

types (e.g., longleaf pine) each year.9 This management 

will restore UNF to a more historically natural condition 

reduce catastrophic wildfire risk associated with an incr

in fuel loading (Stanturf et al., 2002; Busenberg, 2004) 

hotter climate (Bachelet et al., 2001).

A1.3.2.2 Revised Forest Plan Theme 2: Provide Outstandin

and Environmentally Friendly Outdoor Recreation 

Opportunities

Recreation opportunities provided by UNF are an impor

ecosystem service to the local and regional communities. 

proximity to large population centers and diverse intere

outdoor activities make UNF a destination for many gro

that use the trails and water bodies located within the fo

The continued quality of these trails, streams, and lake

of very high importance to UNF’s mission. 

During the 20th century the frequency of extr

precipitation events has increased, and climate mo

9 Uwharrie National Forest, 2007: Proposed Uwharrie Nat

Forest Land Management Plan. Available from http://www.cs.u

edu/nfsnc/uwharrie_plan/wo_review_draft_plan.pdf. USDA F

Service, Asheville, NC.

Annex A.indd 18 nnex A.indd 18 
1998). Hiking, offhighway vehicles, and logging trails and 

forest harvest areas represent the major types of exposed 

soil surface in UNF.9 Increased soil erosion would degrade 

both trail and water quality.

In response to current and projected increases in soil erosion 

potential, the UNF FPR proposes to repair authorized roads 

and trails, close unauthorized roads and trails, minimize new 

road construction, and reroute needed roads that increase soil 

erosion. In total, these measures should effectively reduce 

the potential impact of increased precipitation intensity on 

soil erosion in the UNF.

A1.3.3 Long-Term Natural Resource Services

In addition to the objectives outlined in the Uwharrie forest 

plan revision, forests in the United States provide valuable 

natural resources of clean water and wood products. While 

the demand for U.S. pulp and paper products has decreased 

in recent years, it is important to assess the long-term ability 

of the forests to supply wood resources if a future need 

should arise. The demand for clean, dependable water is 

increasing within the southern United States as population 

pressure on water resources increase. Therefore, climate 

change impacts on UNF water yield and timber supply were 

also assessed in the UNF Watershed Analysis Document 

of the FPR. 

A1.3.3.1 Water Yield

Clean water is one of the most valuable commodities that 

our NFs provide. National forest lands are the largest single 

source of water in the United States and one of the original 

reasons that the NFS was established in 1891 (USDA Forest 

Service, 2000b). There is concern that climate change could 

reduce water yield from the Uwharrie. Currently, about 

1,590 mm of precipitation falls in UNF every year, with 

close to 70% (or 1,100 mm) of it evapotranspiring back 

to the atmosphere. The other 30% (or 490 mm) leaves the 

forest as stream runoff and percolates downward becoming 

a part of the groundwater.9 Climate change models suggest 

that precipitation may increase to 1,780 mm per year. Air 

temperature is also expected to increase, which will, in turn, 

increase forest evapotranspiration. In total, stream water 

flow is projected to decrease by approximately 10% by the 

A1.3.3.2 Timber and Pulpwood Productivity

The southern United States has long been a major 

of pulpwood and timber. But because an increasing 

of timber and pulpwood is being supplied to th

States by Canada, Europe, and countries in the S

Hemisphere (USDA Forest Service, 2003), nation

managers have moved away from an emphasis o

supply toward recreational opportunities and sus

water (Apple, 1996).

Climate change will have variable impacts globally

production in some countries, such as Canada, ma

from warmer climate, while countries closer to the 

may experience significant reductions in prod

(Melillo et al., 1993). Although NFs are not curren

sources of wood products, this situation could ch

timber production from other parts of the worl

Therefore, it is important to assess the impact of 

change on forest productivity in UNF. Forest pro

models suggest that although pine productiv

decrease, hardwood productivity is projected to 

and the net loss of total forest productivity would 

for the UNF over the next 40 years (National As

Synthesis Team, 2000). However, the analysis 

account for the potential for increased fire occurrenc

could significantly reduce overall forest volume an

(Bachelet et al., 2001). The proposed shift in forest t

to more drought-tolerant and fire-resistant specie

also help to assure that UNF remains a timber reso

future generations (Smith, Ragland, and Pitts, 199

A2. NATIONAL PARKS CASE ST

A2.1 Rocky Mountain National Park

The climate is going to change continuously ove

the next 100 years. Ecosystems, species, and proc

each of the 270 natural resource parks will be aff

10 See also Sun, G., S.G. McNulty, E. Cohen, J.M. Myers, an

2005: Modeling the impacts of climate change, landuse ch

human population dynamics on water availability and d

the Southeastern US. Paper number 052219. Proceedi

2005 ASAE Annual Meeting, St. Joseph, MI.

Annex A.indd 19 nnex A.indd 19 
20

resources, including glaciers and alpine tundra communities, 

but there is high uncertainty regarding just how vulnerable 

they are, what specific changes might occur, how rapidly 

change might occur, or what to do. The following case study 

describes RMNP’s first attempt to take stock of the Park 

with respect to climate change, and begin to think about 

management.

A2.1.1 Park Description and Management Goals

RMNP was established in 1915 and “is dedicated and 

set apart as a public park for the benefit and enjoyment 

of the people of the United States ...with regulations 

primarily aimed at the freest use of the said park and for the 

preservation of natural conditions and scenic beauties.”11

The Park is located in the Front Range of the southern 

Colorado Rocky Mountains, the first mountain range west 

of the Great Plains. RMNP’s wide elevation gradient—from 

8,000 to more than 14,000 feet—includes montane forests 

and grasslands, old-growth subalpine forests, and the largest 

expanse of alpine tundra in the lower 48 states. More than 

150 lakes and 450 miles of streams form the headwaters of 

the Colorado River to the west, and the South Platte River 

to the east. Rich wetlands and riparian areas are regional 

hotspots of native biodiversity. Several small glaciers and 

rock glaciers persist in east-facing cirque basins along the 

Continental Divide. The snow that accumulates in these 

basins each winter provides water that supports downstream 

cities and agricultural activities in Colorado and neighboring 

states. RMNP is home to populations of migratory elk, 

mule deer, bighorn sheep, and charismatic predators such 

as golden eagles, cougars, and bobcats; many plant and 

animal species that live in the alpine, including white-tailed 

ptarmigan, pika, and yellow-bellied marmot; and several 

endangered species, including the boreal toad and the 

greenback cutthroat trout. 

At slightly larger than 415 square miles, RMNP is not large 

compared with other western national parks (Yellowstone, 

by comparison, is more than eight times larger). RMNP is 

bordered on all four sides by national forests. The Roosevelt 

11 16 U.S.C. § 191-198

meaning the superintendent has a responsibility to pro

air-quality related values, including vegetation, visibi

water quality, wildlife, historic and prehistoric struct

and objects, cultural landscapes, and most other elemen

a park environment that are sensitive to air pollution. Sev

endangered species, such as the boreal toad and the greenb

cutthroat trout, have management plans for enhancem

and recovery. Other current management issues include 

elk, and invasive exotic species. All told, there are more 

30 planning documents (Acts, Executive Orders, Plans, 

Recommendations) that guide RMNP operations.

The towns of Estes Park and Grand Lake form gate

communities, and are connected by Trail Ridge Road w

is open for traffic crossing the Continental Divide during 

summer and fall months. Largely because of its spectac

vistas, the Park receives more than three million visitors 

year, 25% of whom come from Colorado. Most visitor u

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where 

man and his own works dominate the landscape, 

is hereby recognized as an area where the earth 

and its community of life are untrammeled by 

man, where man himself is a visitor who does not 

remain. For the purposes of this chapter, an area 

of wilderness is further defined to mean an area 

of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent 

improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural 

conditions and which (1) generally appears to have 

been affected primarily by the forces of nature, 

with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of rec

reation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land 

or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; 

and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or 

other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historical value.

Box A2.1. Definition of Wilderness

Annex A.indd 20 nnex A.indd 20 
found throughout the western United States (Stewart, Cayan, 

and Dettinger, 2005; Knowles, Dettinger, and Cayan, 2006; 

Mote, 2006). All of these trends are more pronounced in the 

Pacific Northwest and the Sierra Nevada than they are in the 

Colorado Front Range of the southern Rocky Mountains. 

The less pronounced evidence for RMNP compared with the 

rest of western U.S. mountains should not be interpreted as 

a lack of climate change potential within the Park. The high 

(and thus cold) elevations and a shift over the past 40 years 

from a more even annual distribution of precipitation to more 

winter precipitation have contributed to Front Range mountain 

weather going against the trend seen across much of the rest 

of the West (Knowles, Dettinger, and Cayan, 2006). 

Summer warming has been observed in RMNP, and while 

a ten year record is insufficient for an understanding of 

cause, July temperatures increased approximately 3°C, 

as measured at three high elevation sites from 1991-2001 

(Clow et al., 2003). RMNP, along with most of the rest of 

the western United States, experienced record-breaking 

extreme March temperatures and coincident early melting 

of winter snowpack in 2004. While not directly attributable 

to climate change, extreme heat events are consistent with 

climate change model projections that suggest increased 

rates of extreme events due to the warming atmosphere 

(Pagano et al., 2004).

A2.1.3 Observed and Projected Effects of Climate 

Change in the Southern Rocky Mountains and Rocky 

Mountain National Park

A number of studies have indicated that climatic warming 

is being expressed in environmental change in the southern 

Rocky Mountains and in RMNP: mountain glacier retreat 

(evidence of climatic warming) is occurring adjacent to and 

within RMNP. Arapahoe Glacier, located 10 miles south of 

the Park on the Continental Divide, has thinned by more 

than 40 m since 1960 (Fig. A2.1). Photograph pairs of Rowe 

Glacier in RMNP also show the loss of ice mass over time 

(Fig. A2.2). Responses to climatic change are also showing 

up in ecological communities: a long-term study of the 

timing of marmot emergence from hibernation in central 

Colorado found marmots emerge on average 38 days earlier 

than they did in 1977 (Inouye et al., 2000). This is t

by warming spring temperatures. Similarly, th

arrival of migratory robins to Crested Butte, Colorad

weeks earlier now than in 1977. This also signals b

changes in response to climate (Inouye et al., 2000

A number of species of plants and animals may be vu

to climate change. Dwarf larkspur (Delphinium nutt

12 NSIDC/WDC for Glaciology, Boulder, Compiler, 200

glacier photograph database. National Snow and Ice Da

World Data Center for Glaciology. Available at http://

data/g00472.html. 13 Lee, W.T., 1916: Rowe Glacier photograph. In: Onli

photograph database. National Snow and Ice Data Cen

Data Center for Glaciology.

Leach, A., 1994: Rowe Glacier photograph. Available fr

www.leachfam.com/securearea/album.php. Boulder, Co

Figure A2.2. Photo pair of Rowe Glacier, with per

NSIDC and leachfam website.13

Annex A.indd 21 nnex A.indd 21 
22

et al., 2002a), and where population growth rates were 

negatively correlated with warmer winter temperatures. 

The Wang et al. (2002b) study suggests that ptarmigan 

may likely be extinct in RMNP within another two or three 

decades. Dippers (Cinclus mexicanus) in RMNP may also 

be vulnerable, as has been shown by studies of the closely 

related white-fronted dipper (Cinclus cinclus) in Scandinavia 

(Saether et al., 2000; Wang et al., 2002b). 

Some studies of animal responses to climate change in the 

Park reveal positive responses. Elk populations were projected 

to double under climate scenarios of warmer winters and 

possibly wetter summers, while model results for warmer 

winters with drier summers projected an increase in the elk 

population of 50% (Wang et al., 2002c). Elk populations have 

been increasing within RMNP due to enhanced overwinter 

survival, and this may be another factor in the demise of 

white-tailed ptarmigan, as elk are now taking advantage of 

warmer springs to graze on high level tundra where they 

compete with ptarmigan for shrubby browse. 

Greenback cutthroat trout, an endangered species, have 

been translocated into streams and lakes in RMNP as part 

of a recovery effort. Water temperatures in many of the 

translocation streams are colder than optimal for greenback 

cutthroat trout growth and reproduction. Of the ten streams 

where the fish were reintroduced by the Colorado Division 

of Wildlife, only three had temperatures within the range 

for successful growth and reproduction at the time of 

translocation. A modeling scenario that postulated warmer 

stream temperatures suggests that three additional streams 

will experience sufficient temperature increases to raise 

the probability of translocation success to >70%. In at least 

one of these streams, however, temperatures are projected 

to also warm enough to allow the establishment of whirling 

disease, caused by Myxobolus cerebralis, a parasite that is 

fatal to young trout.14

14 Cooney, S., 2005: Modeling global warming scenarios in greenback 

cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki stomias) streams: implications 

for species recovery. M.S. thesis, Colorado State University, Fort 

Collins.

important (Weiler et al., 2002). A more important driv

economic change for the Town of Estes Park was proje

increases in human population numbers within the Sta

Colorado (Weiler et al., 2002). 

A2.1.4 Adapting to Climate Change

RMNP is relatively rich in information about its ecosyst

and natural resources, and has benefited from long-t

research and monitoring projects and climate cha

assessments. Examples include research and monitor

in Loch Vale Watershed15, and the focused assessmen

the effects of climate change on RMNP and its Gate

Community.16 Even so, planning and resource managem

in the Park does not yet include considerations of clim

change. A workshop in March 2007 provided the opportu

for Park managers and community members to be

thinking about the steps to take to increase preparednes

a climate that will be warmer and less predictable. Res

of the workshop are summarized below.

In many ways, effective science-based managemen

RMNP has enhanced the ability of park natural resou

to adapt to climate change. Most of the water rights h

been purchased, dams and ditches have been remo

and many streams and lakes have been restored to f

flowing status since 1980. An exception is the Gr

River Ditch. Park managers have also been proactiv

removing or preventing invasive species such as le

spurge, and invasive non-native species such as moun

goats; managing fire through controlled burns and thinn

reducing regional air pollution through partnerships w

regulatory agencies; and preparing a plan to reduce 

populations to more sustainable numbers. 

Despite these actions, RMNP managers are concerned 

the potential for catastrophic wildfire, increasing in

15 Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, 2007: Loch Vale 

tershed research project. Colorado State University, www

colostate.edu/projects/lvws, accessed on 5-15-2007. 16 Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, 2002: Science to ach

results. Colorado State University, http://www.nrel.colostate

projects/star/index.html, accessed on 4-6-2007.

Annex A.indd 22 nnex A.indd 22 
tundra and species that live above treeline, but do not have 

much information about current alpine species populations 

and trends. Modest baseline data and monitoring programs 

are currently in place. Regional biogeographic models suggest 

that the treeline will rise and some alpine areas will diminish 

or disappear (Neilson and Drapek, 1998). Reduced tundra 

area, or its fragmentation by trees, could endanger many 

obligate tundra plants and animals. Species such as pika, 

white-tailed ptarmigan, and marmots are already known to 

be responsive to climate change (Inouye et al., 2000; Wang et 

al., 2002a; Beever, Brussard, and Berger, 2003). 

RMNP managers have identified a strategy for increasing 

their ability to adapt to climate change built on their current 

activities, what they know, and what they do not know 

about upcoming challenges related to climate change. The 

strategy involves bringing teams of experts and regional 

resource managers together in a series of workshops to 

share information and help identify resources and processes 

that may be most susceptible to climate change. Support 

for high resolution models that project possible changes to 

species and processes can be used to establish scenarios of 

future ecological trajectories and end-states. Regularly held 

workshops with scientific experts offer the opportunity to 

develop planning scenarios, propose adaptive experiments 

and management opportunities, and keep abreast of the state 

of knowledge regarding climate change and its effects. 

Managers also propose establishing a Rocky Mountain 

National Park Science Advisory Board. A Science Advisory 

Board could serve as a springboard for thinking strategically 

and enabling the Park to anticipate climate-related events. 

RMNP managers recognize the need to develop baselines 

for species or processes of highest concern (or of greatest 

indicator value) and plan to establish monitoring programs 

to track changes over time. The vital signs that have been 

identified for the Park need to be reviewed and possibly 

revised in order to capture effects that will occur with 

climate change. 

Park managers identified a critical need to develop a 

series of learning activities and opportunities for all 

Department of Public Health and Environment, the C

Division of Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Larimer and Boulder Counties, and many local orga

and schools. Opportunities to work more closely 

Routt, Arapaho, and Roosevelt National Forest m

could be pursued with the objective of discussin

management goals. 

In summary, RMNP managers propose to continu

resource management activities to minimize dam

other threats, increase their knowledge of which 

and ecosystems are subject to change from climate 

monitor rates of change for select species and pr

and work with experts to consider what man

actions are appropriate to their protection. By de

working relations with neighboring and regional 

managers, the Park keeps its options open for a

species to migrate in and out of the Park, considering 

migrations, and promoting regional approaches tow

management (Box A2.2).

A2.1.5 Needed: A New Approach Toward Re

Management 

RMNP, like other national parks, often operates in 

mode, with limited opportunity for long-term p

Reactive management has a number of causes, on

of which are related to tight budgets and restrictive 

mechanisms. Partly because national parks are s

to the public, there are public expectations and 

pressures that trigger short-term management a

(tree thinning in lodgepole pine forest is one exam

activity that is visible to many, but of questionab

in reducing the risk of catastrophic fire). Natural 

issues are increasingly complex, and climate chan

greatly to this complexity. 

RMNP managers have been proactive in addressi

of the resource issues faced by the Park. Yet they re

there is still more to be done, particularly in human 

management. Complex issues require broad and 

ways of thinking about them, and creative new 

their management. Professional development prog

Annex A.indd 23 nnex A.indd 23 
24

current resource managers, rangers, and park managers 

could be strengthened so that all employees understand the 

natural resources that are under the protection of the NPS, 

the causes and consequences of threats to these resources, 

and the various management options that are available.

The skill sets for new National Park Service (NPS) employees 

should reflect broad systems training. University programs 

for natural resource management could shift from traditional 

training in fisheries, wildlife, or recreational management to 

providing more holistic ecosystems management training. 

Curricula at universities and colleges could also emphasize 

critical and strategic thinking that embraces science and 

scientific tools for managing adaptively, and recognizes 

the need for lifelong learning. Climate change can serve 

as the catalyst for this new way of managing national park 

expected to continue throughout the coming cent

(IPCC, 2001) (see Fig. 5.3a in the National Wildlife Refu

chapter). Migratory birds are one of the major trust spe

groups of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NW

and birds that breed in Alaska traverse most of the sys

as they use portions of the Pacific, Central (see Fig. A

Mississippi, and Atlantic Flyways during their annual cy

Projected warming is expected to encompass much of 

Central Flyway but is expected to be less pronounced in 

remaining flyways (IPCC, 2001). Historical records s

strong warming in the Dakotas and a tendency toward 

climate change awareness

• Good working relations with city, county, state, 

and federal land and resource managers

• RMNP is surrounded on nearly all sides by 

protected national forest lands, including wilderness.

• Regionally, mountain and high valley lands to the 

north, west, and south of RMNP are mostly publicly owned and protected, or sparsely populated 

ranch and second home developments.

• RMNP is a headwater park and controls most of 

the water rights within its boundaries. As such, 

it has direct control over its aquatic ecosystems 

and water quality.

Barriers

• Insufficient knowledge about individual species’ 

status and trends

• Limited opportunity for long-term strategic 

planning

• Limited interagency coordination of management 

programs

• The large and growing urban, suburban, exurban 

Front Range urban corridor may hinder migration 

of species into or out of RMNP from the Great 

Plains and Foothills to the east.

Figure A3.1. Central Flyway Waterfowl Migration Corrid

17 

17 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007: Central flyway. U.S. Fish 

Wildlife Service, Pacific Flyway Council Website, http://pac

flyway.gov/Documents/Central_map.pdf, accessed on 6-2-0

Annex A.indd 24 nnex A.indd 24 
comprehensive management strategy to meet the challenge 

of climate change in the next century. The following case 

study examines warming and additional stressors, as well 

as management options in Alaska and the Central Flyway, 

which together produce 50–80% of the continent’s ducks 

(Table A3.1).

A3.1.1 Current Environmental Conditions

A3.1.1.1 Changes in Climate and Growing Season Duration

Climate

In recent decades, warming has been very pronounced 

in Alaska, with most of the warming occurring in winter 

(December–February) and spring (March–May) (Serreze

et al., 2000; McBean et al., 2005). In western and central 

Canada, the increases in air temperature have been 

somewhat less than those observed in Alaska (Serreze et 

al., 2000). While precipitation has remained largely stable 

throughout Alaska and in Canada in recent decades, several 

lines of evidence indicate that Alaska and western Canada 

are experiencing increased drought stress due to increased 

summer water deficits (Barber, Juday, and Finney, 2000; 

North America, but the magnitude of change depen

study. Putting together the trends in the onset of b

and freeze, Smith, Saatchi, and Randerson (2004) 

that the trend for longer growing seasons in northe

America (3 days per decade) is primarily due to later 

However, other studies indicate that the lengthening 

season in North America is primarily due to earlier th

2002; Euskirchen et al., 2006). Consistent with ear

of terrestrial ecosystems in northern North America

has also been observed to be melting earlier across 

the Northern Hemisphere in recent decades (Magnu

2000). The study of Euskirchen et al. (2006) indic

trends for earlier thaw are generally stronger in Ala

in the Central Flyway of Canada and northern Unite

but trends for later freeze are stronger in the Centra

of Canada and the northern United States than in A

A3.1.1.2 Changes in Agriculture

Agriculture and migratory waterfowl are intimatel

because waterfowl make significant use of agricultu

on staging and wintering areas. Much of the agr

production in the United States is centered in the 

Table A3.1. The annual cycle of migratory waterfowl that breed in Alaska may serve as an integrative focus for develop

national vision of climate effects and management adaptation options for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The comp

potential interactions among locations, life history stages, climate mechanisms, non-climate stressors, and options for ma

adaptation for migratory waterfowl that breed in Alaska demonstrates that inter-regional assessment and timely commu

will be essential to the development of a national vision.

Location Life History Climate Mechanisms Non-Climate Stressors Adaptatio

Options

Alaska Production:

• Breeding

• Fledging

Early Thaw:

• Resource access

• Habitat area

• Season length

• Assess System Minimal • 

• Predict

• Collaborate

• Facilitate

Prairie 

Potholes

(Central Flyway)

Staging:

• Energy reserves

Late Freeze:

• Habitat distribution

• Migration timing

• Harvest distribution

• Land use

• Crop mix

• Disturbance

• Alternate Energy Sources

• Assess System

• Predict

• Partnerships

• Secure Networ

Southern 

United States

Wintering:

• Survival

• Nutrition

Sea Level:

• Habitat access

• Storms:

• Frequency, Intensity

• Urbanization

• Fragmentation

• Pollution

• Partnerships

• Education

• Acquisition

• Adaptive Mgmt

Annex A.indd 25 nnex A.indd 25 
26

more efficient harvest (Krapu, Brandt, and Cox, Jr., 2004). 

While soybean acreage has increased by approximately 

600% during the past 50 years, metabolizable energy and 

digestibility of soybeans is noticeably less than for corn, and 

waterfowl consume little, if any, soybeans (Krapu, Brandt, 

and Cox, Jr., 2004). These changes in availability of corn and 

soybeans suggest that nutrition of waterfowl on migratory 

staging areas may be compromised (Krapu, Brandt, and 

Cox, Jr., 2004). If a future emphasis on bio-fuels increases 

acreage in corn production, the potential negative effects 

of the recent increase in soybean production on waterfowl 

energetics may be ameliorated.

A3.1.1.3 Changes in Lake Area

Analyses of remotely sensed imagery indicate that there 

has been a significant loss of closed-basin water bodies 

(water bodies without an inlet or an outlet) over the past 

half century in many areas of Alaska (Riordan, Verbyla, 

and McGuire, 2006). Significant water body losses have 

occurred primarily in areas of discontinuous permafrost 

(Yoshikawa and Hinzman, 2003; Hinzman et al., 2005; 

Riordan, Verbyla, and McGuire, 2006) and subarctic areas 

that are permafrost-free (Klein, Berg, and Dial, 2005). In 

an analysis of approximately 10,000 closed-basin ponds 

across eight study areas in Alaska with discontinuous 

permafrost, Riordan, Verbyla, and McGuire (2006) found 

that surface water area of the ponds decreased by 4–31% 

while the total number of closed-basin ponds surveyed 

within each study region decreased by 5–54% (Riordan, 

Verbyla, and McGuire, 2006). There was a significant 

increasing trend in annual mean surface air temperature 

and potential evapotranspiration since the 1950s for all the 

study regions, but there was no significant trend in annual 

precipitation during the same period. In contrast, it appears 

that lake area is not changing in regions of Alaska with 

continuous permafrost (Riordan, Verbyla, and McGuire, 

2006). However, in adjacent Canada, significant water body 

losses have occurred in areas dominated by permafrost 

(Hawkings, 1996).18

18 See also Hawkings, J. and E. Malta, 2000: Are northern wetlands 

drying up? A case study in the Old Crow Flats, Yukon. 51st AAAS 

Arctic Science Conference.

as the boreal forest region of Alaska. However, the reduc

of open water bodies may also reflect increased evapora

under a warmer and effectively drier climate in Alask

the loss of open water has also been observed in permafr

free areas (Klein, Berg, and Dial, 2005).

In the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of the Central Flyw

changes in climate accounted for 60% of the variation in 

number of wet basins (Larson, 1995), with partially fore

parklands being more sensitive to increasing temperature 

treeless grasslands. When wet basins are limited, birds 

overfly grasslands for parklands and then proceed even far

north to Alaska in particularly dry years in the pothole reg

Small- and large-scale heterogeneity in lake drying may 

cause a redistribution of birds and, if effects are perva

enough, may ultimately cause changes in the productivity 

abundance of birds. Fire and vegetation changes in the 

and in Alaska may exacerbate these effects.

A3.1.2 Projections and Uncertainties of Future 

Climate Changes and Responses

A3.1.2.1 Projected Changes in Climate and Growing Seaso

Duration

Climate

Projections of changes in climate during the 21st cen

for the region between 60o and 90o N indicate tha

temperature may increase approximately 2oC (ra

~1–4oC among models) and that precipitation may incr

approximately 12% (range ~8–18% among models) (Kat

and Källén, 2005). The increase in precipitation will be 

largely to moisture transport from the south, as temperat

induced increases in evaporation put more moisture 

the atmosphere. Across model projections, increase

temperature and precipitation are projected to be hig

in winter and autumn. Across the region, there is m

spatial variability in projected increases in tempera

and precipitation, both within a model and among mod

For any location, the scatter in projected temperature 

precipitation changes among the models is larger than 

mean temperature and precipitation change projected am

the models (Kattsov and Källén, 2005). 

Annex A.indd 26 nnex A.indd 26 
Growing Season Duration

One analysis suggests that projected climate change may 

increase growing season length in northern and temperate 

North America by 0.4–0.5 day per year during the 21st 

century (Euskirchen et al., 2006), with stronger trends for 

more northern latitudes. This will be caused almost entirely 

by an earlier date of thaw in the spring, as the analysis 

indicated essentially no trend in the date of freeze. Analyses 

of this type need to be conducted across a broader range 

of climate scenarios to determine if this finding is robust. 

If so, then one inference is that lake ice would likely melt 

progressively earlier throughout northern and temperate 

North America during the 21st century. 

A3.1.2.2 Changes in Lake Area

It is expected that the documented loss of surface water 

of closed-basin ponds in Alaska (Riordan, Verbyla, and 

McGuire, 2006) and adjacent Canada will continue if climate 

continues to warm in the 20th century. The ubiquitous loss 

of shallow permafrost (Lawrence and Slater, 2005) as well 

as the progressive loss of deep permafrost (Euskirchen et 

al., 2006) are likely to enhance drainage by increasing the 

flow paths of lake water to ground water. Also, it is likely 

that enhanced evaporation will increase loss of water. While 

projections of climate change indicate that precipitation 

will increase, it is unlikely that increases in precipitation 

will compensate for water loss from lakes from increased 

evaporation. An analysis by Rouse (1998) estimated that 

if atmospheric CO2 concentration doubles, an increase in 

precipitation of at least 20% would be needed to maintain the 

present-day water balance of a subarctic fen. Furthermore, 

Lafleur (1993) estimated that a summer temperature increase 

of 4oC would require an increase in summer precipitation 

of 25% to maintain present water balance. These changes 

in precipitation to maintain water balance are higher than 

the range of precipitation changes (8–18%) anticipated for 

the 60–90o N region in climate model projections (Kattsov 

and Källén, 2005). 

A3.1.3 Non-Climate Stressors

In Alaska, climate is the primary driver of change in habitat 

value for breeding migrants through its effects on length of 

spring and fall by restricting access to foraging 

southern regions of the Central Flyway, rising sea 

increasing urbanization may cause reductions i

area and increased insularity of remaining fragm

stressors contribute to uncertainty in future distribu

abundance of birds. Climate dominates on Alaskan 

grounds, and additional stressors complicate estim

the net effects of climate on migrants and their use o

and wintering areas in central and southern portio

Central Flyway.

A3.1.4 Function of Alaska in the National Wi

Refuge System

Alaska is a major breeding area for North A

migratory waterfowl. Alaska and the adjacen

Territory are particularly important breeding a

American widgeon (~38% of total in 2006), green

teal (~31%), northern pintail (~31%) and greater a

scaup combined (~27%). Substantial proportions of t

American populations of western trumpeter swan

geese, light geese (Snows) and greater sandhill cra

breed in Alaska (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2

Alaska both contributes to NWRS waterfowl pr

and provides a vehicle to conceptually integrate 

the NWRS. Waterfowl that breed in Alaska mak

migrations throughout North America and are thus 

to large-scale heterogeneity in potential climate w

effects. Migrants use the Pacific, Central, Mississippi

lesser extent the Atlantic, Flyways on their annual sp

fall migrations. Their migration routes extend to w

grounds as far south as Central and South America

The spatial heterogeneity in warming, variable e

demands among life history stages, and variable 

and intensity of non-climate stressors along the m

pathways creates substantial complexity within the 

This complexity emphasizes that performance (e.g

gain, survival, reproduction) of any species in any lif

stage at any location within a region may be subs

affected by synergistic effects of climate and non

stressors elsewhere within the NWRS. A su

Annex A.indd 27 nnex A.indd 27 
28

capital breeders, food availability in the spring on breeding 

grounds in the Arctic is important to breeding success 

(Arzel, Elmberg, and Guillemain, 2006).

Breeding conditions for waterfowl in Alaska depend largely 

on the timing of spring ice melt (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2006). In the short term, earlier springs that 

result from warming likely advance green-up and ice melt, 

thus increasing access to open water and to new, highly 

digestible vegetation growth and to terrestrial and aquatic 

invertebrates. Such putative changes in open water and 

food resources in turn may influence the energetic balance 

and reproductive success of breeders and the performance 

of their offspring. Flexibility in arrival and breeding dates 

may allow some migrants to capitalize on earlier access to 

resources and increase the length of time available for renesting attempts and fledging of young. Some relatively late 

migrants, such as scaup (Austin et al., 2000), may not be able 

to adapt to warming induced variable timing of open water 

and food resources, and thus may become decoupled from 

their primary resources at breeding.

In the long term, increased temperatures and greater length 

of the ice-free season on the breeding grounds may contribute 

to permafrost degradation and long-term reduction in the 

number and area of closed-basin ponds (Riordan, Verbyla, 

and McGuire, 2006), which may reduce habitat availability, 

particularly for diving ducks. Countering this potential 

reduction in habitat area may be changes in wetland 

chemistry and aquatic food resources. Reductions in water 

volume of remaining ponds may result in increased nutrient 

or contaminant concentrations, increases in phytoplankton, 

and a shift from an invertebrate community dominated by 

benthic amphipods to one dominated by zooplankton in the 

water column.19 This has variable implications for foraging 

opportunities for waterfowl that make differential use of 

shallow and deep water for foraging. The net effects of lake 

drying on waterfowl populations in Alaska are not known at 

19 Corcoran, R.M., 2005: Lesser scaup nesting ecology in relation 

to water chemistry and macroinvertebrates on the Yukon Flats, 

Alaska. Masters Thesis. Department of Zoology and Physiology, 

University of Wyoming, Laramie, 1-83.

of arrival at various southern staging areas may af

waterfowl’s access to and availability of resources suc

waste grain and may result in re-distribution of birds a

the migration route as they attempt to optimize forag

opportunities. The primary effect of this later departure 

reduced rate of southward migration may be observe

more northerly fall distributions of species and a northw

shift in harvest locations as has already been observed 

some species. Later freeze-up and warmer winters may a

species to “short-stop” their migrations and winter far

north. Observations by Central Flyway biologists indi

Figure A3.2. Heterogeneity in closed-basin lakes with incr

ing and decreasing surface area, 1950–2000, Yukon Flats N

Alaska. Net reduction in lake area was 18% with the area of 

lakes decreasing, 364 lakes increasing, and 462 lakes rema

stable. Adapted from Riordan, Verbyla, and McGuire (2006

Annex A.indd 28 nnex A.indd 28 
Earlier spring thaw may advance the timing of spring 

migration and increase the amount of time that some 

species, such as greater sandhill cranes, spend on their 

staging grounds in Nebraska. Increased foraging time 

during spring migration should benefit larger species, which 

tend to accumulate nutrients for breeding on the wintering 

grounds and on spring migration stopovers, more than 

smaller species, which tend to obtain nutrients necessary 

for breeding while on the breeding ground (Arzel, Elmberg, 

and Guillemain, 2006) although the explicit resolution 

of this concept needs to be quantified on a species-byspecies basis. Warming-induced changes in the timing of 

forage availability on spring migration routes may cause 

redistribution of waterfowl or dietary shifts as they attempt 

to maximize the results of their strategic feeding prior to 

breeding. Increased understanding of the relative value of 

spring migration staging areas to reproductive success and 

annual population dynamics of different waterfowl species 

is a critical need in order to adapt management strategies to 

a changing climate.

A3.1.4.2 Implications for Migrants

Climate change adds temporal and spatial uncertainty to the 

problems associated with accessing resources necessary to 

meet energy requirements for migration and reproduction. 

Because birds are vagile, the primary near-term expected 

response to climate change is redistribution as birds seek to 

maintain energy balance. 

Lengthened ice-free periods may result in earlier arrival 

on breeding grounds, delayed migration (e.g., trumpeter 

swans and greater sandhill cranes), and wintering farther 

north (e.g., white-fronted geese) among other phenomena. 

Warmer conditions that result in lake drying may result in 

birds over-flying normal breeding areas to areas farther 

north (e.g., pintail ducks). Warmer temperatures may reduce 

water levels but increase nutrient levels in warmed lakes. 

Community composition of the invertebrate food base may 

change and life cycles of invertebrates may be shortened; 

amphipods may be disfavored and zooplankton favored with 

differential implications for birds with different feeding 

strategies. Changes in hydrologic periods may cause nest 

of migrating sandhill cranes. Harvest may shift no

as birds delay fall migrations. 

Alaska and the Central Flyway (see Fig. A3.1) en

substantial spatial variation in documented (see 

in the National Wildlife Refuges chapter) and e

climate warming. This spatial variation in war

superimposed on the variable demands of spatially 

seasonal life history events (e.g., nesting, staging, w

of migrants. Variance in success in any life histo

may affect waterfowl performance in subsequent 

remote locations, as well as the long-term abund

distribution of migrants. Performance of migran

location in one life history stage may be affected by 

in a different life history stage at a different locat

superimposition of spatially variable warming on 

separated life history events creates substantial co

in both documenting and developing an understandi

potential effects of climate warming on major trust s

the NWRS. This unresolved complexity does offer 

to focus on the interconnection of spatially separate

the system and to foster a national and internation

of a management strategy for accommodating ne

warming effects on system trust species.

A3.1.5 Management Option Considerations

A3.1.5.1 Response Levels

Response to climate change challenges must 

multiple integrated scales within the NWRS an

partner entities. Individual symptomatic chall

climate change must be addressed at the refug

while NWRS planning is the most appropriate 

addressing systemic challenges to the system. 

Councils, if they can be encouraged to include a 

focus on climate change, may provide an essential m

integration mechanism. Regardless of the level of r

the immediate focus needs to be on what can be d

A3.1.5.2 Necessary Management Tools

Foremost among necessary management tools ar

mechanisms to increase inter-agency communica

long-term national level planning. This could be acco

Annex A.indd 29 nnex A.indd 29 
30

and devise mechanisms for integrating potential climate 

effects into management decisions. The council needs to 

increase effective communication among wildlife, habitat, 

and climate specialists.

Within the NWRS there needs to be adequate support to 

insure the development of an increased capacity to rigorously 

model possible future conditions, and explicit recognition 

that spatial variation in climate has differential effects on 

life cycle stages of migrants; performance in one region 

may be affected by conditions outside a region. Enhanced 

ability to assist migratory trust species when “off-refuge” 

and enhanced ability to facilitate desirable range expansions 

within and across jurisdictions are needed. 

Comprehensive Plans and Biological Reviews need to 

routinely address expected effects of climate change and 

identify potential mechanisms for adaptation to these 

challenges. The ability to effectively employ plans and reviews 

as focus mechanisms for potential climate change effects will 

be enhanced by institutionalization of climate change in job 

descriptions and increased training for refuge personnel. 

A3.1.5.3 Barriers to Adaptation

The primary barriers to adaptation include the lack of a 

spatially explicit understanding of the heterogeneity and 

degree of uncertainty in effects of changing climate on 

seasonal habitats of trust species—breeding, staging and 

wintering—and their implications for populations. Currently 

there is concern about effects of climate change on trust 

species, but insufficient information on which to act. This 

lack of understanding hampers the development of an 

explicit national vision of potential net effects of climate 

change on migrants. In addition, the lack of a secure network 

of protected staging areas, similar to the established network 

of breeding and wintering areas, limits the ability of the 

NWRS to provide adequate security for migratory trust 

species in a changing climate. More efficient use of all types 

of resources will be needed to minimize these national-level 

barriers to adaptation of the NWRS to climate change.

A3.1.5.4 Opportunities for Adaptation

One of the greatest opportunities may lie in creating an 

institutional culture that rewards employees for being 

and monitoring programs that enhance detection of clim

change effects, particularly changing distribution

migratory trust species. Monitoring programs that estab

baseline data regarding the synergy of climate change 

other stressors (e.g., contaminants, habitat fragmentat

will especially be needed. These monitoring programs 

need to be coordinated with private, NGO and state 

federal agency partners.

In stakeholder meetings, refuge biologists were emph

that they needed more biological information in orde

clearly define and to take preemptive management action

anticipation of climate change. Thus, effective adaptatio

climate change will require education, training and long-t

research-management partnerships that are focused on adap

responses to climate change. The following strategy is prop

for the activities of such a research-management partners

• Synthesize extant biological information relevant to b

responses to climate change;

• Educate and train refuge mangers and other staff reg

ing climate change, its potential ecological effects, 

the changes in management and planning that ma

necessary;

• Evaluate possible management and policy response

alternative climate change scenarios in multiple regi

and national workshops;

• Conduct workshops involving managers, researchers 

stakeholders to identify research questions relevan

managing species in the face of climate change;

• Conduct research on questions relevant to managing 

cies in the face of climate change. This may require 

development of tools that are useful for identifying 

range of responses that are likely;

• Apply management actions in response to biotic resp

es that emerge as likely from such research; and

• Evaluate of the effectiveness of management act

and modification of management actions in the spir

adaptive management.

Synthesis workshops should be held every few years to iden

what has been learned and to redefine questions relevant to 

management of species that depend on the NWRS.

Annex A.indd 30 nnex A.indd 30 
and their contributions to waterfowl demography. A 

flyway-scale perspective is necessary to understand the 

importance of migratory staging areas and to assess the 

relative importance of endogenous/exogenous energetics 

to reproduction and survival. These studies should address, in the explicit context of climate warming, strategic 

feeding by waterfowl, temporal shifts in diets, and the 

spatial and temporal implications of climate induced 

changes in the availability of various natural and agricultural foods (Arzel, Elmberg, and Guillemain, 2006).

• Providing adequate spatial and temporal distribution of 

migratory foraging opportunities is a chronic challenge 

to the NWRS. Spring staging areas are under-represented 

and this problem is likely to be exacerbated by a warming climate. It will be necessary to strengthen and clarify 

existing partnerships with private, NGO, and state and 

federal entities and to identify and develop new partnerships throughout the NWRS in order to provide a system 

of staging areas that are extensive and resilient enough 

to provide security for migratory trust species. Strategic 

system growth through fee-simple and conservation 

easement acquisition will be a necessary component of 

successful adaptation.

Implemented adaptations:

• Indigenous communities on the Aleutian Island chain 

(Alaska Maritime NWR) are concerned about the potential effects of increased shipping traffic in new routes that 

may become accessible in a more ice-free Arctic Ocean. 

Previous introductions of non-endemic species to islands 

have had severe negative effects on nesting Aleutian 

Canada geese. The ecosystem management mandate 

of the refuge facilitates a leadership role for the refuge 

that has been implemented through 1) development of 

monitoring partnerships that are designed to detect the 

appearance of invasive species and of contaminants, and 

2) initiation of timely prevention/mitigation programs.

• Indigenous peoples that depend on Interior Alaska NWRs 

are concerned about the potential effects of climateinduced lake drying and changing snow conditions on their 

seasonal access to subsistence resources, and on the availability of waterfowl for subsistence harvest. The refuges 

have promoted enhanced capacity for projecting possible 

A4. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

STUDIES

As emphasized throughout the Wild and Sceni

(WSR) chapter, the effects of climate change on ri

vary greatly throughout the United States depen

local geology, climate, land use, and a host of othe

To illustrate the general “categories” of effects, 

selected three WSRs to highlight in the following cas

(Box A4.1). We selected these rivers because they 

range of some of the most obvious issues that mana

need to grapple with as they develop plans for pr

natural resources in the face of climate change. Riv

Southwest, such as the Rio Grande, will experien

severe droughts at a time when pressures for water e

for growing populations are increasing. Rivers nea

areas, such as the Wekiva, face potential impacts 

level rise. A combination of groundwater withdrawal

level rise may lead to increases in salinity in the spr

feed this river. Rivers that are expected to experie

temperature increases and an increased frequency of 

such as the Upper Delaware, will need proactive man

to prevent loss or damage to ecosystem services.

There are also key outstandingly remarkable value

WSR program focuses on. One of those areas is ana

fish. Box A4.2 provides an overview of potentia

change impacts to anadromous fish and offers man

actions that may be taken to lessen those impacts.

A4.1 Wekiva River

The Wekiva River Basin, located north of Orlando

central Florida, is a complex ecological system of 

springs, seepage areas, lakes, sinkholes, wetland 

swamps, hardwood hammocks, pine flatwoods, a

pine scrub communities. Several streams in the b

crystal clear due to being spring-fed by the Floridan 

Others are “blackwater” streams that receive mos

flow from precipitation, resulting in annual rain

over-bank flows. (Fig. A4.1)

Annex A.indd 31 nnex A.indd 31 
32

In 2000, portions of the Wekiva River and its tributaries of 

Rock Springs Run, Wekiwa20 Springs Run, and Black Water 

Creek were added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. The designated segments total 66.9 km, including 

50.5 km designated as Wild, 3.4 km as Scenic, and 13 km as 

Recreational. The National Park Service (NPS) has overall 

coordinating responsibility for the Wekiva River WSR, but 

there are no federal lands in the protected river corridor. 

Approximately 60%–70% of the 0.8-km-wide WSR corridor 

is in public ownership, primarily managed by the State of 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the 

St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). 

The long-term protection, preservation, and enhancement 

are provided through cooperation among the State of 

Florida, local political jurisdictions, landowners, and private 

organizations. The designated waterways that flow through 

publicly owned lands are managed by the agencies that 

have jurisdiction over the lands. SJRWMD has significant 

regulatory authority to manage surface and ground water 

resources throughout the Wekiva Basin.

One of the main tributaries to the Wekiva River is the 

Little Wekiva River. Running through the highly developed 

Orlando area, the Little Wekiva is the most heavily urbanized 

stream in the Wekiva River Basin, and consequently the 

most heavily affected. The Orlando metropolitan area has 

experienced rapid growth in the last two decades, and an 

20 The term “Wekiwa” refers to the spring itself, from the Creek/

Seminole “spring of water” or “bubbling water.” “Wekiva” refers 

to the river, from the Creek/Seminole “flowing water.”

estimated 1.3 million people now live within a 20-m

radius of the Wekiva River. 

The sections of the Wekiva River and its tributaries 

are designated as WSR are generally in superb ecolog

condition. The basin supports plant and animal species 

are endangered, threatened, or of special concern, inclu

the American Alligator, the Bald Eagle, the Wood Stork

West Indian Manatee, and two invertebrates endemic to 

Wekiva River, the Wekiwa hydrobe and the Wekiwa silts

At the location of the U.S. Geological Survey’s gaug

station on the Wekiva River near Sanford, the drainage 

of the basin is 489 square km. Elevations for the basin ra

from 1.5–53 m above sea level. The climate is subtrop

with an average annual temperature of around 22°C. M

annual rainfall over the Wekiva basin is 132 cm, mo

which occurs during the June–October rainy season. 

The WSR management plan is being prepared with 

leadership of the NPS. Based on information from 

pre-legislation WSR study report,21 and management p

for the state parks (Florida Department of Environme

Protection, 2005) and the SJRWMD (2006a), the prio

management objectives for the WSR will likely inc

maintaining or improving: water quantity and qualit

the springs, streams, and rivers; native aquatic and ripa

ecosystems; viable populations of endangered and sens

21 National Park Service, 1999: Wekiva River, Rock Spring R

Seminole Creek Wild and Scenic River Study. U.S. Departme

Interior, pp.1-49.

p

quality

pp

Droughts, intense 

heat

Drought mortality, 

shrinking habitat, 

fragmentation

Over-extraction 

of water, invasive 

species

Southwest Rio Grande

Little change in 

rainfall, moderately 

warmer 

Impacts modest unless 

complicating stressors

Development in 

watershed

Northern Florida, 

Mississippi, parts of middle 

and western states

Wekiva 

River

Annex A.indd 32 nnex A.indd 32 
consideration of the relationship between 

groundwater and surface water and how 

they relate to management options in the 

context of climate change.

A4.1.1 Current Stressors and 

Management Methods Used to 

Address Them

The primary stressors of the Wekiva 

WSR are:

• water extraction for public, recreational and agricultural uses;

• land conversion to urban and suburban 

development;

• pollution, particularly nitrates, via 

groundwater pathways and surface 

water runoff; and

• invasive species.

The Floridan aquifer has a naturally high 

potentiometric surface (i.e., the level 

that water will rise in an artesian well), which sustains 

the natural springs that are critical to the water regime of 

the Wekiva WSR. McGurk and Presley22

23 cite numerous 

studies that show the long history of water extraction in East 

Central Florida and related these extractions to lowering of 

the potentiometric surface. Taking advantage of the high 

potentiometric surface, in the first half of the 20th century 

more than two thousands artesian (free-flowing) wells were 

drilled into the Upper Floridan aquifer, the water used to 

irrigate agriculture fields and the excess allowed to flow 

into the streams and rivers. Many of the artesian wells have 

since been plugged and otherwise regulated to reduce such 

squandering of the water resources. 

22 U.S. Geological Survey, 2005: Federal land features of the United 

States - parkways and scenic rivers. Federal Land Features of the 

United States. http://www-atlas.usgs.gov/mld/fedlanl.html. Available from nationalatlas.gov. 23 McGurk, B.E. and P.F. Presley, 2002: Simulation of the Effects 

of Groundwater Withdrawals on the Floridan Aquifer System in 

East-Central Florida: Model Expansion and Revision. St. Johns 

River Water Management District, pp.1-196.

Figure A4.1. The Wild and Scenic portions of the Wekiva River. Data fro

National Atlas of the United States.22

Between 1970 and 1995, agricultural and recreation

use from the aquifer has increased nearly threefo

million gallons per day (mgpd), with a significan

the additional water supporting recreational uses 

courses). Over that same period, public (e.g., city

water from the aquifer also increased threefold to 32

Projections for the year 2020 are for water extra

agricultural and recreational uses to barely increa

extractions for public use will nearly double.23 

Johns River, Southwest Florida, and South Florid

Management Districts have jointly determined 

Floridan Aquifer will be at maximum sustainable 

2013, and by that date and into the future much of t

used by people will have to come from alternative s

Urban development prior to modern stormwater man

controls is another stressor on aquatic systems in the 

Basin. In particular, the Little Wekiva River 

extreme erosion and sedimentation caused by hig

and velocities during major storm events (St. Joh

Annex A.indd 33 nnex A.indd 33 
34

Water Management District, 2002). Approximately 479 

drainage wells were completed in the Orlando area to control 

stormwater and control lake levels.23 These drainage wells 

recharge the Floridan aquifer. 

Declines in spring flows in the Wekiva River Basin are 

strongly correlated with urban development and ground 

water extraction (Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, 2005). Projections based on current practices 

indicate that by 2020 water demand will surpass supply 

and recharge. By 2010, spring flows may decline to levels 

that will cause irreparable harm (Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, 2005). In response to these 

projections, the SJRWMD has declared the central Florida 

bated by climate change. Dams impede or prevent fish migrations, including dams upstream of river stretches 

designated “wild and scenic.” Water withdrawals and reservoir management have affected flow regimes, and 

water temperatures and pollutants—combined with increased sediment loads—have made many rivers uninhabitable for some migratory fish. 

Climate change effects, including reduced streamflows, higher water temperatures, and altered frequencies 

and intensities of storms and droughts, will further degrade fish habitat (Climate Impacts Group, University of 

Washington, 2004). Battin et al. (2007) estimate a 20–40% decline in populations of Chinook salmon by 2050 

due to higher water temperatures degrading thermal spawning habitat, and winter and early spring floods 

scouring riverbeds and destroying eggs. This may be a conservative estimate since the analysis did not address 

the effects that increased sea levels and ocean temperatures would have on Chinook during the oceanic phase 

of their life cycle, and the study focused on the run of Chinook salmon that spawns in late winter or spring and 

migrates to the sea by June. Yearlings that remain in freshwater throughout the summer months may be even 

more vulnerable.

Fish habitat restoration efforts are widespread throughout the United States. However, the models used to 

guide restoration efforts rarely include projected impacts of climate change. Nevertheless, Chinook salmon 

studies suggest that habitat restoration in lower elevation rivers (including reforesting narrow reaches to 

increase shade and decrease water temperatures) may reduce the adverse impacts of climate change (Battin et 

al., 2007). Galbraith et al.(forthcoming) also identify the potential importance of releases of cool water from 

existing dams for the preservation of thermal spawning and rearing habitat. Also, mitigating watershed-level 

anthropogenic stressors that could exacerbate climate change impacts (e.g., water withdrawals, pollutants) 

could be an effective adaptation option.

Ultimately, management of anadromous fish in WSR will need to reflect species and local circumstances. 

However, including climate change projections in habitat restoration plans, working to mitigate human-induced 

stressors, and implementing effective monitoring programs will likely be three of the most important actions 

managers can take to facilitate the adaptation of anadromous fish to climate change.

region, which includes the Wekiva River Watershe

“Priority Water Resource Caution Area” where meas

are needed to protect ground water supplies and spr

dependent ecosystems. SJRWMD has developed “Minim

Flows and Levels” (a.k.a., instream flow criteria) for 

Wekiva River and Blackwater Creek, and the district 

identified minimum spring flows in selected major spr

feeding the Wekiva and Rock Springs Run. These ar

important regulatory tool to set limits on ground w

withdrawals to prevent adverse reductions in spring flo

The water management district recommends the follow

strategies for improving water management (St. Johns R

Water Management District, 2006b):

Annex A.indd 34 nnex A.indd 34 
Water pollution is another significant stressor of the Wekiva 

WSR. The causes of water pollution are closely related to 

the water quantity issues discussed above. In particular, 

unusually high concentrations of nitrates emanating from 

the springs of the basin are stressing the native ecosystems 

in the spring runs. Nitrates promote algal blooms that deplete 

oxygen, shade-out native species, and may negatively affect 

invertebrate and fish habitat. Nitrates in spring water now 

may reflect more distant past inputs from agricultural 

operations and septic systems. The sources of the nitrogen 

in the springs are animal waste, sewage, and fertilizers 

(Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2005), 

which readily leach to groundwater due to the karstic 

geology of the basin. Future spring discharges may reflect 

a newer type of input from reclaimed water application 

for both landscape irrigation and for direct recharge via 

rapid infiltration basins that have increased significantly 

within the past 10–15 years and continue to increase. The 

management solutions to reduce nitrate pollution include 

educating the public to use fewer chemicals and apply these 

with greater care, developing and applying agricultural best 

management practices, and increasing the use of central 

sewage treatment facilities in place of on-site systems such 

as septic tanks.

Recent data suggest that increases in dissolved chlorides in the 

springwaters may be related to sea level rise and groundwater 

withdrawals (Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, 2005). To date, salinity changes in the Wekiva 

Basin springs are minor and the causes are unclear. Major 

increases in the salinity (increased chlorides) in the 

springwater would have significant impacts on the ecosystems 

of the WSR. Continued monitoring and further research are 

needed to determine the source of the chlorides (e.g., recharge 

from polluted surface water or mixing with saltwater from 

below the Upper Floridan aquifer) and how to manage land 

and water to limit chlorides in the springflows. 

24 Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2005: Guidelines 

for Preparing Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the Wekiva 

Study Area Pursuant to the Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act. 

pp.1-50.

and buffers to limit the spread of the beetles. With

interventions, dead trees would contribute signific

increasing the potential for destructive forest fires

A4.1.2 Potential Effects of Climate Change on 

Ecosystems and Current Management Practic

For Central Florida, climate change models projec

temperatures rising by perhaps 2.2–2.8°C and 

rainfall to total about the same as it does today.25 H

the late summer and fall rainy season may see more 

tropical storms and hurricanes, overwhelming the 

stormwater management infrastructure and resu

periodic surges of surface water with significant p

and sedimentation loads. More runoff also me

recharge of the aquifer. 

At other times of the year, droughts may be more 

and of longer duration, leading to water shorta

increased withdrawals from the aquifer, which ma

spring flows. 

While there is only moderate confidence in pro

of changes in patterns of precipitation, there i

confidence that it will get warmer. Warmer temp

over an extended period will change species compo

the WSR corridor. Some native species, particula

with limited ranges, may no longer find suitable 

while invasive exotics, which often tolerate a bro

of conditions, would thrive. Current programs to 

invasive species would face new challenges as som

species are lost and replaced by species that favor the 

climate, particularly for terrestrial species. W

cold spring waters can moderate water temperatu

streams and river, the current control programs fo

invasive species may still be successful in a mo

warmer climate. Warmer temperatures would als

increased evaporation and transpiration, which in t

lead to more water used for irrigation; all of thes

25 University of Arizona, Environmental Studies Laborat

Climate change projections for the United States. Univers

zona, http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/, accessed on 5

Annex A.indd 35 nnex A.indd 35 
36

Finally, projected population increases in the Wekiva 

Basin and associated aquifer recharge area will add to the 

burden of managing for climate change impacts on water 

resources. Suburban expansion increases impermeable 

surfaces, thereby adding to polluted surface water runoff and 

reducing aquifer recharge. And groundwater will continue 

to be extracted for the public.

A4.1.3 Potential for Altering/Supplementing Current 

Management to Enable Adaptation to Climate Change

Future management adaptations for meeting ecosystem 

goals in the Wekiva WSR should include monitoring 

ecosystem health, including water quantity and quality; 

basin-wide modeling to protect future management needs; 

and implementation of management programs in advance 

of climatic changes. The water management district and 

other land management agencies have robust monitoring 

programs, though they may not be adequate to understand 

the complexity of applying reclaimed surface water in a 

the karst uplands. Current groundwater monitoring, which 

focuses on salinity, may need to be expanded to better 

understand how nitrates and other nutrients are transported 

to the springflows. Increasingly refined models are needed 

to understand how water and ecosystems in the Wekiva 

Basin respond to management. 

In many ways, it appears that the SJRWMD and local 

government agencies are beginning to implement 

management programs that would be needed to maintain 

ecological processes in the Wekiva WSR in a climate 

change scenario. Aquifer management is widely recognized 

as among the most critical tools for ensuring public water 

supplies and ecological integrity of the Wekiva WSR. Most 

of the drinking water in and around the Wekiva Basin is 

extracted from the Floridan aquifer—the same water source 

for the springflows that are essential to ecosystems of the 

Wekiva WSR. The Floridan aquifer is a water reservoir that 

can be managed in ways analogous to a reservoir behind 

a dam. Like a dam, with each rain event, to the extent 

permitted by surface conditions, the aquifer is recharged; 

water otherwise runs into streams and rivers, effectively 

to not adversely affect the WSR system. Current stormw

management programs, while quite good, are focused 

capturing surface water runoff to prevent it from degra

water quality, but this then “re-routes” poor-quality w

from a surface water load to a ground water load. The sa

soils and karst geology of the area may result in nitr

loaded water recharged to the aquifer and then to the spri

There is a great deal to learn about the ultimate effect

groundwater quality of applying reclaimed water to 

surface in the karstic uplands. 

While the human population in the Wekiva Basin is expe

to grow, climate change models suggest that annual rain

will remain about the same over the next 100 years, presen

a challenge for meeting water demand. In response, progr

in the basin are under development to conserve water (red

water use per person) and to develop “new” water sou

(hold and use more surface water). Similarly, programs 

also being planned and implemented to reduce pollut

including educating the public and commercial users a

what, when, and how to apply chemicals, including nitr

based fertilizers.

Management adaptations to more intense rain events u

climate change conditions would require more aggres

implementation of all these programs, to: maximize rech

of the aquifer during rain events, minimize withdrawals a

times and particularly during droughts, minimize pollu

of surface water and groundwater, and monitor and pre

salt water intrusion in the surface water-groundwa

seawater balance system. Considering the importanc

water to local residents and as a factor driving econo

development, there is considerable political will to in

in water management technologies and programs in 

Wekiva Basin. Through this century, current and emer

technologies will likely be adequate for meeting the w

needs for human consumption and ecosystem services in 

Wekiva Basin, if people are willing to make the investm

in technologies and engineering and to allocate enough w

to maintain ecosystems.

Annex A.indd 36 nnex A.indd 36 
g 

the Texas-Mexico border. Since 1845, the Rio 

Grande has marked the boundary between 

Mexico and the United States from the twin 

border cities of Ciudad Juárez and El Paso to the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

Three different segments of the Rio Grande that 

total 259.6 miles of stream have been designated 

as Wild, Scenic, and Recreational. Part of the 

68.2-mile segment of the river south of the 

Colorado-New Mexico border was among the 

original eight river corridors designated as wild 

and scenic at the time of the system’s creation 

in 1968. A total of 53.2 miles of this reach are 

designated as wild, passing through 800-foot 

chasms of the Rio Grande Gorge with limited 

development. This segment is administered by 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS).26 About 97% of the 

land in the New Mexico WSR management zones is owned 

and managed by the BLM or the USFS. 

The longest segment of the Rio Grande WSR comprises 

195.7 river miles in Texas (National Park Service, 2004) 

along the U.S.-Mexico border, with about half of this stretch 

classified as wild and half as scenic. This stretch, which was 

added to the system in 1978, is administered by the NPS at 

Big Bend National Park for the purpose of protecting the 

“outstanding remarkable” scenic, geologic, fish and wildlife, 

and recreational values (National Park Service, 2004). Land 

ownership is evenly divided between private and public 

(federal and state) owners on the United States side of the 

designated river segment. 

In New Mexico, objectives for managing the WSR include 

(Bureau of Land Management, 2000):

• maintain water quality objectives designated by the New 

Mexico Environment Department;

• conserve or enhance riparian vegetation; 

26 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 2007: Homepage: National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System Website, http://www.rivers.gov, accessed on 5-30-2007.

• preserve scenic qualities;

• provide for recreational access, including boa

fishing; and

• protect habitat for native species, particular f

listed species. 

In Texas, the resource management goals for the 

scenic river include (National Park Service, 2004)

• preserve the river in its natural, free-flowing ch

• conserve or restore wildlife, scenery, natural si

sounds;

• achieve protection of cultural resources;

• prevent adverse impacts on natural and cul

sources;

• advocate for scientifically determined suitable 

flow levels to support fish and wildlife populatio

ian communities and recreational opportunities

• maintain or improve water quality to federal a

standards.

The Rio Grande WSR was selected for a cas

because the distinct segments of the designat

provide examples of features typical of many rive

mountainous and arid Southwest. Attributes im

Figure A4.2. The Wild and Scenic portions of the Rio Grande WS

Mexico. Data from USGS, National Atlas of the United States.20

Annex A.indd 37 nnex A.indd 37 
38

National Park Service, 2004; New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish, 2006):

• altered hydrology: impoundment, reservoir 

management and water extraction have led to 

flow reductions and changes in flow regime 

(loss of natural flood and drought cycle) and 

concomitant changes in the sediment regime 

and channel narrowing;

• altered land use: land and water use for 

agriculture, mining operations, and cities is 

leading to declines in water quality due to 

pollution and sedimentations; 

• invasive species: non-native fish and vegetation are altering ecosystems, displacing native 

species and reducing biodiversity, giant reed 

and saltcedar are particularly problematic in 

the Texas WSR segment; and

• recreational users: visitors and associated 

infrastructure impact the riparian vegetation 

and protected species; subdivision and building on private lands along the Texas and Mexico segments 

threaten scenic values and may increase recreational 

users’ impacts.

All segments of the Rio Grande that are designated as WSR 

face complex management challenges and multiple stressors 

on river health, most notably from dams, diversions and 

other water projects that dot the river and its tributaries, 

reducing and altering natural flows for much of the river’s 

length. (Fig. A4.4) Although there are no dams on the main 

stem of the river upstream of the New Mexico WSR corridor, 

dams and other water projects on major tributaries affect 

flows downstream. For example, two Bureau of Reclamation 

projects in Colorado—the Closed Basin (groundwater) 

Project and the Platoro Dam and Reservoir on the Conejos 

River—influence downstream flows into New Mexico. The 

flow regime of the WSR in New Mexico is largely managed 

by the Bureau of Reclamation, which manages upstream 

dam and diversion projects based on a century of water 

rights claims and seasonal fluctuations in available water. 

The water rights and dams are considered integral to the 

baseline condition for the WSR, as they were in place p

to the river’s designation.

Downstream from El Paso, Texas, the channel of the 

Grande is effectively dry from diversion for about 80 m

Because of this “lost reach,” the river is more like 

separate rivers than one, with management of the Color

and New Mexico portion having little effect on fl

downstream of El Paso. In the past, the river in Color

and New Mexico normally received annual spring flo

from the melting snowpack while the river below Pres

Texas received additional flood events in the sum

through fall from rains in the Rio Conchos Basin, Mex

However, throughout the Rio Grande these natural cy

of annual floods have been severely disrupted by dams 

water extraction.

Management of the Texas Rio Grande WSR still depend

flows entering from Mexico—including the Rio Conc

which provides 85% of the water to this WSR segment—

which is managed by the International Boundary and W

Commission according to the Rio Grande Compact. Instr

Figure A4.3. The Wild and Scenic portions of the Rio Grande WSR in Te

Data from USGS, National Atlas of the United States.20

Annex A.indd 38 nnex A.indd 38 
flows in Texas segments of the WSR have decreased 50% 

in the past 20 years (National Park Service, 2004). 27During 

drought years of the late 1990s and into 2004, Mexico did not 

meet its obligations to the United States under the compact 

and water levels reached critical lows (Woodhouse, 2005). In 

2003, the combination of dams, water extraction and drought 

were particularly hard on the river, flow essentially ceased, 

the river became a series of pools in Texas WSR segments 

and the river failed to reach the ocean.28

Inefficient regulation of groundwater contributes to these 

impacts on the river’s flow. The primary source of household 

water in central New Mexico is groundwater, for which the 

rate of extraction currently exceeds recharge.29 Aquifers 

in the region may not be able to meet demand in twenty 

years, which will further stress an overburdened surface 

water resource. 

27 Middle Rio Grande Bosque Initiative, 2007: Dams and diversions 

of the Middle Rio Grande. Middle Rio Grande Bosque Initiative 

Website, http://www.fws.gov/southwest/mrgbi/Resources/Dams/

index.html, accessed on 5-17-2007. 28 Garrett, G.P. and R.J. Edwards, forthcoming: Changes in fish 

populations in the Lower Canyons of the Rio Grande. Proceedings 

of the Sixth Symposium on Natural Resources of the Chihuahuan 

Desert Region, Chihuahuan Desert Research Institute. 29 New Mexico Office of State Engineer and Interstate Stream 

Commission, 2006: The Impact of Climate Change on New Mexico’s 

Water Supply and Ability to Manage Water Resources. New Mexico 

Office of State Engineer/Interstate Stream Commission.

tolerant of the periodic floods, 

f low regime is apparently gi

edge to invasive, non-native 

(National Park Service, 1996). Ga

Edwards28 suggest that changes in 

sedimentation, pollution, simplifi

channel morphology and substra

increased dominance of non-nat

species can explain recent chang

diversity and critical reductions a

extinctions of fish species. Gi

(Arundo donax) and salt cedar (

sp.) are particularly problematic 

exotic species invade the channeli

and further disrupt normal sedim

thereby reducing habitats critical to fish diversit

problems of dams and irregular flows are compli

local and international water rights issues, and the e

health of WSR is only one of the many competing n

limited water resources. 

To address pollution issues, BLM, USFS, and NPS m

have reduced pollution to the river from their oper

reducing or eliminating grazing and mining near t

improving management of recreation sites, and in

education and outreach. However, as with flow 

most of the water quality problems are tied to dec

water quantity and discharge from large-scale agri

industrial and urban upstream users. 

Federal land managers are making a difference wh

can with site-level management. For example, ripari

are being withdrawn from grazing and mineral le

are being protected via limited access to sensit

and education of backcountry visitors about th

of protected streamside vegetation. Programs 

underway to control erosion in recreation areas a

access points and to improve habitat for protected 

(Bureau of Land Management, 2000).

30 National Park Service, 2007: Floating the lower canyon

Park Service, http://www.nps.gov/rigr/planyourvisit/lo

htm, accessed on 4-14-2007.

Figure A4.4. Dams and diversions along the Rio Grande.27

Annex A.indd 39 nnex A.indd 39 
40

• ecosystem dynamics that cause species to replace other 

species over time.

The American Southwest in general, including the Rio 

Grande watershed, seems likely to experience climate 

extremes in the form of higher temperature, reduced 

precipitation (including reduced snowpacks), earlier spring 

melts, and recurring droughts on top of population growth 

and other existing stressors.29 While global climate models 

are inconclusive regarding changes in precipitation for this 

region, and for the Upper Rio Grande Basin in particular, 

it seems likely that the projected increase in temperature 

will result in evaporation rates that more than offset any 

possible increase in precipitation.29 In this scenario, the 

New Mexico WSR segment of the Rio Grande might 

experience earlier spring floods, with reduced volume and 

more erratic summer rains.29 Projections of perhaps 5% 

decrease in annual precipitation for the middle and lower 

Rio Grande (see Fig. 6.13 in the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

chapter) combined with higher temperatures (see Fig. 6.12 

in the Wild and Scenic Rivers chapter) suggest that annual 

flows in the Texas WSR segment may be further reduced, 

and during severe droughts the water levels may decline to 

critical levels as has been the case in recent years (National 

Park Service, 2004). Water quality may be further reduced 

as the shallower water is susceptible to increased warming 

due to higher temperatures driven by climate change (Poff, 

Brinson, and Day, Jr., 2002). These conditions would 

negatively affect many native species and may favor invasive 

non-native species, further complicating existing programs 

to manage for native riparian vegetation and riverine 

ecosystems (National Park Service, 2004).29

A4.2.3 Potential for Altering/Supplementing Current 

Management to Enable Adaptation to Climate Change

The incorporation of climate change impacts into the 

planning and management of the WSR corridors of the 

Rio Grande is complicated by the river’s international 

character, the numerous dams, diversions, and groundwater 

schemes that already affect its flow regime, and the multiple 

agencies involved in the river’s management within the 

WSR corridors as well as upstream and downstream. 

Long standing water rights complications make it difficu

predict needed water releases to mimic natural flow reg

In this region, required water deliveries might be me

transferring water rights between watersheds or thro

credits for future water delivery. 

Similarly, the NPS, which administers the Rio Grande W

corridor in Texas, needs to coordinate with the Internati

Boundary and Water Commission to extract ecolog

services from regulated flows. This may prove more diff

than securing water for the river in New Mexico. Du

recent years of drought, Mexico did not meet its obligat

to the United States under the compact. With drought

greater duration expected as temperatures warm, more y

of difficulty meeting treaty obligations may arise.

Economic incentives are another approach to secu

sufficient clean water needed to meet management object

of the WSR. Recognizing the value of ecological serv

one potential measure, for instance, is to purchase or l

water rights for the river. Additionally, technical assista

and incentives could also be provided to users who imp

water efficiency, reduce pollution, and release surplus c

water to the river. Water deliveries could mimic nat

flows, including scouring floods to build the channel.

Improving efficiency of agricultural and urban water 

and increasing re-use to conserve water and reduce pollu

are probably the most cost-effective strategies to make m

clean water available in the Rio Grande. If improved w

efficiency results in “new” water, the challenge for W

managers will be to negotiate, purchase or lease wate

the river when it is most needed for ecological flows.

A4.3 Upper Delaware River

The Delaware River runs 330 miles from the conflue

of its East and West branches at Hancock, New York to 

mouth of the Delaware Bay. Established by Congress in 1

the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River con

of 73.4 miles (32.1 miles designated as scenic and 50.3 m

as recreational) of the Delaware River between Hanc

and Sparrow Bush, New York, along the Pennsylvania-N

York border. Although this case study focuses on the Up

Annex A.indd 40 nnex A.indd 40 
bald eagle wintering habitats in the northeastern United 

States. Water quality in the Upper Delaware is exceptional 

and supports abundant cold- and warm-water fish. As the 

last major river on the Atlantic coast undammed throughout 

the entire length of its mainstem, the Delaware provides 

important habitat for migratory fish such as American eel 

stem remains free flowing, New York City has con

three reservoirs on major tributaries (the East a

Branches of the Delaware River and the Neversin

to provide drinking water for more than 17 million 

New York City gets the majority of its water—in 

best quality water—from these Catskill reservoirs

The negligible public ownership, complex 

ownership, and significant extraction of water 

York City require that the Upper Delaware be m

as a “Partnership River.” The NPS, the Upper D

Council (e.g., local jurisdictions), the Delaware Riv

Commission (DRBC, which manages the water r

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the State 

York collaborated in preparing the River Managem

(Conference of the Upper Delaware Townships, 1

collaborate in managing the river.31

The goals described in the River Management Plan 

maintaining or improving water quality and 

ecosystems, providing opportunities for recreat

maintaining scenic values of river corridor and 

historic sites. The rights of private land owners are d

in great detail and heavily emphasized throughout 

while management actions essential to maintain ec

services are more generalized. 

The Upper Delaware was chosen as a case study b

exemplifies river ecology for the northeast and man

challenges typical of the region, including a sig

human population, intense water extraction for e

urban centers, and its status as a “Partnership Riv

A4.3.1 Current Stressors and Management M

Used to Address Them

The primary stressors in the Upper Delaware inclu

extraction and unnatural flow regimes associa

reservoir management. Water quality, water temp

fish and other river biota are negatively affected 

31 Delaware River Basin Commission, 2007: Wild and S

ers map. Delaware River Basin Commission Website, ht

state.nj.us/drbc/wild_scenic_map.htm, accessed on 7-20

Figure A4.5. Map of Wild and Scenic stretches in the Delaware 

River basin. Courtesy of Delaware River Basin Commission.31

Annex A.indd 41 nnex A.indd 41 
42

mechanism remaining to manage the flow regime, water 

quality, and river ecology and processes in the WSR is dam 

management, and the secondary mechanism is improved 

surface water management throughout the Upper Basin. 

Considering the volume of water extracted, water released 

from the reservoirs is, overall, significantly below historic 

flows. Furthermore, while goals for annual average releases 

are met, they do not always conform to the periodicity that 

stream biologists and anglers say are required for native 

species and ecological processes. When too little water 

is released, particularly in the spring and summer, water 

temperature increases beyond optimal conditions for many 

species, and pollutants are more concentrated. Aquatic 

invertebrates decline, trout and other species up the food 

chain are negatively affected and tourism based on river 

boating and anglers suffers (Parasiewicz, undated). 

Water is also released from the Upper Delaware reservoirs 

to help maintain river levels adequate to prevent saltwater 

intrusion from Delaware Bay up river. During droughts 

in the past 50 years, the “salt front” has moved up river 

considerably. This intrusion may play a role in the conversion 

of upland forest areas to marshes, which could affect 

adjacent river ecosystems.33 The saltwater is problematic 

for industries using water along the river front and increases 

sodium in the aquifer that supplies water to Southern New 

Jersey. Water conservation in the Delaware Basin and New 

York City has significantly helped address drought-related 

water shortages. 

Flood control and water quality in the Upper Basin are 

managed through restoration of stream banks, riparian buffers 

and floodplain ecosystems and through improved land and 

water management. The DRBC sets specific objectives for 

ecosystem management in the basin (Delaware River Basin 

Commission, 2004). Land use along the river is regulated by 

32 Delaware River Basin Commission, 2006: Water Resource Program FY2006 – FY 2012. Available at http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/

WRP2006-12.pdf. Delaware River Basin Commission, pp.1-9. 33 Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, 2007: Partnership for 

the Delaware Estuary, a National Estuary Program homepage. 

Partnership for the Delaware Estuary Website, http://www.delawareestuary.org/, accessed on 7-12-2007.

ground; and mobilized post-flood boat patrols to iden

hazardous materials (e.g., propane tanks, etc.) left in 

floodway and hazards to navigation in the river channe

NPS and others are beginning to work more closely with 

National Weather Service to provide them with data on l

precipitation amounts, snowpack, and river ice cover, 

to coordinate with their Advanced Hydrologic Predic

Service to enable better forecasting and advanced warn

to valley residents of flood crests and times.

A4.3.2 Potential Effects of Climate Change on 

Ecosystems 

Climate in the Delaware Basin can be highly varia

sometimes bringing severe winter ice storms and sum

heat-waves. However, there has been a steady incr

in mean temperature over the last 50 years as well a

increase in precipitation (Lins and Slack, 1999; Rogers 

McCarty, 2000; Najjar et al., 2000). The expectations ar

this pattern to continue and, in particular, for there to be 

potential for less snowpack that melts earlier in the spr

and rain in the form of more intense rain events that 

create greater fluctuations in river levels and greater flo

Severe flood events will likely continue to disrupt the r

channel and impact floodplain ecosystems. Furtherm

during periodic droughts there will be increased potentia

combinations of shallower water and warmer temperatu

leading to significantly warmer water that could 

especially damaging to coldwater invertebrates and fis

is possible that dam management could offset this warm

if water can be drawn from sufficient depths in the reser

(e.g., with a temperature control device on the dam). 

As with any river system, such climate-induced chan

in environmental conditions may have serious ecolog

consequences, including erosion of streambanks and bot

sediments that may decrease the availability of suit

habitat, shifts in the growth rate of species due to ther

and flood-related stresses, and unpredictable change

ecological processes such as carbon and nitrogen proces

(see section 6.4.3 in the Wild and Scenic Rivers chapte

Annex A.indd 42 nnex A.indd 42 
to managing the limited water resources. This approach of 

establishing flow regimes based on sound scientific data, 

with models and projects extended over decades will serve 

well in a future impacted by climate change. 

Improved watershed management to reduce aberrant flood 

events and minimize water pollution is one of the most 

useful long-term tools for managing river resources in 

a changing climate (Mid-Atlantic Regional Assessment 

Team, 2000). Federal, state and local authorities can create 

incentives and pass ordinances to encourage better water 

and land use that protect the river and its resources. For 

example, improved efficiency of water use and stormwater 

management (e.g., household rain barrels and rain gardens, 

holding ponds), improved use of agrochemicals and soil 

management, and restoration of wetlands and riparian 

buffers would combine to reduce severity of floods, erosion 

damage and water pollution. 

Finally, continual improvements in municipal and household 

water conservation are among the most promising approaches 

to manage water in the Delaware River Basin. Populations 

in and around the Delaware Basin will grow, increasing 

demand on water supplies and river access for recreational 

uses. Per capita water use in New York City has declined 

from more than 200 gallons per capita per day around 

1990 to 138 gallons per capita per day in 2006.34 Water 

pricing can be use to promote further conservation (MidAtlantic Regional Assessment Team, 2000). An important 

component of this approach is educating the public so that 

consumers better understand the important role that water 

conservation plays in protecting river ecosystems and future 

water supplies.

34 New York City Department of Environmental Protection, 2006: 

Water Conservation Program. pp.1-54.

Like other estuaries, the ecosystem services of A

climate sensitive, and this sensitivity affects the a

meet management goals. A range of adaptation 

exist for climate-sensitive management goals. 

these adaptation options are applicable across e

ecosystems generally. Furthermore, because 

represents one of the first national estuaries, docum

of management successes and failures (Korfmach

Korfmacher, 2002) exists for its 20-year history. E

data and decision support information are availab

system and are likely to continue to be gathered 

future. We highlight a few key climate-related i

this case study, including warming and altered prec

patterns, but especially accelerated sea level 

increased frequency of intense storms.

The rationale for selecting the APES for the i

case study is based upon several unique charac

of this system in addition to the scope of its man

challenges related to climate change. First, the s

the Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds are so gradual

that this system possesses more low-lying land w

m of sea level than any other national estuary. W

United States, wetlands and coastal lands inundate

level rise will be exceeded only on the Louisiana 

the Mississippi River delta and the Everglades r

South Florida (Titus, 2000; U.S. Climate Change 

Program, 2007). Thus, the incentives here for man

adaptation are high. Second, the State of North 

passed a Fisheries Reform Act in 1997, which m

development of a Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (C

fisheries enhancement. This plan at the state level re

a working example of ecosystem-based mana

because it engages all the diverse and usually inde

state agencies whose mandates involve aspect

environment that affect fish and their habitat. Cons

there exists a model opportunity for integrating 

change into an ecosystem-based plan for man

adaptation. Third, the Albemarle-Pamlico Sound 

faces the daunting management challenges associa

Annex A.indd 43 nnex A.indd 43 
44

2006). About 800 years ago, indigenous Native Americans 

initiated agriculture in the basin, and approximately 400 

years ago Europeans began to colonize and transform the 

land. Since then, the human population around the estuary 

has increased by two orders of magnitude from that in 

1700 (Lotze et al., 2006). Before European colonization, 

North Carolina had about 11 million acres of wetlands, 

of which only 5.7 million remain today. About one-third 

of the wetland conversion, mostly to managed forests and 

agriculture, has occurred since the 1950s.35 Since 1850, 

the amount of cropland has increased 3.5-fold. More recent 

land use patterns show that 20% of the basin area consists 

of agricultural lands, 60% is forested, and relatively little is 

urbanized (Stanley, 1992). Over the last three decades, the 

production of swine has tripled and the area of fertilized 

cropland has almost doubled (Cooper et al., 2004). These 

changes in land-use patterns and increases in point and 

non-point nutrient loading have induced multiple changes 

in water quality, with the greatest changes appearing during 

the last 50–60 years (Cooper et al., 2004).

Over the last two to three centuries in the Albemarle 

and Pamlico Sounds, overexploitation, habitat loss, and 

pollution have resulted in the depletion and loss of many 

marine species that historically have been of economic or 

ecological importance (Lotze et al., 2006). Of the 44 marine 

mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, invertebrates, and plants for 

which sufficient time series information exists, 24 became 

depleted (<50% of former abundance), 19 became rare 

(<90%), and 1 became regionally extinct by 2000 (Lotze et 

al., 2006). Great losses also occurred among the subtidal 

bottom habitats. Historical accounts from the late 1800s 

indicate that bays and waterways near the mainland once had 

extensive beds of seagrass, while today seagrass is limited 

to the landward side of the barrier islands (Mallin et al., 

2000). Oyster reef acreage has been diminished over the 

last 100 years as a consequence of overharvesting, habitat 

35 U.S. Geological Survey, 1999: National water summary on wetland 

resources: state summary highlights. USGS, http://water.usgs.gov/

nwsum/WSP2425/state_highlights_summary.html, accessed on 

3-23-2007.

moisture, groundwater use and recharge, and river f

patterns. The current rate of relative rise in mean sea lev

this geographic region is among the highest for the Atla

coast, with estimates commonly over 3 mm per year 

in at least one study as high as 4.27 mm per year (Zer

2001). The anticipated scenario of increasing frequenc

intense storms in combination with rising sea levels cre

a likelihood of dramatic physical and biological change

ecosystem state for APES because the very integrity o

Outer Banks that create the protected estuaries behind t

is at risk (Riggs and Ames, 2003; Paerl et al., 2006). 

APES is a large and important complex of rivers, tribu

estuaries, extensive wetlands, coastal lagoons and ba

islands. Its 73,445 km2 watershed (Stanley, 1992) is mo

in North Carolina but extends into southern Virginia (

A5.1). The largest water body is Pamlico Sound to 

southeast, with two major tributaries, the Neuse and 

Tar-Pamlico Rivers. Both rivers empty into drowned r

estuaries, the Neuse River Estuary (NRE) and the Pam

River Estuary (PRE), which connect to Pamlico Sou

Albemarle Sound is farther north with two major tributa

the Chowan and the Roanoke Rivers, and a numbe

local tributary estuaries. Other smaller sounds connec

Albemarle and the Pamlico (Roanoke and Croatan Soun

and the Currituck Sound extends along the northeas

portion of the complex.37

The geological framework for coastal North Carol

including APES has recently been summarized by Riggs 

Ames (2003). The system represents several drowned r

valley estuaries that coalesce into its large coastal lagoon 

A5.1). The coastal plane, estuaries and sounds have a 

gentle slope in which Quarternary sediments are under

largely by Pliocene sediment. Much of this sediment is org

36 North Carolina Department of Environmental and Nat

Resources, 2006: Stock status of important coastal fisheri

North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environm

and Natural Resources, Division of Marine fisheries, http://w

ncfisheries.net/stocks/index.html, accessed on 3-23-2007. 37 Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program, 2007: Albe

le-Pamlico Sounds region. Albemarle-Pamlico National Est

Program Website, http://www.apnep.org/pages/regions.htm

cessed on 7-25-2007.

Annex A.indd 44 nnex A.indd 44 
rich mud arising from eroding peat of swamps and marshes 

(Riggs, 1996). The gentle slope has allowed major shifts in 

position of the shoreline and barrier islands as sea level has 

risen and fallen. Furthermore, the position and number of 

inlets has changed along the barrier islands, promoting or 

limiting the exchange of fresh and seawater.

Much of the watershed is within the coastal plain with low 

elevations that affect land use. Moorhead and Brinson (1995) 

estimate that 56% of the peninsula between the Albemarle 

Sound and PRE is less than 1.5 m in elevation. Fifty-three 

percent of the peninsula’s area is composed of wetlands, and 

90% contains hydric soils. Thus, this region of the watershed 

is sparsely populated and largely rural. In contrast, other 

regions are more highly developed. The barrier islands, the 

famous “Outer Banks” of North Carolina, are a mosaic of 

highly developed lands for tourism and protected natural 

areas. The southeastern portion of Virginia in the APES basin 

is highly urbanized, and the piedmont origins of the Neuse 

estimates for 2000.

 A significan

of this population is considered “vu

to strong storms and thus faces ri

climate change (i.e., people who 

evacuation zones for storm surge or 

subject to risks from high winds by 

mobile homes). With rises in sea l

storm intensities, the low-lying la

basic nature of services and infras

of the rural environment face grow

of flood damage.

Another characteristic of the s

geomorphology makes it uniquely su

to climate change drivers. The exc

water between the ocean and the s

restricted by the few and small in

separate the long, thin barrier island

Wilder, and Parker, 1985; Riggs an

2003). This restricted connectivity 

dampens amplitude of astronomical 

limits the degree to which seawater 

with freshwater. Temperature incre

have significant impacts on the APES because its 

bays have limited exchange with ocean waters, wh

as a cooling influence in summer.

Water quality has been a recurring management 

for APES and APNEP. The tributary rivers genera

high concentrations of dissolved nutrients. This fos

primary productivity in tributary estuaries, but un

circumstances nutrient concentrations in the sound

relatively low (Peierls, Christian, and Paerl, 2003

et al., 2004). Most nutrient loading derives from n

sources, although nitrogen loading from point sou

account for up to 60–70% in summer months (S

Carolina, 1991). Nitrogen deposition from the atm

may account for an additional 15–32% (Paerl, H.W.

38 Federal Emergency Management Agency

Chapter 01-description of study area. Comprehensive 

Data Preparedness, FEMA Study Web Site, http://chps.s

army.mil/USHESDATA/NC/Data/chapter1/chapter01_d

html, accessed on 3-23-2007.

Figure A5.1. The Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program region.38

Annex A.indd 45 nnex A.indd 45 
46

In 1960, hypoxia was first reported in the Pamlico River 

Estuary (Hobbie, Copeland, and Harrison, 1975). Since then, 

hypoxic and anoxic waters in the PRE and NRE were mostly 

of short duration (days to weeks) but have resulted in death 

of benthic invertebrates on the bottom and fish kills (Stanley 

and Nixon, 1992; Buzzelli et al., 2002; Cooper et al., 2004). 

Nuisance and toxic algal blooms are reported periodically 

(Burkholder et al., 1992; Bricker et al., 1999), and about 22 

aquatic plants and 116 aquatic animals, of which 22 occur in 

marine or marine-freshwater habitats, have been identified 

as non-indigenous species in North Carolina.39 Increases 

in temperatures are expected to enhance hypoxia and its 

negative consequences, through the combined effects of 

increased metabolism and, to a lesser degree, decreased 

oxygen solubility.

The interactions between relative sea level rise, shoreline 

morphology, and bay ravinement could have significant 

impacts on estuarine water quality and ecosystem function 

in the APES. Losses of wetlands to inundation could lead to 

a large shift in function from being a nitrogen sink to being 

a nitrogen source. Both planktonic and benthic primary 

producers may be affected by, and mediate, changes in water 

quality, nutrient and material fluxes across the sedimentwater interface that may result from sea level rise (Fig. A5.2). 

Changes in the water column productivity affect particle 

composition and concentration, which in turn increases 

turbidity and feedback to modify further the balance between 

water column and benthic productivity. Inundated sediments 

will then be subject to typical estuarine stressors (e.g., salinity, 

changes in water table, isolation from atmosphere) that can 

lead to dissolution of particulates, desorption of nutrients 

or organic matter, and altered redox states. These changes 

result in fluxes of nutrients and DOC that could radically 

transform the proportion of productivity and heterotrophic 

activity in the water above the sediment and in the rest of the 

estuary. Nutrient management plans generally assume that 

the frequency and magnitude of bottom water hypoxia will 

decrease by reducing watershed inputs of dissolved inorganic 

39 U.S. Geological Survey, 2005: Nonindigenous aquatic species 

search page. U.S. Geological Survey, http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/

default.asp, accessed on 4-9-2007.

Figure A5.2. Feedbacks between nutrient and sediment 

change and primary production in the benthos and water 

umn. A plus symbol indicates enhancement and a minus sym

indicates suppression. 

Because of the large fetch of the major sounds and tribu

estuaries, wind tides control water levels and wave en

can be quite high. Wind tides can lead to extended floo

and high erosion rates, especially within the eastern 

southern parts of the complex (Brinson, 1991; R

and Ames, 2003). Furthermore, the barrier islands 

prone to breaching during storms, and geological his

demonstrates the fragility of this thin strip of sand 

reveals the locations of highest risk of breaching. Forma

of persistent inlets within the barrier islands would incr

oceanic exchange and thereby the amplitude of astronom

tides. This, in turn, could profoundly alter the ecolog

both aquatic and wetland ecosystems in the APES.

The size, geomorphology, and location of the APES com

make it an important source of ecosystem services for 

region and the nation. The largest economic contribu

of APES today derives from tourism and recreat

The Outer Banks attract people from around the wo

Populations during the prime summer season consider

exceed winter populations. The Outer Banks include 

most economically important acreage of the complex a

with ecologically important natural areas. These coa

barriers are also the most sensitive to the combinatio

sea level rise and increased frequency of intense stor

Barrier island geomorphology is constantly changing 

short and long time scales, increasing and decreasin

width with sand movement and both forming and clo

inlets during storms. Inlets have broken through the O

Annex A.indd 46 nnex A.indd 46 
processes that allow island migration landwards as sea level 

rises and protecting human infrastructure. Rising sea level 

and increased frequency of intense storms enhances the 

potential beach erosion, thereby increasing costs of beach 

nourishment, and increases risk of island disintegration, 

leading to increased political pressure to legalize hard 

structures on the ocean shoreline.

Beaches are a major natural resource and drive many coastal 

economies. Because the presence of houses, condominiums, 

and roads and other infrastructure leads to defense of the 

shoreline position and prevents natural recession, beach 

erosion now reduces beach widths as sea level is rising. North 

Carolina prohibits hard structures (e.g., bulkheads, jetties, 

and permanent sand bags) on the ocean shoreline. Instead, 

erosion is countered by beach nourishment, in which sand 

is dredged from offshore. This is a temporary and expensive 

solution. It also has potentially significant impacts on the 

living resources of the beach, such as shorebirds and resident 

invertebrates (Peterson and Bishop, 2005; Peterson et al., 

2006). Erosion of beaches tends to occur with the major axis 

parallel to the islands (i.e., meters or tens of meters of erosion 

of beach along hundreds to thousands of meters along the 

beach face). Breaching of new inlets and overwash events 

penetrate more into the islands. A recent breach occurred on 

Hatteras Island during Hurricane Isabel, but it was quickly 

closed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to permit 

road reconstruction and automobile travel along the Outer 

Banks. Riggs and Ames (2003) have projected that under 

higher stands of sea level, future hurricanes may create 

numerous large, new inlets and break the chain of coastal 

barriers that forms the eastern edge of the entire APES 

system. They mapped locations of the paleochannels along 

the islands and identified these as the most likely locations 

for such breaches. Such events represent the most dramatic 

consequences of climate change to APES. Extensive new 

inlets would lead to an entirely new tidal, salinity, wave, and 

hydrodynamic regime within APES, and in turn drastically 

change the ecology of the complex. Wise management for the 

future must include preparation for the possibility of events 

such as these and their consequences.

climaterelated changes that alter migratory pattern

birds and marine organisms.

The wetlands of the Albemarle Pamlico Sound 

are largely non-tidal and subject to irregular wi

as described above. In freshwater regions along t

and flood plains, swamp forests dominate. Pocosin

forming ombrotrophic wetlands—are found in int

divides. As sea level rises in oligohaline regions

forests may continue to dominate or be replaced by 

marshes. Irregularly flooded marshes, dominated b

roemerianus, extend over much of the higher-salin

Back barrier island marshes are dominated by S

alterniflora. The ability of these wetlands to respo

level rise is becoming compromised by increase

infrastructure. Roads, residential and urban develo

hard structures for shoreline stabilization, and agr

ditching are preventing horizontal transgression of 

and promoting erosion of edges throughout the c

Furthermore, development of the barrier isla

prevented natural overwash and inlet-forming p

that promote salt marsh development (Christian et a

Riggs and Ames, 2003).

A5.1.4 Current Management Issues and Clima

Change

The APES became part of the NEP (APNEP) 

Initial programmatic efforts focused on assessmen

condition of the system through the Albemarle-

Estuarine Study. The results of these efforts were 

the stakeholder-based development of a Compr

Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) 

The CCMP presented objectives for plans in fiv

water quality, vital habitats, fisheries, stewards

implementation (Box A5.1).40 For each objective, 

concern were identified and management actions p

None of the issues or proposed actions explicitly 

climate change. In 2005, NEP Headquarters cond

most recent triennial implementation review of 

40 Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program, 1994: A

Pamlico NEP Comprehensive Conservation and Managem

Annex A.indd 47 nnex A.indd 47 
48

APNEP passed the implementation review and was found 

eligible for funding through FY 2008.

Although no management objective explicitly identifies 

climate change or its consequences, water quality, vital 

habitats, and fisheries are likely to be substantially affected 

by changes in climate. Recent efforts by APNEP and the 

State of North Carolina led to more direct consideration 

of the impacts of climate change. APNEP has identified 

indicators of condition of the system and begun the process 

for implementing their use. Multiple indicators assess 

condition of atmosphere, land, wetland, aquatic, and human 

components of the system. While some indicators focus on 

short-term changes in these components, many have meaning 

only in their long-term trends. Given a changing climate 

and associated impacts, these indicators place APNEP in 

 Objective A: Promote regional planning to protect and restore the natural heritage of the A/P Sound

region.

• Objective B: Promote the responsible stewardship, protection and conservation of valuable natural areas in 

the A/P Sounds region.

• Objective C: Maintain, restore and enhance vital habitat functions to ensure the survival of wildlife and 

fisheries.

Fisheries Plan: GOAL: Restore or Maintain Fisheries and Provide for Their Long-Term, Sustainable Use, 

Both Commercial and Recreational.

• Objective A: Control overfishing by developing and implementing fishery management plans for all importan

estuarine species.

• Objective B: Promote the use of best fishing practices that reduce bycatch and impacts on fisheries habitats

Stewardship Plan: GOAL: Promote Responsible Stewardship of the Natural Resources of the AlbemarlePamlico Sounds Region.

• Objective A: Promote local and regional planning that protects the environment and allows for economic 

growth.

• Objective B: Increase public understanding of environmental issues and citizen involvement in environmenta

policy making.

• Objective C: Ensure that students, particularly in grades K-5, are exposed to science and environmenta

education.

Implementation Plan: GOAL: Implement the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan in a way 

that protects environmental quality while using the most cost-effective and equitable strategies.

• Objective A: Coordinate public agencies involved in resource management and environmental protection to 

implement the recommendations of the CCMP.

• Objective B: Assess the progress and success of implementing CCMP recommendations and the status o

environmental quality in the Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds region.

position to assess these impacts for wise management

a broader front, the legislature of North Carolina in 2

established a commission on climate change to assess 

climate change will affect the state and to propose action

either minimize impacts or take advantage of them.

In 1987 North Carolina passed the Fisheries Reform 

requiring both development of formal species managem

plans for each commercially and/or recreationally harve

fishery stock and the development of a CHPP. The CH

development and implementation process resemble

EBM at the state level because it requires considera

and integrated management of all factors that affect 

quality of fish habitats in a synthetic, integrative fashion

achieve this goal, staff from all appropriate state reso

and environmental commissions came together to 

Annex A.indd 48 nnex A.indd 48 
erosion, although longterm solutions are elusive. Now that 

a plan exists, the implementation of its short-term goals has 

yet to begin and may become contentious.

Other innovative programs and initiatives within North 

Carolina are the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 

Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), and the 

designation of estuaries as nutrient sensitive. EEP is an agency 

that coordinates wetland mitigation efforts to maximize 

their effectiveness. The North Carolina Department of 

Transportation’s mitigation needs are largely met through 

EEP. The program uses a watershed approach in planning 

mitigation projects. This allows a broad and comprehensive 

perspective that should be reconciled with climate change 

expectations. The CWMTF provides financial support for 

activities that improve or protect water quality. It offers 

an opportunity to link consideration of climate change to 

such activities, although no such link has been an explicit 

consideration. The designation of nutrient sensitivity allows 

enhanced controls on nutrient additions and total maximum 

daily loadings to the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico systems. In fact, 

regulations have been designed to not only curb expansion 

of nutrient enrichment but to roll it back with restrictions to 

both point- and non-point sources.

A5.1.5 Recommendations for Environmental 

Management in the Face of Climate Change

We make three overarching recommendations for 

management of estuaries in the face of climate change: 

(1) maintain an appropriate environmental observing 

system; (2) educate a variety of audiences on long-term 

consequences; and (3) pursue adaptation and adaptive 

management. Each of these is described specifically for 

APES but has application to other estuaries in whole or 

part. Furthermore, each involves coordination of multiple 

initiatives and programs. It is this coordination that should 

be a major focus of APNEP in particular and the NEP in 

general.

An appropriate observing system involves a network of 

programs that detects, attributes and predicts change at 

multiple scales. It includes sustained monitoring, data and 

term trends and infrequent but intense disturbance

There are other observing system initiatives withi

North Carolina. These include the North Carolina 

Ocean Observing System and Coastal Ocean R

and Monitoring Program. Both have their emph

the coastal ocean and near real-time products of 

conditions. However, their efforts need to be more 

toward the APES and other estuarine ecosystem

more valuable to the people of North Carolina. Mo

is needed to assess and understand the physical d

of the estuarine systems. Observations and analyse

be extended to characterize the physical and geo

processes of catchment and riverine inflows, which 

to change dramatically under changing climatic co

The systems also need to broaden their observa

include ecological and socioeconomic measuremen

measurements are less likely to be near real-time, 

needs do not require such quick reporting. We rec

that the coastal observing systems be linked exp

APNEP indicator activities.

Education is needed across the spectrum of 

to produce informed stakeholders and thus f

enlightened management adaptations. The need 

education on climate change is obvious, but ther

a lack of general understanding among adults. E

efforts are needed for the general public, policy 

and even environmental managers. North Caro

several significant programs that can promote this 

understanding. APNEP and the Commission on 

Change have been mentioned above. Public televi

radio have a general mission to educate and have con

time to the topic. Two other programs are (1) the Par

for the Sounds, including the Estuarium in Was

North Carolina, and (2) the North Carolina Aquariu

latter includes three aquaria along the coast. These p

are in a unique position to teach the general pub

climate change. We recommend that coordinatio

these different programs be fostered to promote e

within the state.

Annex A.indd 49 nnex A.indd 49 
50

the impacts of cultural eutrophication. It acknowledges the 

importance of the ecosystem perspective and breaks the 

regulatory mold of being specific to an issue, species, single 

source of pollution, etc. This enhances the ability to meet 

the challenges of climate change. One aspect of this change 

is the expectation that landscape units that are controlled 

by sea level will migrate. Beaches and wetlands will move 

shoreward. Regulations and policies that foster the ability 

to retreat from these landscape migrations are part of this 

adaptive approach. Adaptive management is an established 

approach in North Carolina, which can serve as a successful 

example nationally.

A5.1.6 Barriers and Opportunities

APNEP possesses environmental and social barriers 

to effective implementation of management adaptation 

to climate change, yet at the same time various social 

and environmental characteristics represent favorable 

opportunities for adaptation. Indeed, APNEP was chosen 

for a case study because it could illustrate both significant 

barriers and opportunities. Perhaps its greatest single barrier 

to successful adaptation to climate change is the intractable 

nature of the challenge of preserving the integrity of the 

coastal barrier complex of the Outer Banks over the long 

time scales of a century and longer. These coastal barriers are 

responsible for creating the APNEP estuarine system, and a 

major breach in the integrity would ultimately convert the 

estuary into a coastal ocean embayment (Riggs and Ames, 

2003). Current management employs beach nourishment to 

fortify the barrier, but this method will become increasingly 

expensive as sea level rises substantially, and thus would be 

politically infeasible. Construction of a seawall along the 

entire extent of the barrier complex also does not appear to 

be a viable option because of financial costs and loss of the 

beach that defines and enriches the Outer Banks. 

Special opportunities for implementation of adaptive 

management in APNEP include the existence of the 

CHPP process, a legislatively mandated ecosystem-based 

management plan for preserving and enhancing coastal 

fisheries. This plan involves collaborative attentions by 

all necessary state agencies and thereby can overcome the 

be allowed to retreat as sea level rises. Implementing 

policies required to achieve this management adapta

would not be possible in places where development 

infrastructure are so dense that the economic and so

costs of shoreline retreat are high. Special funding to sup

purchase of rolling easements or other implementa

methods can come from the Clean Water Management T

Fund and the Ecosystem Enhancement Program of N

Carolina, two facilitators of large coordinated projects. 

State of North Carolina was among the first to estab

basin-scale water quality management and has establi

novel methods of basin-wide capping of nutrient deliv

to estuaries, such as the NRE, involving ecosystem-b

management through participation of all stakeholders. 

too facilitates actions required to manage consequence

climate change to preserve management goals of a nati

estuary.

A6. MARINE PROTECTED AREA 

CASE STUDIES

This section includes three U.S. case studies along wit

Australian case study for comparison. This report foc

on U.S. federally managed lands and waters to frame 

question of adaptation; the goal is to review all type

adaptation options including those developed by n

governmental organizations and internationally that 

be implemented to benefit U.S. resources. With regar

climate change impacts and adaptation, coral reefs are 

best studied marine system. Because the Great Bar

Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) in Australia is an internati

leader in addressing climate change impacts to coral re

a case study of how this issue is being addressed the

of great value for examining adaptation options that 

be transferable to U.S. coral reefs and other U.S. ma

systems. Each case study discusses existing managem

approaches, threats of climate change, and adapta

options. The case studies are located in Florida (Flo

Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS)), Austr

(GBRMP), Hawaii (Papahānaumokuākea Marine Nati

Monument (PMNM)), and California (Channel Isla

National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS)). These MPAs ra

Annex A.indd 50 nnex A.indd 50 
the coterminous United States. The FKNMS is bounded 

by and connected to Florida Bay, the Southwest Florida 

Continental Shelf, and the Straits of Florida and Atlantic 

Ocean. It is influenced by the powerful Loop Current/

Florida Current/Gulf Stream system to the west and south, 

as well as a weaker southerly flow along the West Florida 

Shelf (Lee et al., 2002). The combined Gulf of Mexico and 

tropical Atlantic biotic influences make the area one of the 

most diverse in North America. 

The uniqueness of the marine environment and ready access 

from the mainland by a series of bridges and causeways 

draws millions of visitors to the Keys, including many from 

the heavily populated city of Miami and other metropolitan 

areas of South Florida. Also, in recent years Key West has 

become a major destination for cruise liners, attracting 

more than 500 stop-overs annually. The major industry in 

the Florida Keys has become tourism, including dive shops, 

charter fishing, and dive boats and marinas as well as hotels 

and restaurants. There also is an important commercial 

fishing industry.

National Marine Sanctuaries established at Key Largo in 

1975 and Looe Key in 1981 demonstrated that measures to 

protect coral reefs from direct impacts could be successful 

using management actions such as mooring buoys, education 

programs, research and monitoring, restoration efforts, and 

proactive, interpretive law enforcement. In 1989, mounting 

threats to the health and ecological future of the coral 

reef ecosystem in the Florida Keys prompted Congress 

to take further protective steps. The threat of oil drilling 

in the mid- to late-1980s off the Florida Keys, combined 

with reports of deteriorating water quality throughout the 

region, occurred at the same time as adverse effects of 

coral bleaching,41 the Caribbean-wide die-off of the longspined urchin (Lessios, Robertson, and Cubit, 1984), loss 

41 Causey, B.D., 2001: Lessons learned from the intensification of 

coral bleaching from 1980-2000 in the Florida Keys, USA. In: Coral 

Bleaching and Marine Protected Areas: Proceedings of the Workshop on Mitigating Coral Bleaching Impact Through MPA Design, 

Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, 29-31 May 2001. [Salm, R.V. 

and S.L. Coles (eds.)]. Asia Pacific Coastal Marine Program Report 

#0102, The Nature Conservancy, Honolulu, Hawaii, pp. 60-66.

final management plan (U.S. Department of Co

1996) had been approved by the Secretary of Co

and the Governor and Cabinet of the State of Flor

FKNMS encompasses approximately 9,800 km2 o

and oceanic waters surrounding the Florida Keys (K

Causey, 2005) (see Fig. 8.3 in the MPA chapter), i

the Florida Reef Tract, all of the mangrove islan

Florida Keys, extensive seagrass beds and hard

areas, and hundreds of shipwrecks.

Visitors spent $1.2 billion42 over 12.1 million perso

in the Florida Keys between June 2000 and May 20

that period, visitors and residents spent 5.5 million 

days on natural and artificial reefs. Significantly

(and residents) perceive significant declines in th

of the marine environment of the Keys.44

A6.1.2 Specific Management Goals and Curre

Ecosystem Stressors Being Addressed

Goal and Objectives of the Florida Keys National Ma

Sanctuary

The goal of the FKNMS is “To preserve and pr

physical and biological components of the South 

estuarine and marine ecosystem to ensure its viab

the use and enjoyment of present and future gene

(U.S. Department of Commerce, 1996). The Flor

National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act 

as the Sanctuary Advisory Council identified a 

42 Leeworthy, V.R. and P.C. Wiley, 2003: Profiles and Econ

tribution: General Visitors to Monroe County, Florida 2

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Natio

Service, Office of Management and Budget, Special Proj

sion, Silver Spring, MD, pp.1-24. 43 Johns, G.M., V.R. Leeworthy, F.W. Bell, and M.A. Bo

Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida. Fin

October 19, 2001 as Revised April 18, 2003 for Browar

Palm Beach County, Miami-Dade County, Monroe Coun

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, National O

Atmospheric Administration, Hollywood, FL. 44 Leeworthy, V.R., P.C. Wiley, and J.D. Hospital, 2004: Im

Satisfaction Ratings Five-Year Comparison, SPA and ER 

Socioeconomic and Ecological Monitoring Comparison 

1995-96 to 2000-01. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

tration, National Ocean Service, Office of Management an

Special Projects Division, Silver Spring, MD, pp.1-59.

Annex A.indd 51 nnex A.indd 51 
52

A mooring buoy program is one of the most simple and 

effective management actions to protect sanctuary resources 

from direct impact by boat anchors. By installing mooring 

buoys in high-use areas, the sanctuary has prevented damage 

to coral and other sessile invertebrates from the thousands 

of anchors deployed every week in the Keys. 

Marine Zoning

The management plan implemented marine zoning with five 

categories of zones. The relatively large “no-take” Ecological 

Reserve at Western Sambo (see Fig. 8.3 in the MPA chapter) 

was designed to help restore ecosystem structure and 

Goal:

To preserve and protect the physical and biological components of the South Florida estuarine and marine ecosystem to ensure its viability for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

Objectives Required by the FKNMS Act:

• Objective 1: Facilitate all public and private uses of the Sanctuary consistent with the primary objective o

resource protection.

• Objective 2: Consider temporal and geographic zoning to ensure protection of Sanctuary resources.

• Objective 3: Incorporate regulations necessary to enforce the Water Quality Protection Program.

• Objective 4: Identify needs for research and establish a long-term ecological monitoring program.

• Objective 5: Identify alternative sources of funding needed to fully implement the management plan’s provision

and supplement appropriations authorized under the FKNMS and National Marine Sanctuaries Acts.

• Objective 6: Ensure coordination and cooperation between Sanctuary managers and other federal, state, and 

local authorities with jurisdiction within or adjacent to the Sanctuary.

• Objective 7: Promote education among users of the Sanctuary about coral reef conservation and navigationa

safety.

• Objective 8: Incorporate the existing Looe Key and Key Largo National Marine Sanctuaries into the 

FKNMS.

Objectives Developed by the FKNMS Sanctuary Advisory Council:

• Objective 1: Encourage all agencies and institutions to adopt an ecosystem and cooperative approach to ac

complish the following objectives, including the provision of mechanisms to address impacts affecting Sanctuary 

resources, but originating outside the boundaries of the Sanctuary.

• Objective 2: Provide a management system that is in harmony with an environment whose long-term ecological

economic, and sociological principles are understood, and which will allow appropriate sustainable uses.

• Objective 3: Manage the FKNMS for the natural diversity of healthy species, populations, and communities.

• Objective 4: Reach every single user of and visitor to the FKNMS with information appropriate to his or he

activities.

• Objective 5: Recognize the importance of cultural and historical resources, and managing these resources fo

reasonable, appropriate use and enjoyment.

In addition, 27 Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) w

established to address human impacts to nearshore hab

such as seagrass flats and mangrove-fringed shoreli

Most of these WMAs only allow non-motorized acc

Finally, because the FKNMS Act called for the two exis

sanctuaries to be subsumed by the FKNMS, a final typ

marine zone, called Existing Management Areas, was u

to codify both Key Largo and Looe Key NMS regulat

into FKNMS regulations. This was a way to maintain 

additional protective resource measures that had been in e

for the Key Largo and Looe Key NMSs since 1975 and 1

Box A6.1. Goal and Objectives of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1996)

Annex A.indd 52 nnex A.indd 52 
and increasing enforcement; 2) monitoring of water quality, 

seagrasses, and coral reefs to provide information about 

status and trends in the sanctuary; 3) research to identify 

and understand cause-and-effect relationships involving 

pollutants, transport pathways, and biological communities; 

and 4) public education and outreach programs to increase 

public awareness of the sanctuary, the WQPP, and pollution 

sources and impacts on sanctuary resources.

Research and Monitoring

The FKNMS management plan established a research 

and monitoring program that focused research on specific 

management needs. In 2000, staff convened a panel of 

external peers to review the sanctuary’s science program and 

provide recommendations for improvements.45 Based on the 

panel’s recommendation that sanctuary managers identify 

priority research needs, staff prepared a Comprehensive 

Science Plan to identify priority research and monitoring 

needs explicitly linked to management objectives (Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 2002). 

The three monitoring projects of the WQPP46 are developing 

baselines for water quality, seagrass distribution and 

abundance, and coral cover, diversity, and condition. Such a 

baseline of information is particularly important to have as 

the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)47

is implemented just north of the FKNMS. The CERP is 

designed so that managers can be adaptive to ecological 

or hydrological changes that are taking place within or 

emanating from the Everglades, with possible positive or 

negative influences on communities in the FKNMS (Keller 

and Causey, 2005).

45 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 2007: Year 2000 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary advisory panel meeting. 

NOAA Website, http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/research_monitoring/

sap2000.html, accessed on 7-27-2007. 46 Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 2007: Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary water quality protection program. Fish and 

Wildlife Research Institute Website, http://ocean.floridamarine.

org/fknms_wqpp/, accessed on 7-27-0007. 47 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2007: Official website of the 

comprehensive Everglades restoration plan. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Website, http://www.evergladesplan.org/

index.aspx, accessed on 5-23-2007.

efforts can directly enhance the various programs t

sanctuary resources. Public awareness and understan

essential to achieve resource protection through coo

and compliance with regulations. 

Regulations and Enforcement

The FKNMS management plan includes regulat

have helped managers protect sanctuary resourc

having the least amount of impact on those who e

utilize sanctuary resources in a conscientious way. In 

maximize existing enforcement programs, the man

plan contains an enforcement plan that has serve

focus on priority problems within the sanctua

program also coordinates all the enforcement agenc

Keys. Enforcement complements education and ou

efforts to achieve compliance with regulations.

A6.1.3 Potential Effects of Climate Change on 

Management 

Coral Bleaching

The potential effects of climate change on coral 

generally well known (e.g., Smith and Buddemei

Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999; Buddemeier, Kleypas, and A

2004; Hoegh-Guldberg, 2004; Sheppard, 2006), bu

of individual reef systems such as the Florida Reef T

vary based on a combination of factors related to 

geography, and an understanding of processes tha

the patchiness of coral bleaching and subsequent m

that occurs on reefs. Coral bleaching was first rep

the Florida Keys in 1973 (Jaap, 1979), with at lea

other episodes documented prior to 200041 and 

48 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrati

NOAA’s coral health and monitoring homepage. NOAA 

http://www.coral.noaa.gov/seakeys/index.shtml, ac

7-27-2007. 49 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrati

NOAA’s south Florida ecosystem research and monito

gram. NOAA Website, http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/sfp/d

accessed on 7-27-2007. 50 NOAA Coast Watch Program, 2007: Harmful algae b

letin home page. NOAA Website, Harmful Algae Bloom 

http://coastwatch.noaa.gov/hab/bulletins_ms.htm, ac

7-27-2007.

Annex A.indd 53 nnex A.indd 53 
54

not exist that reveal trends of increasing surface seawater 

temperature for the Florida Keys, but Williams, Jackson, and 

Kutzbach (2007), using climate models and IPCC greenhouse 

gas estimates to forecast how climate zones may change in 

the next 100 years, identified the southeastern United States 

as a region with the greatest likelihood of developing novel 

regional climate conditions that would be associated with 

temperature increases of several degrees. The consequences 

of such changes on coral reefs in Florida will be dramatic 

unless significant adaptation or acclimatization occurs. 

Governments and agencies have responded to the crisis of 

coral bleaching with detailed management plans (Westmacott

et al., 2000; Marshall and Schuttenberg, 2006), workshops to 

develop strategies that support response efforts,51 and research 

plans (Marshall and Schuttenberg, 2006; Puglise and Kelty, 

2007). Two themes have emerged from these responses. 

First, effort is needed at local and regional levels to identify 

and protect bleaching-resistant sites—if they exist. Second, 

management plans should be developed or modified in the 

case of the FKNMS to restore or enhance the natural resilience 

(Hughes et al., 2003; West and Salm, 2003) of coral reefs.

Response plans to coral bleaching events depend upon 

increasingly accurate predictions to help guide resource 

assessment and monitoring programs. The NOAA Coral 

Reef Watch program has increasingly accurate capability 

to predict the severity, timing, and geographic variability 

of mass bleaching events, largely using remote sensing 

technologies.52 Scientists and managers in Florida have 

implemented an assessment and monitoring program that 

specifically addresses bleaching events, including the 

critical before-during-after sampling that is necessary to 

quantify the distribution, severity, and consequences of 

51 Salm, R.V. and S.L. Coles (eds.), 2001: Coral Bleaching and Marine Protected Areas. Proceedings of the Workshop on Mitigating 

Coral Bleaching Impact Through MPA Design, Bishop Museum, 

Honolulu, Hawaii, 29-31 May 2001. Asia Pacific Coastal Marine 

Program Report #0102, The Nature Conservancy, Honolulu, Hawaii, pp. 1-118. 52 NOAA Satellite and Information Service, 2007: NOAA coral 

reef watch satellite bleaching monitoring datasets. NOAA Website, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, http://

coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/ge/, accessed on 7-27-2007.

baseline assessments have been conducted.53 Deeper r

(to 35 meters) may also exhibit less evidence of mort

caused by coral bleaching (Miller et al., 2001), but e

less is known about these habitats—especially relate

the distribution and abundance of coral diseases, which 

confound assessments of factors causing mortality bec

the temporal scale of monitoring is sufficient to only as

disease prevalence and not incidence or mortality rates

No-Take Protection and Zoning for Resistance or Resilienc

The use of marine reserves (Sanctuary Preservation Ar

Research-Only Areas, and Ecological Reserves) in 

FKNMS has already been adopted as a tool to man

multiple user groups throughout the Sanctuary (U

Department of Commerce, 1996), and in the Dry Tortug

enhance fisheries where positive results have been obta

after only a few years (Ault et al., 2006). Potential exis

use a range of options to identify bleaching-resistant ree

the Keys, from simply identifying the best remaining 

left and using a decision matrix based on factors that 

confer resilience to establish priority sites for protect

to the Bayesian approach of Wooldridge and Done (20

Only recently have coral community data been obtaine

the relevant spatial scales and across multiple habitat ty

(Smith et al., forthcoming). Whatever approach is used

results are likely to include sites with high coral cover 

abundance, high diversity, connectivity related to cur

regimes with the potential to transport larvae, and protec

from local stressors including overfishing and pollu

(Done, 1999; Hughes et al., 2003).54

53 Miller, S.L., M. Chiappone, L.M. Rutten, D.W. Swanson, an

Shank, 2005: Rapid Assessment and Monitoring of Coral 

Habitats in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: Q

Look Report: Summer 2005 Keys-Wide Sampling. National U

sea Research Center, University of North Carolina at Wilmin

Wilimington, NC. 54 See also Salm, R.V., S.E. Smith, and G. Llewellyn, 2001: Mit

ing the impact of coral bleaching through Marine Protected 

design. In: Coral Bleaching: Causes, Consequences and Resp

[Schuttenberg, H.Z. (ed.)]. Proceedings of the Ninth Internat

Coral Reef Symposium on Coral Bleaching: Assessing and lin

ecological and socioeconomic impacts, future trends and mitig

planning, Coastal Management Report 2230, Coastal Resou

Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, pp. 81-88.

Annex A.indd 54 nnex A.indd 54 
evaluated for application to the Florida Keys. For example, a 

combination of retrospective sea-surface temperature studies 

using NOAA Coral Reef Watch products, combined with in 

situ temperature data, water quality monitoring data,56 and 

detailed site characterizations might help identify bleachingresistant sites (if temporally- and spatially-relevant sampling 

is conducted before, during, and after a bleaching event), 

identify candidate sites for protection based on resilience 

criteria, and in general validate the concept of marine 

reserve networks in the region as a management response 

to coral bleaching threats.

Geographic Range Extensions of Coral Reefs in Florida

Coral reefs in south Florida represent the northern 

geographic limit of reef development in the United States. 

It is reasonable to assume that some northward expansion 

of either the whole reef community or individual species 

may occur as a result of warming climate. Indeed, such a 

northward expansion may already be in progress, but caution 

is necessary before assigning too much significance to 

what might be an anomalous event. Specifically, Acropora 

cervicornis was discovered growing in large thickets off 

Fort Lauderdale in 1998 (Vargas-Ángel, Thomas, and Hoke, 

2003) and A. palmata was discovered off Pompano Beach 

in northern Broward county (Precht and Aronson, 2004). It 

is possible that these populations—over 50 km northward 

of their previously known northern limit—are a result of 

recent climate warming known to have occurred in the 

western Atlantic (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999; Levitus et al., 

 And West, J.M., 2001: Environmental determinants of resistance to 

coral bleaching: implications for management of marine protected 

areas. In: Coral Bleaching and Marine Protected Areas: Proceedings 

of the Workshop on Mitigating Coral Bleaching Impact Through MPA 

Design, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, 29-31 May 2001. [Salm, 

R.V. and S.L. Coles (eds.)]. Asia Pacific Coastal Marine Program 

Report #0102, The Nature Conservancy, Honolulu, Hawaii, pp. 

40-52. 55 National Park Service, 1-18-2007: Dry Tortugas National Park - 

research natural area will be effective January 19, 2007. National 

Park Service Website, http://www.nps.gov/drto/parknews/researchnaturalarea.htm, accessed on 7-26-2007. 56 Boyer, J.N. and H.O. Briceño, 2006: FY2005 Annual Report of the 

Water Quality Monitoring Project for the Water Quality Protection 

Program of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Southeast 

Environmental Research Center, Florida International University, 

Miami, FL, pp.1-83.

Holocene (Lighty, Macintyre, and Stuckenrath, 1

when temperatures started to cool 5,000 years befor

reef development moved south to its current locatio

and Aronson, 2004).

Despite these northern extensions in the geo

distributions of corals seen in the fossil record, pr

future geographic expansions in Florida is compli

factors other than temperature that influence cor

including light, carbonate saturation state, pollution

(Buddemeier, Kleypas, and Aronson, 2004), an

from a carbonate to siliciclastic sedimentary regim

with increasing nutrient concentrations up the east 

Florida (Precht and Aronson, 2004). One thing, h

is certain: geographic shifts of reefs in Florida th

from global warming will not mitigate existing fac

today cause widespread local and regional coral ree

(Precht and Aronson, 2004). Further, if we assume 

reefs of the mid-Holocene were in better condit

today’s reefs, they may not prove to be a good ana

predicting the future geographic trajectory of toda

Because corals in Florida are already severely imp

disease, bleaching, pollution, and overfishing, ex

will at best be severely limited compared to wh

occur if the ecosystem were intact. 

At the global scale and across deep geological tim

extensions to higher latitudes occurred for hard co

survived the Cretaceous warming period (Kiesslin

Kleypas, 2006), and some coral species today that a

in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf can survive und

greater temperature ranges than they experience th

the Indo-Pacific (Coles and Fadlallah, 1991). Both 

examples, however, probably reflect long-term ad

by natural selection and not short-term acclima

(Kleypas, 2006). At shorter times scales (decade

that survive rapid climate warming may be those 

able to quickly colonize and survive at higher 

where maximum summer temperatures may be 

compared to their previous geographic range. An al

to migration is the situation where corals adapt to in

temperatures at ecological time scales (decades), a

is some evidence to suggest that this might occur (

Annex A.indd 55 nnex A.indd 55 
56

seawater isotherm (Kleypas, McManus, and Mendez, 1999; 

Kleypas, Buddemeier, and Gattuso, 2001; Buddemeier, 

Kleypas, and Aronson, 2004). South Florida is located 

between the 18 and 20oC isotherm and is thus significantly 

affected by severe winter cold fronts, especially for corals 

in shallow water (Burns, 1985; Walker, Rouse, and Huh, 

1987). Well documented coral die-offs due to cold water 

fronts have occurred repeatedly throughout the Florida Keys 

(Davis, 1982; Porter, Battey, and Smith, 1982; Walker et 

al., 1982; Roberts, Rouse, and Walker, 1983; Shinn, 1989); 

and as far south as the Dry Tortugas (Porter, Battey, and 

Smith, 1982; Jaap and Hallock, 1990).57 Porter and Tougas 

(2001) documented a decreasing trend in generic coral 

diversity along the east coast of Florida, but a number of 

coral species extend well beyond the 18oC isotherm with at 

least two species surviving as far north as North Carolina, 

likely due to the influence of the Gulf Stream. Thus, climate 

warming that has the potential to influence the impact of 

winter cold fronts may influence the range expansion of 

corals in Florida. 

Finally, the above examples have focused mostly on the 

acroporid corals, which represent only two species out 

of more than forty that are found regionally (Jaap, 1984). 

Obviously, when considering range expansion of the 

total reef system, and not just two coral species, models 

designed to optimize or anticipate management actions 

that conserve existing habitat or predict future locations for 

habitat protection are likely to be exceedingly complicated. 

In Florida, if reefs are in sufficiently good condition in the 

future to act as seed populations for range expansion, one 

management action to anticipate the effects of climate change 

would be to protect habitats similar to those that thrived 

during the middle Holocene when coral reefs flourished 

north of their current distribution (Lighty, Macintyre, 

57 See also Jaap, W.C. and F.J. Sargent, 1994: The status of the 

remnant population of Acropora cervicornis (Lamarck, 1816) at 

Dry Tortugas National Park, Florida, with a discussion of possible 

causes of changes since 1881. In: Proceedings of the Colloquium on 

Global Aspects of Coral Reefs: Health, Hazards and History [Ginsburg, R.N. (ed.)] Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric 

Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida pp. 101-105.

arise. The SAC has a climate change working group, w

can work with sanctuary managers to help develop adapta

approaches best suited for the Florida Keys (see also sec

8.4.4.2 of the Marine Protected Areas chapter).

Little has been done to restore mangrove habitat in 

Florida Keys, where many shorelines were cleared 

development. In addition to supporting critical nurse

mangroves produce tannins and other dissolved org

compounds that absorb ultraviolet radiation. Depend

sources of these compounds from intact mangrove coastl

can provide reefs with some protection from photo-oxida

stress that contributes to bleaching. Mangrove restora

should be considered as a management strategy that 

become increasingly important in the context of clim

change – for shoreline protection as well as the ben

noted above.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (next sect

has a Climate Change Response Program and an action 

(section 8.4.4 of the Marine Protected Areas chapter) th

a model for the FKNMS, which is completing a bleach

response plan, but has not yet developed a broader 

about responding to climate change. Such a plan is a log

next step. At the same time, The Nature Conservanc

leading the Florida Reef Resilience Program58 to investi

possible patterns of resilience along the Florida Reef T

and recommend actions.

A6.2 The Great Barrier Reef Marine Par

A6.2.1 Introduction

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is a maze of reefs and isla

spanning an area of 348,000 km2 off the Queensland c

in northeast Australia (Fig. A6.1). It spans 14 degree

latitude, making it the largest coral reef ecosystem in 

world and one of the richest in biological diversity. The G

supports 1,500 species of fish, 350 species of hard co

more than 4,000 species of mollusks, 500 species of al

six of the world’s seven species of marine turtles, 24 spe

58 http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/flo

preserves/art17499.html

Annex A.indd 56 nnex A.indd 56 
at the Australian Institute of Marine Science 

detected the earliest growth hiatus associated 

with mass coral bleaching in 1998 (Lough, 

2007). There have been nine bleaching events 

on the GBR, with three major events in the 

last decade correlating with elevated sea 

temperatures and causing damage to parts of 

the reef. These early signs of climate change, 

and the extensive research and monitoring data 

that are available for the GBR, make it a suitable 

case study for this report.

The conservation values of the GBR are 

recognized in its status as a World Heritage 

Area (listed in 1981), and its resources are 

protected within the Great Barrier Reef Marine 

Park. The enactment of the Great Barrier 

Reef Marine Park Act in 1975 established the 

legal framework for protecting these values. 

The goal of the legislation is “...to provide 

for the protection, wise use, understanding 

and enjoyment of the Great Barrier Reef in 

perpetuity through the care and development 

of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.”

A6.2.2 Managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has 

management strategies in place to address current stresses 

on the GBR. Stressors include terrestrial inputs of sediment, 

nutrients, and pesticides from coastal catchments; fisheries 

extraction; tourism and recreational activities; and changes 

to coastal hydrology as a result of coastal development 

and climate change. Sustainability of the environmental 

and social values of the Great Barrier Reef depend largely 

(and in most cases, entirely) on a healthy, self-perpetuating 

ecosystem. Reducing pressures on this system has been a 

focus of management activities over the last decade. 

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was rezoned in 2003 to 

increase the area of highly protected no-take zones to 33%, 

with at least 20% protected in each habitat bioregion. These 

no-take areas aim to conserve biodiversity, increasing the 

potential of maintaining an intact ecosystem, wi

no-take areas including more representative habita

Current Approaches to Management 

There are 26 major catchments that drain into the G

A6.1) covering an area of 425,964 km2. Cropping (p

of sugar cane), grazing, heavy industry and urban se

are the main land uses. The Reef Water Quality Pr

Plan (The State of Queensland and Commonw

Australia, 2003) is a joint state and federal initia

aims to halt and reverse the decline in the quality 

entering the Reef by 2013. Under this initiative

sources of pollution are targeted through a range of v

and incentive-driven strategies to address water 

entering the GBR from activities in the catchment

Important commercial fisheries in the GBR include 

that mainly targets prawns and reef-based hook-and

targets coral trout and sweetlip emperor, inshore 

Figure A6.1. Map of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park showing the 

catchment in Queensland. Modified from Haynes (2001) and courte

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Annex A.indd 57 nnex A.indd 57 
58

size and bag limits for many species.

Over 1 million tourists visit the GBR annually, contributing 

A$6.1 billion to the Australian economy (Great Barrier 

Reef Marine Park Authority, 2007). The Great Barrier Reef 

Marine Park Authority manages tourism using permits, 

zoning, and other planning tools such as management 

plans and site plans (Smith et al., 2004). Visitation is 

concentrated in the Cairns and Whitsunday Island areas, 

and an eco-certification program encourages best practices 

and sustainable tourism (Skeat, 2003). 

As one of the fastest growing regions in Australia, the 

GBR coast is being extensively developed through the 

addition of tourist resorts, urban subdivisions, marinas, 

and major infrastructure such as roads and sewage 

treatment plants. All levels of government regulate coastal 

development depending on the scale and potential impacts 

of the development. Local government uses local planning 

schemes and permits, state government uses the Integrated 

Planning Act,59 and in the case of significant developments, 

the federal government uses the Environment Protection and 

Biodiversity Conservation Act60 to assess the environmental 

impacts of proposals. These efforts have resulted in an 

increase in biodiversity protection, a multi-stakeholder 

agreement to address water quality, and a well-managed, 

multiple-use marine protected area.

Vulnerability of the Great Barrier Reef to Climate Change 

Despite these landmark initiatives, the ability of the 

ecosystem to sustain provision of goods and services is 

under renewed threat from climate change (Wilkinson, 

2004). Climate change is rapidly emerging as one of the most 

significant challenges facing the GBR and its management. 

While MPA managers cannot directly control climate, and 

climate change cannot be fully averted, there is an urgent 

need to identify possibilities for reducing climate-induced 

stresses on the GBR (Marshall and Schuttenberg, 2006). The 

GBR Climate Change Response Program has undertaken an 

assessment of the vulnerability of the GBR to climate change 

and is developing strategies to enhance ecosystem resilience, 

59 Number 69 of 1997

60 Number 91 of 1999

increase in wind speed projected; rainfall and river f

with projected increases in intensity of droughts and rain

events; and ENSOs, which will continue to be a sourc

high interannual variability (Lough, 2007).

Coral Bleaching

The key threats to the GBR ecosystem from climate cha

manifest in impacts to all components of the ecosys

from species to populations to habitats and key proces

Although coral reefs represent only 6% of the Great Ba

Reef, they are an iconic component of the system 

support a diversity of life. Unusually warm summers cau

significant coral bleaching events in the GBR in 1998, 2

and 2006. More than 50% of reefs were affected by bleac

in the summers of 1998 and 2002, following persis

high sea temperatures throughout the GBR. Fortuna

temperatures cooled soon enough to avoid catastro

impacts, yet approximately 5% of reefs suffered long-t

damage in each year. Stressful temperatures were conf

to the southern parts of the GBR in the summer of 2006 

persisted long enough to cause over 40% of the corals to 

Future warming of the world’s oceans is projected to incr

the frequency and severity of coral bleaching events, ma

further damage to the GBR inevitable (Hoegh-Guldber

al., 2007). Continued monitoring efforts—such as th

proposed in the GBR Coral Bleaching Response Plan—

be essential for understanding this ecosystem change.

Impacts to Species

Mass mortalities of seabirds and failures of nesting (d

of all chicks) have been observed at several key sea

rookeries during anomalously warm summers on the G

(coinciding with mass coral bleaching). New researc

showing that provisioning failure, resulting when ad

have to travel too far to find food for their chicks, ca

these deaths (Congdon et al., 2007). This is thought to be 

to decreased availability of food fish caused by change

circulation patterns (location and depth of cool water bo

preferred by these fish). Marine turtles are also at risk f

climate change, with increasing air temperatures proje

to alter the gender ratio of turtle hatchlings; during per

of extremely high temperatures in the past, complete nes

Annex A.indd 58 nnex A.indd 58 
failures have been observed. Sea level rise also poses a 

threat to seabirds and turtles, as nesting islands and beaches 

become inundated and suitability of alternative beaches is 

reduced by coastal development. 

Fish, shark, and ray populations will be most affected by 

reductions in reef habitat, with resultant decreases in diversity 

and abundance and changes in community composition 

(Munday et al., 2007; Chin et al., 2007). Conversely, small 

increases in sea temperature may benefit larval fish by 

accelerating embryonic and larval growth and enhancing 

larval swimming ability. This shows that climate change will 

not affect all organisms equally, and some populations or 

groups (such as macroalgae) may in fact benefit by increasing 

their range or growth rate. However, this will change the 

distributions of species as they migrate southward or offshore. 

This in turn would likely result in population explosions of 

fast growing, ‘weed-like’ species to the detriment of other 

species, thereby reducing species diversity. As species and 

habitats decline, so too does the productivity of the system 

and its ability to respond to future change.

Impacts to Key Processes

The reef matrix itself is at risk from climate change through 

loss of coral—not only from coral bleaching but also 

physical damage from more intense storms and cyclones and 

reduced coral calcification rates as ocean pH decreases. This 

is critical from the perspective of the structural integrity 

of the GBR as well as the services reefs provide to other 

organisms, such as habitat and food. 

Primary productivity, through changes to microbial, plankton, 

and seagrass communities, is likely to be affected as changes 

in the carbon cycle occur. Changes in rainfall patterns, runoff, 

and sea temperature also are likely to change plankton, 

seagrass, and microbial communities. These changes 

reduce trophic efficiency, which decreases food quality and 

quantity for higher trophic levels with a resultant decline in 

abundance of animals at higher trophic levels. Productivity is 

hydrological cycles are affected, potentially r

connectivity between offshore reefs. All these 

could interact to affect the survival and dispersal 

of larvae between reefs.

As biodiversity and connectivity are lost, the system 

less complex, which initiates a cascade of events th

in long-term change. Simplified systems are g

less resilient and therefore less able to absorb sho

disturbances while continuing to maintain their 

levels of function. Reducing biodiversity and con

reduces the number of components and netwo

can buffer against poor water quality, overfish

climate change. Maintaining a healthy ecosystem 

that ecological processes be preserved and that 

sufficient biodiversity to respond to changes. Large

protected areas that include representative habi

protect biodiversity and connectivity may be more 

to climate change (Roberts et al., 2006). 

A6.2.3 Adapting Management to Climate Cha

In the face of these potential climate change imp

GBR Climate Change Response Program deve

Climate Change Action Plan in 2006. The action 

five main objectives:

1. Address climate change knowledge gaps

2. Communicate with and educate communiti

climate change implications for the GBR

3. Support greenhouse gas emissions mitigation s

in the GBR region

4. Enhance resilience of the GBR ecosystem to 

change

5. Support GBR communities and industries to 

climate change

Key strategies within the action plan include asse

vulnerability of the GBR ecological and social sy

climate change; developing an agency-wide commu

strategy for climate change; facilitating greenh

Figure A6.2. Sea surface temperature (SST) projections for the 

Great Barrier Reef (GBR) (Lough, 2007).

Annex A.indd 59 nnex A.indd 59 
60

ecosystem, from plankton to corals to marine mammals, 

and makes management recommendations that aim to 

maximize the ability of the system to resist or adapt to 

climate changes (Johnson and Marshall, 2007). Examples 

of management recommendations include addressing water 

quality in inshore areas where primary productivity is high 

(e.g., areas with extensive seagrass meadows or with critical 

plankton aggregations). Another example is conserving 

landward areas for migration of mangroves and wetlands 

as sea level rises, including possible land acquisitions and 

removal of barrier structures. Finally, protecting sites of 

specific importance from coral bleaching through shading or 

water mixing in summer months is an option. Reducing other 

impacts on critical habitats or species is also recommended 

(e.g., improving shark fisheries management, reducing 

disturbance of seabird nesting sites during breeding season, 

reducing boat traffic and entanglement of marine mammals, 

protecting key turtle nesting beaches, enhancing resilience 

of coral reefs by improving water quality, protecting 

herbivores, and managing other destructive activities such 

as anchoring and snorkeling). These recommendations 

will be used to review existing management strategies and 

incorporate climate change considerations where needed.

Raising Awareness and Changing Behavior

The Climate Change Response Program developed a 

communication strategy in 2004 that aims to increase public 

awareness of the implications of climate change for the GBR. 

This strategy is being amended to include all GBRMPA 

activities and ensure that all groups consistently present key 

climate change messages. This is particularly important for 

groups that are addressing those factors that confer resilience 

to the ecosystem, such as water quality and fisheries. The 

key messages of the agency-wide communication strategy 

are that climate change is real, climate change is happening 

now, climate change is affecting the GBR, the GBRMPA is 

working to address climate change, and individuals’ actions 

can make a difference.

The Reef Guardian program is a partnership with schools 

and local governments in GBR catchments. The program is 

voluntary and provides resources for schools and councils 

One of the most significant strategies that coral 

managers can employ in the face of climate chang

to enhance the resilience of the ecosystem (West et 

2006). Working with researchers, the Climate Cha

Response Program has identified resilience factors 

include water quality, coral cover, community composit

larval supply, recruitment success, herbivory, disease, 

effective management. These will be used to identify a

of the GBR that have high resilience to climate change 

should be protected from other stresses, as well as areas 

have low resilience and may require active managemen

enhance their resilience. Recognized research institutes h

provided essential science that has formed the basis of 

project and will continue collaborations between GBRM

and researchers. Ultimately, it is hoped that this informa

can be used to review existing management regimes (

as planning and permit tools) to protect areas with h

resilience as source sites and actively work in areas w

low resilience to improve their condition.

Partnering with Stakeholders

The GBRMPA has been working with the GBR tour

industry to facilitate development of the GBR Tourism 

Climate Change Action Strategy. This initiative was 

result of a workshop with representative tourism opera

that generated the GBR Tourism and Climate Change Ac

Group. This industry-led group has developed the ac

strategy to identify how climate change will affect 

industry, how the industry can respond, and what opt

are available for the industry to become climate sustaina

The marine tourism industry considers reef-based activ

particularly susceptible to the effects of climate cha

Loss of coral from bleaching and changes to the abunda

and location of fish, marine mammals, and other ic

species are likely to have the greatest impact on the indu

Increasing intensity of cyclones and storms will affect 

scheduling, industry seasonality, tourism infrastruc

(particularly on islands), and future tourism indu

development. Potential strategies for adapting to clim

change include product diversification, new marke

initiatives, and targeting eco-accredited programs.

Annex A.indd 60 nnex A.indd 60 
effective partnerships with other levels of government and 

stakeholders to work cooperatively on climate change have 

been developed and will continue to be integral to adapting 

management to the climate change challenge.

A6.3 Papahãnaumokuãkea (Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands) Marine National 

Monument

A6.3.1 Introduction

The Hawaiian Islands are one of the most isolated 

archipelagos in the world and stretch for over 2,500 km, 

from the island of Hawaii in the southeast to Kure Atoll 

(the world’s highest-latitude atoll) in the northwest (Grigg, 

1982; 1988; Friedlander et al., 2005). Beginning at Nihoa 

and Mokumanamana Islands (~7 and 10 million years old, 

respectively) and extending to Midway and Kure Atolls 

(~28 million years old), the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

(NWHI) represent the older portion of the emergent 

archipelago (Grigg, 1988). The majority of the islets, shoals, 

and atolls are low-lying and remain uninhabited, although 

Midway, Kure, Laysan Island, and French Frigate Shoals 

have all been occupied for extended periods over the last 

century by various government agencies (Shallenberger, 

2006). Because of their location in the central Pacific, the 

NWHI are influenced by large-wave events resulting from 

extratropical storms passing across the North Pacific each 

winter that have a profound influence on the geology and 

biology of the region (Grigg, 1998; Dollar and Grigg, 2004; 

Jokiel et al., 2004; Friedlander et al., 2005).

Ecosystem Structure

With coral reefs around the world in decline (Jackson et 

al., 2001; Bellwood et al., 2004; Pandolfi et al., 2005), it is 

extremely rare to be able to examine a coral reef ecosystem 

that is relatively free of human influence and consisting of 

a wide range of healthy coral reef habitats. The remoteness 

and limited reef fishing and other human activities that 

have occurred in the NWHI have resulted in minimal 

anthropogenic impacts (Friedlander and DeMartini, 2002; 

Friedlander et al., 2005). The NWHI therefore provide a 

unique opportunity to assess how a “natural” coral reef 

represent both near-extirpation of apex predators a

exploitation of lower-trophic-level fishes on shall

of the MHI (Friedlander and DeMartini, 2002; D

and Friedlander, 2006).

The geographic isolation of the Hawaiian Isla

resulted in some of the highest endemism of any 

marine ecosystem on earth (Jokiel, 1987; Kay and 

1987; Randall, 1998) (Fig. A6.3). Some of these e

are a dominant component of the community, resu

unique ecosystem that has extremely high conservat

(DeMartini and Friedlander, 2004; Maragos et al., 20

species loss in the sea accelerating, the irreplacea

these species makes Hawaii an important biodiversit

(Roberts et al., 2002; DeMartini and Friedlander, 20

coral assemblage in the NWHI contains a large nu

endemics (~30%), including at least seven species of a

corals (Maragos et al., 2004). Acroporids are the d

reef-building corals in the Indo-Pacific, but are abs

the MHI (Grigg, 1981; Grigg, Wells, and Wallace, 19

Atoll is the world’s most northern atoll and is referred 

Darwin Point, where coral growth, subsidence, and 

balance one another (Grigg, 1982).

The NWHI represent important habitat for a nu

threatened and endangered species. The Hawaiian m

is one of the most critically endangered marine m

in the United States (1,300 individuals) and depend

entirely on the islands of the NWHI for breeding 

surrounding reefs for sustenance (Antonelis et al., 20

90% of all sub-adult and adult Hawaiian green se

found throughout Hawaii inhabit the NWHI (Ba

Chaloupka, 2006). Additionally, seabird colonies in th

constitute one of the largest and most important asse

of seabirds in the world (Friedlander et al., 2005).

In contrast to the MHI, the reefs of the NWHI are r

free of major human influences. The few alien specie

from the NWHI are restricted to the anthropogenic 

of Midway Atoll and French Frigate Shoals (Fried

al., 2005). Disease levels in corals in the NWHI we

Annex A.indd 61 nnex A.indd 61 
62

a reduction in overall accumulation levels (Boland et al., 

2006). However, much of this debris originates thousands 

of kilometers away in the north Pacific, making the solution 

to the problem both a national and international issue. 

Other direct human stresses such as pollution, coastal 

development, and ship groundings, have had negative 

consequences in localized areas but have been limited to a 

small number of locations.

developed reefs on all the islands exist either in the lago

or off southwestern exposures (Grigg, 1982).

Summer sea surface temperatures (SSTs) along the is

chain are generally similar, peaking at about 28oC; howe

winter SSTs are much cooler at the northern end of the ch

dipping down to 17oC in some years (Grigg, 1982; Grig

al., 2007). This represents a 10oC intra-annual differe

at the northern end of the chain, while that at the south

end of the NWHI is only half as great: 5oC (22–27

Figure A6.3. Endemic species from the Hawaiian Islands. A. Masked angelfish, Genicanthus personatus (Photo courtesy of J. W

B. Rice coral, Montipora capitata, and finger coral, Porites compressa (photo courtesy of C. Hunter), C. Hawaiian hermit crab, Cal

laurentae (photo courtesy of S. Godwin), D. Red alga, Acrosymphtyon brainardii (photo courtesy of P. Vroom).

Annex A.indd 62 nnex A.indd 62 
ocean productivity at large spatial and long temporal scales 

and has been attributed to changes in monk seal pup survival, 

sea bird fledging success, and spiny lobster recruitment in 

the NWHI (Polovina et al., 1994; Polovina, Mitchem, and 

Evans, 1995). Inter-annual variation in the Transition Zone 

Chlorophyll Front is also known to affect the distribution 

and survival of a number of species in the NWHI (Polovina

et al., 1994; Polovina et al., 2001).

Because of their high latitude location in the central Pacific, 

the NWHI were thought to be one of the last places in the 

world to experience coral bleaching (Hoegh-Guldberg, 

1999). Hawaiian reefs were unaffected by the 1998 mass 

bleaching event that affected much of the Indo-Pacific region 

(Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999; Reaser, Pomerance, and Thomas, 

2000; Jokiel and Brown, 2004). The first documented 

bleaching event in the MHI was reported in 1996 (Jokiel 

and Brown, 2004). The NWHI were affected by mass coral 

bleaching in 2002 and again in 2004 (Aeby et al., 2003; 

Kenyon et al., 2006). Bleaching was most acute at the three 

northern-most atolls (Pearl and Hermes, Midway, and Kure) 

and was most severe on backreef habitats (Kenyon and 

Brainard, 2006). Of the three coral genera that predominate 

at these atolls, Montipora and Pocillopora spp. were most 

affected by bleaching, with lesser incidences observed in 

Porites (Kenyon and Brainard, 2006). The occurrence of 

two mass bleaching episodes in three years lends credence 

to the projection of increased frequency of bleaching with 

climate change.

SST data derived from both remotely sensed satellite 

observations (Fig. A6.4a) as well as in situ Coral Reef Early 

Warning System (CREWS) buoys suggest that prolonged, 

elevated SSTs combined with a prolonged period of 

anomalously light wind speed led to decreased wind and 

wave mixing of the upper ocean (Hoeke et al., 2006) (Fig. 

A6.4b). The reefs to the southeast of the archipelago show 

smaller positive temperature anomalies compared with the 

reefs toward the northwest. Research and monitoring efforts 

should target this pattern to better understand dispersal, 

bleaching, and other events that might be affected by it.

The rate and scale at which bleaching has been incr

recent decades (Glynn, 1993) points to the likelihood 

bleaching events in Hawaii (Jokiel and Coles, 1990)

Coral disease is currently low in the NWHI (Aeb

but increases in the frequency and intensity of b

events will stress corals and make them more susce

disease (Harvell et al., 1999; Harvell et al., 2002). A

corals are prone to bleaching and disease (Willis, P

Dinsdale, 2004) and are restricted in range and habit

the Hawaiian Archipelago to a few core reefs in th

(Grigg, 1981; Grigg, Wells, and Wallace, 1981; Ma

al., 2004). This combination could lead to the exti

this genus from Hawaii if mortality associated with 

change becomes severe.

Most of the emergent land in the NWHI is low-lyin

vulnerable to inundation from storm waves, and t

vulnerable to sea level rise (Baker, Littnan, and J

2006). The limited amount of emergent land in th

is critical habitat for the endangered Hawaiian m

(Antonelis et al., 2006), the threatened green s

(Balazs and Chaloupka, 2006), and numerous te

organisms and land birds that are found nowhere 

Earth (Rauzon, 2001). The emergent land in the 

may shrink by as much as 65% with a 48 cm ri

level (Baker, Littnan, and Johnston, 2006). Effort

translocation or habitat alteration might be necessar

species are to be saved from extinction.

At the northern end of the chain, lower coral div

linked to lower winter temperatures and lower ann

radiation (Grigg, 1982). Increases in ocean tem

could therefore change the distribution of co

other organisms that might currently be limited 

temperatures. Many shallow-water fish species 

adapted to warmer water are restricted from o

in the NWHI by winter temperatures that can be 

as 7oC cooler than the MHI (Mundy, 2005). Con

some shallow-water species are adapted to cool

and can be found in deeper waters at the souther

the archipelago. This phenomenon—known as 

Annex A.indd 63 nnex A.indd 63 
64

the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge (HINWR) 

established by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909. The 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem 

Reserve was created by Executive Orders 13178 and 13196 in 

December 2000 and amended by Executive Order 13196 in 

January of 2001 to include the marine waters and submerged 

lands extending 1,200 nautical miles long and 100 nautical 

miles wide from Nihoa Island to Kure Atoll.

In June 2006, nearly 140,000 square miles of the marine 

environment in the NWHI was designated as the 

Papahānaumokuākea (Northwestern Hawaiian Islands) 

Marine National Monument (PMNM). This action provided 

immediate and permanent protection for the resources of the 

NWHI and established a management structure that requires 

extensive collaboration and coordination among the three 

primary co-trustee agencies: the State of Hawaii, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA.

Proclamation 8031 states that the monument will:

• Preserve access for Native Hawaiian cultural activities;

• Provide for carefully regulated educational and scientific 

activities;

• Enhance visitation in a special area around Midway 

Island;

• Prohibit unauthorized access to the monument;

• Phase out commercial fishing over a five-year period; 

and

• Ban other types of resource extraction and dumping of 

waste.

Preservation areas have been established in the PMNM in 

sensitive areas around all the emergent reefs, islands, and 

atolls. Vessels issued permits to operate in the PMNM are 

required to carry approved Vessel Monitoring Systems 

(VMS). 

Program of Monitoring and Research 

Long-term monitoring relevant to climate change has been 

conducted in the NWHI dating back to the 1970s by a variety 

of agencies (Grigg, 2006). Since 2000, a collaborative 

interagency monitoring program led by the Coral Reef 

Ecosystem Division (CRED) of the NOAA Pacific Isla

Science Center has conducted integrated assessment 

monitoring of coral reef ecosystems in the NWHI 

throughout the U.S. Pacific (Wadell, 2005; Friedlande

al., 2005). In conjunction with various state, federal, 

academic partners, this program has integrated ecolog

studies with environmental data to develop a comprehen

ecosystem-based program of assessment and monitorin

U.S. Pacific coral reef ecosystems.

Ocean currents are measured and monitored in the NW

using shipboard acoustic Doppler current profilers (AD

Surface Velocity Program (SVP) current drifters, 

APEX profiling drifters (Friedlander et al., 2005; Fi

and Brainard, 2006). Spatial maps of ocean current

the vicinity of the NWHI are also computed from sate

observations of sea surface height from the TOPEX-Pose

and JASON altimetric satellites (Polovina, Kleiber, 

Kobayashi, 1999). Moored ADCPs have been deploye

CRED at several locations to examine temporal variab

of ocean currents over submerged banks and reef hab

in the NWHI.

Figure A6.4. a) NOAA Pathfinder SST anomaly compo

during summer 2002 period of NWHI elevated temperat

July 28–August 29. b) NASA/JPL Quikscat winds (wind st

overlayed by wind vector arrows) composite during summer 2

period of increasing SSTs, July 16–August 13. The Hawaii Ex

sive Economic Zone (EEZ) is indicated with a heavy black 

all island shorelines in the archipelago are also plotted (ada

from Hoeke et al., 2006).

Annex A.indd 64 nnex A.indd 64 
A6.3.2 Managing the Papahãnaumokuãkea Marine 

National Monument 

Current Approaches to Research and Monitoring in Support 

of Management and How Climate Change is Being Examined 

Over the past several years, the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation 

Program has established the Coral Reef Ecosystem Integrated 

Observing System (CREIOS), which is a cross-cutting 

collaboration between four NOAA Line Offices (NMFS, 

OAR, NESDIS, and NOS) focused on mapping, monitoring, 

and observing ecological and environmental conditions of 

U.S. coral reefs. At present, the ocean observing system 

in the NWHI consists of surface buoys measuring SST, 

salinity, wind, atmospheric pressure, and air temperature 

(enhanced systems also measure ultraviolet-B (UV-B) and 

photosynthetically available radiation); surface SST buoys; 

subsurface Ocean Data Platforms measuring ocean current 

profiles, wave energy and direction, temperature and salinity; 

subsurface current meters measuring bottom currents and 

temperature; and subsurface temperature recorders. Many of 

the surface platforms provide near real-time data telemetry to 

the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center and subsequent 

distribution via the World Wide Web. Time series data from 

subsurface instruments (without telemetry) are typically 

available every 12 to 24 months, after the instrument has 

been recovered and the dataset uploaded. Information about 

available datasets such as geo-location, depth, data format, 

and other metadata are available for both surface and 

subsurface instruments at the NOAA Coral Reef Information 

System (CoRIS) website.61

Another component of CREIOS is Coral Reef Watch 

(NESDIS, Office of Research and Applications) which uses 

remote sensing, computational algorithms, and artificial 

intelligence tools in the near real-time monitoring, modeling, 

and reporting of physical environmental conditions that 

adversely influence coral reef ecosystems. Satellite remotely 

sensed data products include near real-time identification 

of bleaching “hotspots” and identification of low-wind 

61 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2007: 

NOAA’s coral reef information system. NOAA Website, http://

www.coris.noaa.gov/, accessed on 7-27-2007.

and researchers to environmental events con

significant to the health of the surrounding co

ecosystem, allowing managers to implement r

measures in a timely manner, and allowing res

to increase spatial or temporal sampling resol

warranted. Response measures might include 

monitoring to determine the extent and duratio

event and management actions could include 

access to these areas until recovery is observed. Inf

from the Coral Reef Watch Program in summ

indicated conditions favorable for bleaching and 

in assessments focused on potential bleaching area

the subsequent research cruise.

Potential for Altering or Supplementing Current Mana

Practices to Enable Adaptation to Climate Change

To more fully address concerns about the ec

impacts of climate change on coral reef ecosystem

effect of reef ecosystems on climate change, a nu

agencies have proposed a collaborative effort to es

state-of-the-art ocean observing system to monito

parameters of climate change impacting reef ecosy

the Pacific and Western Atlantic/Caribbean. This p

system includes:

• Expanding the existing array of oceanographic p

across the remainder of the U.S. Pacific Islands 

• Installing pCO2 and UV-B sensors to examine lo

changes in carbon cycling and UV radiation 

• Establish long-term records of coral reef enviro

variability to examine past climate changes u

leoclimatic records of SST and other paramet

coral skeletons. This will allow us to determine i

and future SST stresses are unusual, or part o

climatic variability.

• Develop/expand integrated in situ and satelli

bleaching mapping system

• Continue the development of the Coral Reef Ear

ing System, which can be used to develop timely 

62 NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007: C

ecosystems - ecological assessment, marine debris remov

ography, habitat mapping. NOAA Website, http://www.p

gov/cred/, accessed on 5-24-2007.

Annex A.indd 65 nnex A.indd 65 
66

Given the small size of the islets in the NWHI, local sand 

resources might be sufficient to mitigate sea level rise, but a 

great deal of research and planning would be required given 

the remoteness and sensitive nature of the ecosystem (Baker, 

Littnan, and Johnston, 2006).

A6.3.3 Adapting Management to Climate Change

The draft Monument Management Plan does not address 

climate and ocean change management actions specifically, 

but by integrating strategies that focus on climate through 

research and monitoring, education and outreach, and review 

and syntheses, management will be better informed and 

prepared to deal with issues related to climate and ocean 

change. A comprehensive understanding of the effects of 

climate change on the NWHI is needed in order to provide 

managers with the information and tools needed to address 

these effects. Specific attention should be given to the effects 

on habitats critical to endemic and protected species. 

The continued development and expansion of the Coral Reef 

Early Warning System and the Ocean Observing System 

are critical to improve understanding of climate change in 

the PMNM and the scale and capabilities of these systems 

should be enhanced. Investigations directed at examining 

the physiological, ecological, and genetic responses of the 

entire ecosystem to climate change should be conducted. 

Continuation and expansion of monitoring programs are 

important to better understand the ecosystem in time and 

space and higher-intensity spatial and temporal monitoring 

and assessment should be initiated in conjunction with 

disturbance events (e.g., coral bleaching, disease outbreaks, 

elevated water temperatures).

The draft PMNM science plan calls for a number of specific 

research activities to examine the effects of climate change 

on the NWHI ecosystem.

• Determine the effect of climate change on nesting sites of 

protected species, e.g. the effect of sea level rise on nesting site of the green sea turtle and Hawaiian monk seal.

• Determine specific habitats, communities, and populations that will be affected by global climate change 

existing NWHI-based curricula developed under 

Navigating Change Partnership and the new Hawaii Ma

Curriculum, specific study units on climate change sh

be developed and impacts of climate change incorpor

into other study units, where appropriate. By increasing 

public’s awareness of climate change impacts, the PM

can provide a societal benefit that extends beyond 

boundaries of the monument.

A6.3.4 Conclusions

The nearly pristine condition of the NWHI result

one of the last large-scale, intact, predator-domin

reef ecosystems remaining in the world (Friedlander 

DeMartini, 2002; Pandolfi et al., 2005). Top preda

can regulate the structure of the entire community 

have the potential to buffer some of the ecological eff

of climate change (Sala, 2006). Intact ecosystems s

as the NWHI are hypothesized to be more resistant 

resilient to stressors, including climate change (West 

Salm, 2003). Owing to its irreplaceable assemblag

organisms, it possesses extremely high conservation va

The Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monum

is the largest marine protected area (MPA) in the w

and provides a unique opportunity to examine the eff

of climate change on a nearly intact large-scale ma

ecosystem.

A6.4 The Channel Islands National Marin

Sanctuary

A6.4.1 Introduction

Ecosystem Structure

Designated in 1980, the Channel Islands National Ma

Sanctuary (CINMS) consists of an area of approxima

1,243 nm2 of coastal and ocean waters and submerged la

off the southern coast of California (Fig. A6.5). CIN

extends 6 nm offshore from the five northern Chan

Islands, including San Miguel, Santa Cruz, Santa R

Anacapa, and Santa Barbara islands. The primary objec

of the sanctuary is to conserve, protect, and enhance 

biodiversity, ecological integrity, and cultural legac

Annex A.indd 66 nnex A.indd 66 
waters that contribute to high biological productivity. 

Intertidal communities around San Miguel, Santa Rosa, 

and part of Santa Cruz islands are characteristic of the 

cool temperate region, whereas those around Catalina, San 

Clemente, Anacapa, and Santa Barbara islands are associated 

with the warm temperate region (Murray and Littler, 1981). 

Fish communities around the Channel Islands also show a 

distinctive grouping based on association with western islands 

(influenced strongly by the California Current) and eastern 

islands (influenced by the Davidson Current). Rockfish 

(Sebastes spp.), embiotocid species, and pile perch occur 

more in western islands while Island kelpfish (Alloclinus 

holderi), opaleye (Girella nigricans), garibaldi (Hypsypops 

rubicundus), blacksmith (Chromis punctipinnis), and kelp 

bass (Paralabrax clathratus) occur more often in the eastern 

islands (Halpern and Cottenie, 2007).63

From Monterey Bay to Baja California, including the Channel 

Islands, giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) is the dominant 

habitat-forming alga. Giant kelp grows in dense stands on 

hard rocky substrate at depths of 2–30 m (Foster and Schiel, 

1985). Kelp is among the fastest growing of all algae, adding 

an average of 27 cm/day (in spring) and a maximum of 61 

cm/day and reaching lengths of 60 m (200 ft). Giant kelp 

forests support a diverse community of associated species 

including marine invertebrates, fishes, marine mammals 

and seabirds (Graham, 2004). Kelp stocks and fronds may 

support thousands of invertebrates including amphipods, 

decapods, polychaetes, and ophiuroids. Some invertebrates 

such as sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus spp.) and abalone 

(Haliotis spp.) rely on bits of drifting kelp as their primary 

source of food. Fish in the kelp forest community specialize 

in life at different depths: kelp, black and yellow, and gopher 

rockfish are found at the base of kelp stocks, while olive, 

yellowtail, and black rockfish swim in mid-water. Drifting 

kelp mats at the sea surface provide cover for young fishes that 

are vulnerable to predation. Marine mammals and seabirds 

are attracted to abundant fish and invertebrate populations 

63 Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, 2007: Marine 

reserves environmental review process. NOAA Website, NOAA, 

http://channelislands.noaa.gov/marineres/main.html, accessed on 

7-1-2007.

(which serve as their primary prey) associated w

forests. Because of their high diversity, California ke

are thought to be more resistant and resilient to dis

than kelp forests elsewhere (Steneck et al., 2002).

Stressors on Marine Ecosystems in the Channel Island

Kelp forest communities are vulnerable to a

of stressors caused by human activities and 

environmental variation. Using data gathered by the 

Islands National Park over a period of 20 years, Hal

Cottenie (2007) documented overall declines in ab

of giant kelp communities over time. These decli

linked with commercial and recreational fishin

Channel Islands. Overfishing reduces density and 

individual size of targeted populations and, conse

targeted species are more vulnerable to the effects o

environmental variation. Overfishing also has c

effects through the marine food web. In areas of the 

Islands where lobster (Panulirus interruptus) and 

predators were fished, purple sea urchin (Strongyloc

purpuratus) populations were more abundant, ove

stands of giant kelp and other algae and resulting i

reefs devoid of kelp and its associated species (Beh

Lafferty, 2004).

Kelp forest communities also respond to 

environmental variations, such as increased storm i

ocean warming, and shifts in winds associated wit

events (Dayton et al., 1992; Ladah, Zertuche-G

and Hernandez-Carmona, 1999; Edwards, 2004

intensity, which is known to increase during periods 

warming, damages kelp stocks and rips kelp holdfa

their rocky substrate (Dayton et al., 1992; 1999). In 

to the physical damage from storms, kelp growth 

suppressed by lower levels of nutrients due to re

of coastal wind activity and reduction of upwellin

Figure A6.5. Map of the Channel Islands National Ma

tuary showing the location of existing state and propose

marine reserves and marine conservation areas.71

Annex A.indd 67 nnex A.indd 67 
68

since 1978) were more resilient to ocean warming, shifts 

in winds, and increased storm activity associated with 

ENSO (Behrens and Lafferty, 2004). Giant kelp forests in 

the reserve persisted over a period of 20 years, including 

several intense ENSO events. Kelp forests at all study sites 

outside of the reserve were overgrazed by dense populations 

of sea urchins, and their growth was further inhibited by 

warmer water, increased storm intensity, and lower levels 

of nutrients, leading to periodic die-backs to a barren reef 

state. These observations suggest that marine reserves can 

be used as a management tool to increase resilience of kelp 

forest communities.

Current Management of the Channel Islands

In 1999, the CINMS and the California Department of Fish 

and Game (CDFG) developed a partnership and public 

process (modeled after the Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary) to consider the use of fully protected marine 

reserves to protect natural biological communities (Box 

A6.2). The cooperating agencies engaged a working group 

of stakeholders through the Sanctuary Advisory Council to 

evaluate the problem and develop potential solutions. The 

“Marine Reserves Working Group” developed a problem 

statement acknowledging that human activities and natural 

ecological changes contributed to the decline of marine 

communities in southern California. The working group 

determined that marine reserves should be established to 

protect marine habitats and species, to achieve sustainable 

fisheries and maintain long-term socioeconomic viability, 

and to protect cultural heritage. The stakeholders, working 

with marine scientists and economists, created a range 

of options for marine reserves to meet these goals. 

Subsequently, the CINMS and CDFG used the two most 

widely supported options to craft compromise solution that 

addressed the interests of a broad array of stakeholders.

In 2003, the CDFG established a network of 10 fully 

protected marine reserves and two conservation areas that 

allow limited commercial and recreational fishing (Fig. 

A6.5). The total area protected was 102 nm2, approximately 

10% of sanctuary waters. The marine reserves and 

conservation areas included a variety of representative 

protected areas proposed by the sanctuary increase the t

area of protected marine zones to 19% of the CINMS.

In 2008, data from relevant monitoring programs wil

prepared for a review by the California Fish and G

Commission of the first five years of monitoring the Cha

Islands state marine reserves. Expectations are that spe

that were targeted by commercial or recreational fishe

will increase in density and size within marine rese

(Halpern, 2003). Some species are expected to declin

their predators or competitors increase in abundance.

• 1998: Sportfishing group initiates discussion

about marine reserves in the Channel Island

National Marine Sanctuary 

• 1999: California Department of Fish and Game 

and NOAA develop partnership and initiate 

community-based Marine Reserves Working 

Group process 

• 2001: Working Group recommendations deliv

ered to California Department of Fish and Game 

and NOAA 

• 2003: California Fish and Game Commission 

established 10 state marine reserves and 2 state 

marine conservation areas in state waters o

the CINMS 

• 2006: Pacific Fisheries Management Council desig

nated Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat of Area

of Particular Concern in adjacent federal water

of the CINMS prohibiting bottom fishing

• 2006: Sanctuary released Draft Environmenta

Impact Statement to propose marine reserve

in federal waters of the CINMS. 

• 2007: Pending - NOAA will release Final Envi

ronmental Impact Statement and final rule to 

complete the marine reserves in federal waters

• 2007: Pending - California Fish and Game Commis

sion will take regulatory action to close gaps be

tween state and federal marine protected areas

Box A6.2. Timeline for Establishment of Marine 

Reserves in the Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary (CINMS)

Annex A.indd 68 nnex A.indd 68 
, ) 

Shifts in species ranges already have occurred in California 

with the steady increase of coastal sea surface temperature. 

The range boundary of Kelletia kelletii has shifted north 

from the late 1970s to the 2000s (Herrlinger, 1981; Zacherl, 

Gaines, and Lonhart, 2003). Southern species of anthozoans, 

barnacles, and gastropods increased in Monterey Bay, while 

northern species of anthozoans and limpets decreased 

between the 1930s (Hewatt, 1937) and the 1990s (Barry

et al., 1995; Sagarin et al., 1999). Holbrook, Schmitt, and 

Stephens, Jr. (1997) documented an increase of 150% in 

southern species of kelp forest fish in southern California, 

and a decrease of 50% in northern species since the 1970s.

Increased ocean temperatures have been linked with outbreaks 

of marine disease (Hofmann et al., 1999). Populations of 

black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) in the Channel Islands 

and north along the California coast to Cambria suffered 

mass mortalities from “withering syndrome” caused by 

the intracellular prokaryote Xenohaliotis californiensis, 

between 1986 and 2001. Healthy populations of black abalone 

persist north of Cambria, where cool waters suppress the 

disease. Samples of red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) from 

populations around San Miguel Island in 2006 indicated that 

approximately 58% of the population carries X. californiensis,

but the red abalone population persists in a thermal refuge 

within which temperatures are low enough to suppress the 

expression of the disease. The disease may be expressed 

during prolonged periods of warming (e.g., over 18oC for 

several days) associated with ENSO or other warm-water 

events. In 1992, an ENSO year, an urchin-specific bacterial 

disease entered the Channel Islands region and spread through 

dense populations of purple sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus 

pupuratus). Sites located in a marine reserve where fishing 

was prohibited had more lobster (which prey on urchins), 

smaller populations of urchins, persistent forests of giant kelp, 

and a near absence of the disease.64 During several warmwater events, including the ENSO of 1997–98, scientists 

observed and documented declines of sea star populations at 

64 Lafferty, K.D. and D. Kushner, 2000: Population regulation of the 

purple sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus, at the California 

Channel Islands. In: Fifth California Islands Symposium, Minerals 

Management Service, Santa Barbara, California, pp. 379-381.

green crab Carcinus maenas on the U.S. West C

associated with rising temperatures and altered 

associated with ENSO events (Yamada et al., 20

Sanctuary Advisory Council identified non-indigenou

as an emerging issue in the revised Sanctuary Man

Plan (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2006). The s

participated in the removal of a non-indigenous alga 

pinnatifida) from the Santa Barbara Harbor, but the s

does not support systematic monitoring or remova

indigenous species. Introduction of non-indigenou

can disrupt native communities, potentially leading 

in community structure.

Sea level may rise up to three feet in the next 10

depending on the concentrations of greenhouse gase

this period (Cayan et al., 2006a; IPCC, 2007a). Pr

of sea level rise around the Channel Islands indic

encroachment of seawater onto land due to steep roc

that form the margins of the islands; however, proje

sea level rise indicate potential saltwater intrusion 

lying coastal areas such as the Santa Barbara Harbo

the CINMS Headquarters is located) and the Channe

Harbor (where the sanctuary’s southern office is 

Changes in sea level may affect the type of coastal ec

(Hoffman, 2003). Graham, Dayton, and Erlandso

suggested that sea level rise transformed the S

California Bight from a productive rocky coast 

productive sandy coast more than 18,000 years ag

The severity of storm events is likely to increase wit

change (IPCC, 2001). As described above, storm 

damages kelp stocks and pulls kelp holdfasts f

substrate (Dayton et al., 1992; 1999). Frequent and 

storm activity during the 1982–83 ENSO event d

populations of giant kelp that once formed extens

attached to massive old kelp holdfasts in sandy areas 

mainland coast. Since the old kelp holdfasts were d

from the mainland coast, young kelp plants have bee

to attach to the sandy substrate and the coastal kel

have not returned. At the Channel Islands, kelp for

were destroyed during the same ENSO event hav

returned to the rocky reefs around the Channel 

Annex A.indd 69 nnex A.indd 69 
70

change and to develop a shared vision for how to respond.

The Sanctuary Management Plan (U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 2006) describes a strategy to work in a 

coordinated, complementary, and comprehensive manner 

with other authorities that share similar or overlapping 

mandates, jurisdiction, objectives, and/or interests. The 

sanctuary is poised to take a leading role to bring together 

the relevant agencies and stakeholders to discuss the issue 

of climate change. The sanctuary can initiate an effort to 

develop regional plans to adapt to a modified landscape and 

seascape predicted from climate change models, and mitigate 

the negative impacts of climate change.

A6.4.2 Management of the Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary

The Sanctuary Management Plan (U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 2006) for the CINMS mentions but does not 

fully address the issue of climate change, with one exception 

in the strategy for offshore water quality monitoring. The 

strategy is to better evaluate and understand impacts on 

water quality from oceanographic and climatic changes and 

human activities. The proposed actions include continued 

vessel and staff support for monitoring projects related to 

water quality. To evaluate the potential impacts of climate 

change, the sanctuary staff could expand monitoring of—or 

collaborate with researchers who are monitoring—ocean 

water temperature, currents, dissolved oxygen, and pH at 

different depths.

The Sanctuary Management Plan (U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 2006) describes a strategy to identify, assess, 

and respond to emerging issues. The plan explicitly identifies 

noise pollution, non-indigenous species, and marine 

mammal strikes as emerging issues. Other emerging issues 

that are not addressed by the management plan, but should 

be, include ocean warming, sea level rise, shifts in ocean 

circulation, ocean acidification, spread of disease, and shifts 

in species ranges.

The Sanctuary Management Plan (U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 2006) outlined a potential response to emerging 

and accelerated spread of disease);

• Ocean acidification (leading to breakdown of calcar

accretions in corals and shells); 

• Shifts in ocean circulation (leading to changes in upw

ing activity and possible formation of low oxygen zon

and 

• Sea level rise (shifting jurisdictional boundaries, 

placing terrestrial and intertidal organisms, leadin

salt-water inundation of coastal marshes, lagoons 

estuaries, and increasing coastal flood events).

Monitoring and Research in the Channel Islands Region

Monitoring and research are critical for detecting 

understanding the effects of climate and ocean change. 

Sanctuary Management Plan (U.S. Department of Comme

2006) outlines strategies for monitoring and research in 

coming years, but the plan does not address climate and o

change specifically. The current strategies for monito

and research can be refocused slightly to capture impor

information about climate and ocean change. 

Monitoring of algae, invertebrates, and fishes is nee

within and around marine reserves to detect differen

between protected and targeted populations in their respo

to climate change. One hypothesis is that populations wi

marine reserves will be more resilient to the effects of clim

change than those that are altered by overfishing and o

extractive uses. In addition, scientists have determined 

local environmental variation causes different population

respond in different ways to ocean warming (e.g., Helm

et al., 2006). For example, a population of red abalon

San Miguel Island lives in a “thermal refuge” where wa

are cooled by upwelling, preventing spread of disease th

carried in the population. Sustained ocean warming is li

to increase thermal stress of individuals in this popula

and accelerate the spread of disease through affe

populations. Monitoring can be used to detect such chang

individual, population, and regional levels. The CINMS 

the capacity to support subtidal monitoring activities f

the RV Shearwater, aerial surveys of kelp canopy from 

sanctuary aircraft, and collaborative research projects 

scientists and fishers.

Annex A.indd 70 nnex A.indd 70 
monitored temperature and salinity at stationary moorings 

off the coast of Oregon. When they detected low oxygen 

during routine monitoring in 2002, the scientists intensified 

their monitoring efforts by increasing the number of 

temperature and salinity sensors and adding oxygen sensors 

(which transmit data on a daily basis) near the seafloor 

at a number of locations along the coast. In this way, the 

scientists can quantify the scope and duration of hypoxic 

events, which have recurred off the coast of Oregon during 

the past five years (Barth et al., 2007).

The Sanctuary Management Plan (U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 2006) describes the need for analysis and 

evaluation of information from sanctuary monitoring and 

research. Working with local educational institutions and the 

National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, the 

sanctuary could develop the capacity to catalog and analyze 

spatial data (maps) that characterize the coastline of the 

sanctuary and the extent of kelp canopy within the sanctuary, 

among other types of information. To detect the ecological 

impacts of climate change, the information from sanctuary 

monitoring and research should be reviewed at regular 

intervals (at least annually) by collaborating scientists (such 

as the Sanctuary Advisory Council’s Research Activities 

Panel), sanctuary staff, and the sanctuary manager. The 

annual review should compare data from the current year 

with previous years, from areas inside marine reserves 

and in surrounding, fished areas. Ecological changes 

should be placed within the context of El Niño-Southern 

Oscillation and La Niña cycles and shifts associated with 

the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Changes in fisheries or 

other management regulations also should be considered 

as part of the evaluation. Any significant shifts away from 

predictable trends should trigger further evaluation of the 

data in an effort to understand local and regional ecosystem 

dynamics and any possible links to climate change.

Communication in the Channel Islands Region

Public awareness and understanding are paramount in the 

discussion about how to adapt to climate change. The education 

and outreach strategies described in the Sanctuary Management 

Plan (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2006) do not focus on 

the issue of climate change but, with a slight shift in focus, the 

• Update the sanctuary website and weather kiosks 

formation about causes and impacts of climate 

• Produce a special issue of the sanctuary pub

Alolkoy, about the current scientific understa

climate change and potential impacts on sanct

sources;

• Develop a brochure about climate change to he

bers of the community identify opportunities t

their contributions to greenhouse gases and oth

sors that exacerbate the problem of climate cha

• Expand the sanctuary’s Ocean Etiquette prog

include consideration and mitigation of individu

ties that contribute to climate change;

• Host a teacher workshop on the subject of 

change; 

• Prepare web-based curriculum with classroom e

and opportunities for experiential learning abou

change; and

• Partner with local scientists who study climate c

give public lectures and engage students in mo

climate change.

A6.5 Conclusions about Marine Prote

Area Case Studies

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has been e

along with the National Marine Sanctuary case 

because it is an example of an MPA that has a r

highly developed climate change program in place

Bleaching Response Plan is part of its Climate 

Response Program, which is linked to a Repres

Areas Program and a Water Quality Protection P

comprehensive approach to support the resilienc

coral reef ecosystem. In contrast, the Florida Keys 

Marine Sanctuary is developing a bleaching respo

The Florida Reef Resilience Program, under the le

of The Nature Conservancy, is implementing a qua

assessment of coral reefs before and after bleachin

The recently established Papahānaumokuākea (Nort

Hawaiian Islands) Marine National Monument is th

MPA in the world and provides a unique opport

examine the effects of climate change on a near

65 http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/protect/oceanetiquette.html

Annex A.indd 71 nnex A.indd 71 
72

Barriers to implementation of adaptation options in MPAs 

include lack of resources, varying degrees of interest in and 

concern about climate change impacts, and a need for basic 

research on marine ecosystems and climate change impacts. 

National Marine Sanctuary Program staff are hard-pressed 

to maintain existing management programs, which do not yet 

include explicit focus on effects of climate change. While the 

Program’s strategic plan does not address climate change, 

the Program has recently formed a Climate Change Working 

oceans. Both commissions held extensive public meeti

and their findings reflect changing public perceptions 

attitudes about protecting marine resources from thr

of climate change. The interests of the marine scie

community have also evolved, with a shift from “basic

“applied” research over recent decades. Attitudes of M

managers have changed as well, with a growing recogn

of the need to better understand ecological processes in o

to implement science-based adaptive management.

Annex A.indd 72 nnex A.indd 72 
Brian D. Keller, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Margaret Palmer, University of Maryland

Charles Peterson, University of North Carolina

J. Michael Scott, U.S. Geological Survey and University of Idaho

B1. INTRODUCTION

For each adaptation approach, authors were asked 

to consider two separate but related elements of 

confidence. The first element is the amount of 

evidence that is available to assess the effectiveness of 

a given adaptation approach (indicating that the topic 

is well-studied and understood). The second is the 

level of agreement or consensus across the different 

lines of evidence regarding the effectiveness of the 

adaptation approach. Authors were asked to rate their 

confidence according to the following criteria:

High/low amount of evidence

Is this adaptation approach well-studied and 

understood, or instead is it mostly experimental 

or theoretical and not well-studied? Does your 

experience in the field, your analyses of data, and 

your understanding of the literature and performance 

of specific adaptation options under this type of 

adaptation approach indicate that there is a high/

low amount of information on the effectiveness of 

this approach?

High/low amount of agreement

Do the studies, reports, and your experience in 

the field, analyzing data, or implementing the 

types of adaptation strategies that comprise this 

approach reflect a high degree of agreement on the 

effectiveness of this approach, or does it lead to 

competing interpretations?

The authors’ responses are provided in the following 

sections, organized by adaptation approach.

B2. ADAPTATION APPROAC

PROTECTING KEY ECOSYST

FEATURES

Description: Focusing management protec

structural characteristics, organisms, or a

represent important “underpinnings” or “ke

of the overall system.

Confidence: Is strategic protection of key ec

features an effective way to preserve or 

resilience to climate change?

National Forests

Amount of evidence: High

There is ample theoretical and empirical evi

support the positive relationship between bio

and ecosystem resilience. Based on a s

Australian rangeland, Walker, Kinzig, and L

(1999) concluded that functional group d

maintains the resilience of ecosystem struc

function. Resilience is increased when eco

have multiple species that fulfill similar “fu

but that respond differently to human actions 

1995; Fischer, Lindenmayer, and Manning

Elmqvist et al. (2003) concluded that the div

responses to management and disturbance 

by diverse ecosystems “insures the system 

the failure of management actions and polic

on incomplete understanding.” Brussaard, d

and Brown (2007) concluded that soil bio

confers resilience against stress and dist

and protecting it is necessary to sustain agr

and forestry production. Keystone spec

Annex B.indd 1 nnex B.indd 1 
2

The United States Forest Service (USFS) emphasizes 

biodiversity conservation and protection of critical habitat 

and other key ecosystem features in its management of 

national forests. Some national forest managers currently 

seek to enhance landscape and species diversity as the most 

sensible way to adapt to climate change in the absence of 

contradictory information (see Olympic National Forest 

case study). Major USFS programs and plans—such as 

the early detection program for invasive species, the forest 

health program (which tries to prevent or reduce the impact 

of insect and disease outbreaks) and the National Fire 

Plan—also aim to protect key ecosystem features and values. 

Similarly, efforts to reduce the impacts of fragmentation and 

create larger, connected landscapes with continuous habitat 

help conserve keystone species. Maintenance of old-growth 

habitat and particular characteristics of old-growth is also 

emphasized in many national forests.

Amount of agreement: Low

Ecologists have engaged in heated debates for the past 

century about the extent to which diversity begets stability 

(i.e., resilience). The current state of the debate appears to be 

somewhat nuanced. Although it appears that “a large number 

of species is required to sustain the assembly and functioning 

ecosystems in landscapes subject to increasingly intensive 

land use,” there is still uncertainty about the specific 

mechanism and details of this dependence on diversity 

(Loreau et al., 2001). Recent reviews (Loreau et al., 2001; 

Hooper et al., 2005) note that the debate has become more 

nuanced because of theoretical and experimental advances 

(e.g., Tilman, Reich, and Knops, 2006).

Functional groups have been used to explore ecosystem 

function and the role of suites of species. However, the 

makeup and composition of these functional groups and 

their roles in the ecosystem is not always agreed upon by 

the research community

The inability to accurately define either species or functional 

groups that ensure the viability of the ecosystem result in an 

uncertainty and likelihood that as many species as possible 

reduced soil loss, promoted vegetation regrowth, 

reduced siltation of streams in northern New Mexico 

Colorado (Allen et al., 2002).1

Use of wildland fire, mechanical thinning, or prescr

burns where it is documented to reduce risk of anomalo

severe fires has been shown to work, but only to work w

forest stands are unnaturally dense due to fire suppres

such that removal of fuels reduces the risk of anoma

fires. 

River systems with minimal disturbance maintain hi

levels of native biodiversity than disturbed syste

suggesting the converse is also true, that disturbanc

natural flow regimes reduces native biodiversity (Po

al., 2007).

Studies of certain species, such as whitebark pine in 

western United States, show that they are important f

sources for many species, including bears and Cla

nutcrackers. In their absence animals find alternative f

sources or become locally extirpated (Tomback and Ken

2002). 

Studies of the effects of reintroducing wolves to Yellows

ecosystem show a strong cascading positive effec

ecosystem performance, ranging from improved ripa

habitat (less trampling by elk), increased beaver activity, 

restored habitat leading to increased numbers of migra

birds. 

Studies of habitat requirements for bighorn sheep surv

and reproduction demonstrated the need for spec

vegetation mosaics and densities. In the absence of s

vegetation structure (vegetation too dense or too spa

sheep are exposed to predators and populations dec

(Singer, Bleich, and Gudorf, 2000).

1 See also Sydoriak, C.A., C.D. Allen, and B.F. Jacobs, 2000: W

ecological landscape restoration make the Bandelier Wilder

more or less of a wilderness? Proceedings: Wilderness Scien

a Time of Change Conference-Volume 5: Wilderness Ecosys

Threats, and Management, Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VO

209-215.

Annex B.indd 2 nnex B.indd 2 
Many papers in the literature that recommend ways to 

ameliorate the effects of climate change strongly promote 

protecting features and processes that structure ecosystems 

as one of their first recommendations (Welch, 2005). 

National Wildlife Refuges

Amount of evidence: High

The refuge system has a long history of habitat enhancement 

to maintain high quality habitat and sustain ecological 

processes for waterfowl and other aquatic species. There are 

large number of studies documenting response of species to 

prescribed burns and altered water regimes. Magnitude of 

the response varies among species and seasons. Prescribed 

fire is frequently used for managing grasslands and fire 

and prescribed cuts for forest lands. The changes projected 

from climate change are an additional variable. There are 

many references in the literature to the consequences of 

altered ecological processes on the integrity, diversity, and 

health of natural communities. Protection of nesting islands 

for colonial nesting birds from predators has been shown 

to positively affect reproductive success of many species. 

Reintroduction of keystone species such as beavers on 

refuges significantly alters habitat conditions and population 

size of other species.

Amount of agreement: High

There is wide agreement that protecting key ecosystem 

features will preserve or enhance resilience to climate 

change. Logically, protection will allow more of the 

resilience capacity to be “dedicated” to climate change 

because protection will minimize the challenges of nonclimate stressors. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Amount of evidence: Low

It is generally believed that there are no “keystone species” 

in running water ecosystems. Beaver can affect streams, 

but they convert them to wetlands and certainly there have 

been no attempts to protect them.

downstream reaches. But this research has not be

it a management/protection context. It is all basic 

experiments.

National Estuaries

Amount of evidence: Low

There has been much oyster reef restoration, but non

success in protecting shoreline from erosion.

Managed realignment is good in concept, but no te

of its success.

Many tests have been done of how biodiversity 

resilience and observational studies exist relating s

complexity to biodiversity.

No real test exists to assess success of protecting e

zones of high biogeochemical functioning.

There is little empirical testing of bulkheads im

long enough time scales.

No development or tests of effectiveness of rolling e

concept exist. 

Amount of agreement: Low

There are many more failed than successful oy

restorations.

Some disagreement exists over need for realignmen

uncertainty over rate of natural soil accretion in m

Mixed, conflicting results exist in tests of how bio

influences resilience.

No data test the success of protecting biogeochemic

of importance. 

There is high conceptual agreement that bulkhead

transgression.

Annex B.indd 3 nnex B.indd 3 
4

“...there are very few data that examine the relative 

resilience of marine habitats inside and outside reserves, 

nor are there comprehensive studies available that address 

whether ecosystems inside reserves can better weather 

climate shifts.” There are some studies that have documented 

changes in ecosystem features in MPAs (Babcock et al.

in New Zealand; McClanahan, Mwaguni, and Muthiga in 

Kenya; Mumby et al. in the Bahamas), and Hughes et al. 

(2007) concluded that managing herbivorous fishes is a key 

component of managing reef resilience. Mumby et al. (2007) 

documented higher coral recruitment rates in a 20-year-old 

marine reserve, which likely would enhance rates of coral 

population recovery after disturbances and thus increase 

resilience compared with areas outside the reserve. One 

might argue that the evidence is moderate, but “low” was 

selected to reflect the limited amount of research on this 

topic directly relevant to resilience to climate change.

Amount of agreement: High

The existing studies, though limited in number, appear 

consistent. Studies that have not found changes in ecosystem 

features in MPAs, such as unpublished research in the 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, probably 

reflect the relatively short duration (10 years) of no-take 

regulations.

B3. ADAPTATION APPROACH: 

REDUCING ANTHROPOGENIC 

STRESSES

Description: Minimizing localized human stressors (e.g., 

pollution) that hinder the ability of species or ecosystems 

to withstand climatic events

Confidence: Is reduction of anthropogenic stresses effective 

at increasing resilience to climate change?

and the value of protecting ecosystems from air qua

impacts (e.g., National Research Council, 2004). Cur

levels of ozone exposure are estimated to reduce eastern 

southern forest productivity by 5–10% (Joyce et al., 2

Felzer et al., 2004). In the western United States, incre

nitrogen deposition has altered plant communities 

reduced lichen and soil mychorriza (Baron et al., 2000; F

et al., 2003). Interaction of ozone and nitrogen deposi

has been shown to cause major physiological disruptio

ponderosa pine trees (Fenn et al., 2003). Mercury depos

negatively affects aquatic food webs, as well as terres

wildlife, as a result of bioaccumulation (Chen et al., 2

Ottawa National Forest, 2006; Driscoll et al., 2007; Pete

et al., 2007). Given that climate change is likely to incr

drought, exposure to ozone may further exacerbate 

effects of drought on both forest growth and stream he

(McLaughlin et al., 2007a; 2007b). 

There is considerable literature on the impact of invas

on ecosystems, biodiversity (Stein et al., 1996; Mooney 

Hobbs, 2000; Pimentel et al., 2000; Rahel, 2000; Von H

and Simberloff, 2005). Disturbances such as fire, inse

hurricanes, ice storms, and floods (all of which are li

to increase under climate change), create opportunitie

invasive species to become established on areas rang

from multiple stands to landscapes. In turn, invasive pl

alter the nature of fire regimes (Williams and Baruch, 2

Lippincott, 2000; Pimentel et al., 2000; Ziska, Reeves, 

Blank, 2005)2 as well as hydrological patterns (Pime

et al., 2000), in some cases increasing runoff, eros

and sediment loads (e.g., Lacey, Marlow, and Lane, 19

Potential increase in these disturbances under clim

change will heighten the challenges of managing inva

species. Climate change is expected to compound 

invasive species problem because of its direct influe

on native species distributions and because of the eff

of its interactions with other stressors (Chornesky et 

2 See also Tausch, R.J., 1999: Transitions and thresholds: influe

and implications for management in pinyon and juniper woodl

In: Proceedings: Ecology and Management of Pinyon-Jun

Communities Within the Interior West US Department of A

culture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station

361-365.

Annex B.indd 4 nnex B.indd 4 
The literature is in agreement that reducing these stressors 

is an important management strategy. 

The literature also agrees that the effectiveness of these 

restoration approaches is inf luenced by the current 

environmental conditions, current condition of the 

ecosystem, and current status and degree of other human 

alterations of the ecosystem (i.e., presence of invasives, 

departure from historical fire regimes, condition of 

watersheds).

National Parks

Amount of evidence: High

There is a vast amount of literature, plus a lot of common 

sense, demonstrating that ecosystems and their biota 

are more resilient to both natural and human-caused 

disturbances (although not necessarily climate change) when 

they are not stressed by pollution, habitat alteration, erosion 

of physical features such as beaches or soil, or prevention 

of natural disturbance cycles. Some methods may be more 

effective than others. 

The IPCC Working Group II report on coasts offers 

literature about restoration of natural coastal processes as a 

way to promote shore, wetland and marsh protection from 

climate change (IPCC, 2007). 

Restoration can protect salmon fisheries from some effects 

of climate change (Battin et al., 2007).

While there is ample evidence that man-made barriers 

prevent natural migration of aquatic species, there is also 

growing evidence that it may not increase ecosystem 

resilience. Upstream migration of non-native species or 

diseases may compromise gains made by removal of barriers. 

Other management activities or land use may similarly 

compromise gains (U.S. Geological Survey, 2005).

Literature demonstrating that managing visitor use patterns 

in national parks works to minimize the effects of climate 

change is not readily available, although there are many 

examples of where restrictions of use has either been 

from acid mine drainage or phosphorus reduction

Removal of non-native fishes in Alberta lakes all

natural (and assisted) recovery of natural food web

and Schindler, 2006). 

National Wildlife Refuges

Amount of evidence: High

Management of anthropogenic stresses such as in

predators, ungulates, etc. has been shown to increase 

and reproductive success of waterfowl and ground 

game birds. Reduction in pollutants (e.g., DDT, s

has also been shown to increase survival and repr

success of many species. Control of nest parasit

as cowbirds, has been widely and successfully u

management tool for endangered songbirds. The m

of the demographic response varies among spe

ecological conditions. Provision of contaminant-f

has been used to reduce exposure of carrion feedi

to lead with mixed success. 

Amount of agreement: High

There is wide agreement that reducing anthro

stresses will increase resilience to climate 

Reducing anthropogenic stressors will incre

survival, reproductive success, and population size 

organisms (particularly those not dependent on d

anthropogenic habitats), and these increases will 

the resilience capacity of trust species.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Amount of evidence: High

There have been extensive studies demonstrating 

amount of degradation of a watershed increases 

in relation to human stresses such as deforestatio

building, urbanization, and agriculture.

There is very strong scientific data to show that whe

stresses are reduced, the systems recover. Ther

strong scientific evidence that a “healthy” river corr

Annex B.indd 5 nnex B.indd 5 
6

actions for rivers that are directly related to the amount of 

human stress. The management is doing this by capping the 

total amount of development and land clearing that can occur 

in a watershed, followed up by data collection.

National Estuaries

Amount of evidence: High

A prodigious amount of research has been conducted to 

show the role of nutrient loading and organic loading in 

eutrophication, and to assess BMPs for successful control. 

It is also clear from many models that climate change will 

enhance eutrophication in many estuaries.

There is limited but some research on salt water intrusion 

and groundwater recharge rates with rising sea level.

Amount of agreement: High

There is excellent agreement that reducing one driver of 

eutrophication will benefit the system and reduce the level 

of overall eutrophication.

The disagreement applies to models of precipitation change, 

which provide results that are generally too coarse in 

scale to project which estuaries will experience increased 

precipitation and which will receive less.

Marine Protected Areas

Amount of evidence: Low

This theme crops up in reviews dating back to at least 

Boesch, Field, and Scavia (2000) and Scavia et al. (2002), 

as well as recent works such as Marshall and Schuttenberg 

(2006) and Marshall and Johnson (2007). The principle is 

well established, though not well tested. Our understanding 

of synergistic stressors at a physiological level has 

substantial evidence for individual species, but the extension 

to ecosystems is largely through conceptual modeling. This 

is a logical, common-sense approach, but the hard evidence 

is limited.

species or ecosystem so that, regardless of what clim

changes occur, there will be areas that survive and pro

a source for recovery.

Confidence: Is representation effective in suppor

resilience through preservation of overall biodiversity?

National Forests

Amount of evidence: Low

Reserves and national networks are often established on 

premise that additional sites will ensure the persistenc

a particular vegetation type. Under a constant climate, 

premise for duplication within networks is well accept

However, while it is common to duplicate vegetation ty

the recent literature on paleoecology demonstrates 

plant and animal species respond individualistically 

uniquely in time and space, incorporating competition 

ecological disturbance as well as climatic factors in t

response. Thus, vegetation types are not likely to retain 

same composition and structure under change. 

If this adaptation were focused on species, the litera

would suggest that the evidence is high with respect to 

adaptation strategy and its effectiveness. 

On the species level, the distributions of species dis

distinct “leading” edges that are well incised and indist

“trailing” edges showing the microsites where spe

can survive locally, but not under the regional clim

This pattern merely displays that there are a myria

microhabitats outside of the primary range of a spec

distribution that will support that species. There is a s

issue regarding the importance of the survival of that spe

with respect to the overall ecosystem in the region. Surv

of the individual species does not necessarily guarantee 

survival of the entire ecosystem.

Amount of agreement: Low

While the literature would support agreement on 

effectiveness of this approach for species, there is l

agreement that this approach is effective for vegetation ty

Annex B.indd 6 nnex B.indd 6 
representatives of a species within their specific climate 

niche will have little value in a changing climate (Williams, 

Jackson, and Kutzbach, 2007). If the different populations 

all have narrow tolerances to climate, having more of them 

when all will change beyond their range if viability will not 

be beneficial. 

Amount of agreement: Low

There is insufficient evidence that representation will be 

effective in promoting resilience of species of ecosystems, 

although there is ample evidence that having only few 

populations or representatives of species increases their 

vulnerability to extinction. 

National Wildlife Refuges

Amount of evidence: High

There is a large body of evidence in the literature showing 

that species that are found on National Wildlife Refuges are 

more abundant on refuges than on adjacent habitats. Several 

studies have shown that capturing the full geographical, 

ecological ,and genetic variation of a species in the wild or in 

captivity is a hedge against extinction and other losses. Thus, 

greater numbers of refuges that support higher densities of 

trust species will reduce the chances that climate change 

will completely eliminate any trust habitats, populations, or 

species. Evidence is lacking for most species regarding what 

degree of representation is sufficient. Each population of a 

species or ecosystem example on a refuge will experience 

different effects of climate change. As a result each one 

is a different entry in the evolutionary sweepstakes under 

climate change.

Amount of agreement: High

There is wide agreement that increasing representation will 

be effective in supporting resilience through preservation of 

overall biodiversity. Logically, and statistically, the broader 

the range of trust species and/or trust habitats that are 

included in the refuge system, the lower the likelihood that 

biodiversity will be lost due to climate change. However, 

individual refuges or refuge complexes need to be large 

and other species in to new regions where the c

now appropriate for them (assuming their old reg

now too warm or otherwise inappropriate). This is 

management strategy that has been around a lo

and in fact Habitat Conservation Plans are require

riverine species becomes endangered.

Protecting representative running-water eco

themselves (i.e., distinguished from species) has 

a management or scientific focus to date in the 

States, but it is being tried in Australia. Because 

dire drought situation, many riparian zones alon

in Australia are losing all of their vegetation. So m

are setting aside some areas where they ensure m

water needs (through regulating withdrawals a

releases) to keep the vegetation alive. The idea is 

these plants can be used for “seed” at other sites 

drought is over.

Amount of agreement: High

There are many things coupled together in this man

strategy. There is good agreement that maintaini

fish populations when other populations around th

in different rivers) are dying makes a great deal 

and we have the science to support that.

There is not as much agreement on the ecosystem “s

idea, only because it has not been extensively tried. H

most scientists would agree it is a low risk ventu

likely to work.

National Estuaries

Amount of evidence: Low

There is limited study of effects of genetic d

on resilience of estuarine species (but see Hug

Stachowicz, 2004).

There has been growing scientific attention to la

effects of multiple habitats in salt marshes (Minel

Zedler; Grabowski) and some for seagrass beds

scope of these studies is limited.

Annex B.indd 7 nnex B.indd 7 
8

This is a cornerstone of the zoning approach for the Great 

Barrier Reef Marine Park (Fernandes et al., 2005)3. It is 

very logical (Salm, Done, and McLeod, 2006) and has been 

effectively applied to the marine park. Similar approaches 

for other marine systems are not readily available, although 

the representative areas approach has broad applicability.

Amount of agreement: High

Although the evidence is low there appears to be agreement 

among a number of authors (Palumbi, 2002; Sobel and 

Dahlgren, 2004; Fernandes et al., 2005; Salm, Done, and 

McLeod, 2006; Roberts et al., 2006; McCook et al., 2007).1

A contrary line of evidence is not known.

B5. ADAPTATION APPROACH: 

REPLICATION

Description: Maintaining more than one example of each 

ecosystem or population within a reserve system such that 

if one area is affected by a disturbance, replicates in another 

area provide insurance against extinction and a source for 

recovery of affected areas.

Confidence: Is replication effective in supporting resilience 

by spreading the risks posed by climate change?

National Forests

Amount of evidence: Low

The literature is extensive in terms of the value of 

maintaining numerous animal and plant populations of 

species to maintain species viability. The concept is certainly 

well-supported in both theoretical and experimental (lab) 

approaches and for some situations in the field. The rationale 

for maintaining more than one population or ecosystem is 

often associated with the probability of extreme events, 

3 See also Day, J., L. Fernandes, A. Lewis, G. De’ath, S. Slegers, B. 

Barnett, B. Kerrigan, D. Breen, J. Innes, J. Oliver, T. Ward, and 

D. Lowe, 2002: The representative areas program for protecting 

biodiversity in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. In: 

Proceedings of the Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium 23, 

October 2000, pp. 687-696.

at the ecosystem level.

Amount of agreement: Low

For populations of plants and animals, the literature 

agreement with the effectiveness of this concept.

For ecosystems, less information is available.

Therefore, agreement is low that this approach wo

increase resilience in the system.

National Parks

Amount of evidence: Low

Multiple representatives of valued populations or system

a form of bet-hedging and has been shown to protect spe

of populations when one or more patches or commun

are destroyed. This has been a foundation of endang

species protection. 

While one paper was found that promotes replica

of desired species (Bengtsson et al., 2003), the Nati

Parks chapter does not promote this as a means of buil

resilience. Human intervention to move species ad

decidedly anthropomorphic slant to natural resources. O

species of interest are considered, while the majorit

insects, plants, soil microbes and biota will be ignored

Species move independently according to their biophy

needs (Williams, Jackson, and Kutzbach, 2007), so 

replication of populations with narrow climatic niches 

not provide protection against novel climates, or sim

climates too far away for effective natural establishmen

new colonies. 

Amount of agreement: Low

This approach is sanctioned by conservationists, but pa

like those of Kutzbach et al. (2007) suggest it is insuffic

for promoting resilience of ecosystems in novel climat

Annex B.indd 8 nnex B.indd 8 
Amount of agreement: High

There is wide agreement in the science community that 

redundancy in refuges and species populations increases 

the logical and statistical likelihood that biodiversity will be 

preserved. There is some discussion regarding how much 

redundancy is required. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Amount of evidence: High

The same evidence is available for the last question 

(fisheries): maintaining multiple populations spreads the 

risk of total extinction. There is good evidence available for 

this risk reduction in fisheries. Less evidence is available for 

river insects and even less for ecosystem processes.

The critical piece of data needed (for fauna other than fish) is 

how far they disperse and what their dispersal requirements 

are. This is an important current research area because of 

the obvious conservation implications—if we know this 

then we can design the spatial arrangement of the protected 

“representative ecosystems/populations” in a way that 

allows organisms to disperse naturally (i.e., no transplants 

necessary).

Amount of agreement: High

The emerging interest and efforts by nongovernmental 

organizations to establish freshwater protected areas is a sign 

of the confidence that this approach is worthwhile. 

There has been extensive research in river networks to 

determine if there are particular configurations of river 

reaches that minimize extinction risk.

National Estuaries

Amount of evidence: Low

Oyster reef restoration done in replication along a depth 

gradient was shown to allow fish and crustaceans to survive 

when environmental degradation occurred that was depth

gggp

because so few studies of relevance have been don

There is agreement in concept that populations o

vertebrates such as fishes, birds, and mammals ben

replication. However, many such species, such as 

exhibit high faithfulness to natal sites; replication w

provide much if any benefit for them.

Marine Protected Areas

Amount of evidence: Low

There are numerous modeling studies of reserve n

(e.g., Allison, Lubchenco, and Carr, 1998), but empir

are lacking. Areas such as the Great Barrier Ree

Park and the Channel Islands National Marine S

should produce relevant results over time. This a

also might be ranked as moderate (per question 1)

Amount of agreement: High

Replication and representation in the marine li

generally go hand-in-hand; please refer to questi

literature citations. Again, a contrary line of evi

not known.

B6. ADAPTATION APPROACH: 

RESTORATION

Description: Rebuilding ecosystems that have bee

compromised.

Confidence: Is restoration of desired ecological 

ecological processes effective in supporting resi

climate change?

National Forests

Amount of evidence: High

There is a large body of literature describing and docu

restoration theory and practices across a wide v

ecosystems and ecological processes. 

Annex B.indd 9 nnex B.indd 9 
10

of variability ecological concept (Landres, Morgan, and 

Swanson, 1999). However, use of such strategies will become 

increasingly problematic as the potential for a “no analog” 

futures are realized (Millar, Westfall, and Delany, in press; 

Williams, Jackson, and Kutzbach, 2007).

The climate sensitivity of best management practices, genetic 

diversity guidelines, restoration treatments, and regeneration 

guidelines may need to be revisited. Space for evolutionary 

development under climate change may be important to 

incorporate into conservation and restoration programs 

under a changing climate (Rice and Emery, 2003). 

National Parks

Amount of evidence: High

Restoration of some species, such as wolves, into habitats 

where they have been extirpated has been highly successful 

by nearly all ecological standards. 

There are some examples showing that restoration of natural 

flow regimes in rivers by dam removal has been successful 

in restoring reproducing fish populations

There are at least several instances in the literature that 

decry the lack of restoration standards that allow managers 

to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration efforts (Bernhardt

et al., 2005). 

Restoration of wetlands or riparian areas has been shown 

to bring back some ecosystem services, such as nutrient or 

pollutant retention, but there is uncertainty among wetland 

scientists whether restoration activities truly reproduce 

natural conditions. 

Restoration of damaged systems will allow climate change 

to occur with fewer ecological disruptions than if soils have 

eroded, invasive species dominate, river banks are trampled, 

or pollutants contaminate native populations (discussed 

above in reducing anthropogenic stresses). 

to habitat restoration (e.g., Ecological Management 

Restoration, Restoration Ecology) as well as a professi

society dedicated to restoration ecology. In Haw

restoration of pasture lands to ohia koa forests resulte

recolonization by endangered birds. Re-creation of wetla

has been used widely and successfully to restore/att

migratory water birds. However, the magnitude of the 

response to restoration can vary due to (1) temporal sh

in habitat use by species, (2) scale of restoration in rela

to the desired population goals, (3) introduced spec

(4) long-term and large-scale ecological processes, o

barriers to recolonization. Further, few restoration stu

have been conducted in a controlled experimental des

and reoccupancy of restored habitats by native plants 

invertebrates is not well documented. Although ther

small-scale evidence for effectiveness of restoration, t

is little evaluation or evidence regarding the effective

at the larger scales of ecological processes that woul

necessary to provide resilience to climate change.

Amount of agreement: Low

There is little general agreement that restoring a des

ecological state or process will be effective in suppor

resilience to climate change. There is little logical sup

for the idea that restoring a state or a process to a histor

condition will provide resilience to climate change, bec

it is expected that the historical restored condition wil

longer be appropriate in a changed climate.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Amount of evidence: Low

Very little rigorous monitoring has been done on str

restoration. This is a very current area of research and 

are just starting to come in. The evidence suggests th

the restoration not only repairs the degraded portion o

stream but removes the stress, then the restoration is usu

successful. But if the restoration is a local fix, suc

regrading streambanks and stabilizing them without tak

4 Society for Ecological Restoration, http://www.ser.org/about

Annex B.indd 10 nnex B.indd 10 
extent the low agreement is that some scientists believe we 

must focus on what is done in reality while others focus on 

what is possible. 

National Estuaries

Amount of evidence: High

There are many studies of salt marsh restoration (beginning 

40 years ago with Spartina methods developed by Seneca, 

Woodhouse, and Broome). 

Similarly, a lot of effort has gone into oyster reef restoration 

and SAV restoration.

There is not much research on exterminating invasive 

estuarine species: Meloluca is everywhere along Florida 

waterways; Phragmites dominates many areas of East Coast 

marshes; San Francisco Bay suffers from persistent Spartina 

invasion, etc.

The value of positioning salt marsh restorations where 

transgressive retreat is possible is strongly supported in 

concept, although no empirical tests of the effectiveness 

with sea level rise exist, except for paleontological evidence 

(e.g., Bertness work) of substantial transgressions of marsh 

historically.

Amount of agreement: High

There is uniform agreement that salt marsh can be 

successfully restored.

Some challenges exist in assuring the durability of SAV and 

oyster reef restorations.

Nevertheless, there is also good agreement that exterminating 

invasives is generally infeasible for estuaries (although easier 

for large plants than for mobile animals or microbes).

There is high agreement in concept that building the capacity 

for transgression will provide a viable means for marshes 

and other shoreline habitats to become resilient to sea level 

rise.

degradation of marine ecosystems. Nevertheless, i

that evidence about effectiveness in supporting resi

climate change is low.

Amount of agreement: Low

There appears to be agreement among several 

(Halpin, 1997; Burke and Maidens, 2004; Salm, D

McLeod, 2006; references in Precht and Miller, 20

et al., 2006; Gunderson, 2007) but some question t

or potential for success of restoration efforts (J

Tupper, and Ridley, 2002; Hughes et al., 2007). J

Tupper, and Ridley (2002) note that expensive re

efforts are questionable unless environmental condi

healthy enough to warrant them.

B7. ADAPTATION APPROACH: 

REFUGIA

Description: Using areas relatively less affected by 

change as sources of “seed” for recovery or as des

for climate-sensitive migrants.

Confidence: Are refugia an effective way to pre

enhance resilience to climate change at the scale of 

communities or regional networks?

National Forests

Amount of evidence: High

The paleo literature has documented the presence o

under past climate changes. Local climate trajector

topography, and microclimatology interact in ways 

yield very different climate conditions than those 

broad-scale models. In mountainous terrain espec

climate landscape is patchy and highly variable, w

inversions, wind patterns, aspect differences, soil r

storm tracks, and hydrology influencing the wea

a site experiences. Sometimes lower elevations 

refugial during warming conditions, as in inversio

basins, deep and narrow canyons, riparian zones, a

slopes. Such patterns, and occupation of them b

during transitional climate periods, are corroborat

Annex B.indd 11 nnex B.indd 11 
12

Wenatchee National Forest were uniquely identifiable. These 

populations provided both adapted germplasm and local 

seed sources for advance colonization as climates naturally 

changed toward favoring the species. 

Amount of agreement: Low

While the literature has documented these refugia either in 

the paleo record or on current landscapes, the use of this 

technique as an adaptation option has been little tested.

National Parks

Amount of evidence: Low

A refugium implies a place where climate conditions will 

remain similar to present conditions so that species can 

persist. According to Williams, Jackson, and Kutzbach 

(2007) many parts of the world will acquire novel climates 

unseen before on Earth. Selecting, and then protecting, 

specific habitats for species may in the long run be a matter 

of chance. 

Some very high elevation habitats may provide refugia for 

cold-loving species such as tundra and pika. High elevation 

streams where non-native fish can be excluded with natural 

barriers might provide refugia for cold-water fishes. 

Phenological changes that accompany climate change may 

disrupt mutualistic species associations, regardless of the 

availability of refugia. 

Amount of agreement: Low

Species are currently migrating north and to high elevations 

as climate changes. Preselecting areas to serve as refuges for 

individual species or assemblages might or might not work 

to protect them, with the exception of the high elevations or 

latitudes where cold-loving species may persist. Therefore, 

there is low agreement.

projected climate refugia have no wildlife refuges. T

is some evidence that refugia will often be found at 

ecological or geographical extremes of species ranges. 

Amount of agreement: Low

There is generally low agreement that refugia wil

effective at preserving resilience to climate change a

scales, from species to regions. Creating refugia f

climate change is not possible; refugia will emerg

response to heterogeneity in landscape characteristics 

realized climate change. Further, it is difficult to projec

explicit location of future climate change refugia at sc

that are ecologically relevant or useful for identifying 

sites for strategic growth of the refuge system, particular

the scale of individual refuges. There may be opportun

to take advantage of emerging refugia, particularly 

threatened/endangered species or small scale habi

but refugia will be difficult to impossible to manag

the adaptive management framework. Predicting spe

specific responses to potential refugia will be a challen

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Amount of evidence: High

There is good evidence that small-scale, local refu

(within-channel such as diverse habitat types) are impor

to the survival of stream plants and animals, if those a

are protected from significant disturbance events suc

unusual floods or droughts. This is directly tied to resilie

because these local refugia act as a protective place f

which surviving organisms can disperse. These disper

individuals then reproduce and re-populate areas denu

of biota.

There is some evidence for plants and fish, but little evid

to date for smaller organisms, that some habitat ty

even if widely dispersed, can act as refugia for mode

to large scale (landscape scale) disturbances. Exam

include distant floodplains, tributaries that remain inta

undisturbed, or any region that for some reason is prote

from the full brunt of a disturbance. Thus, resilience at b

Annex B.indd 12 nnex B.indd 12 
little about its dispersal abilities. If we protect or establish 

in-stream or regional refugia, but organisms can not move to 

areas formerly affected by disturbances such as those related 

to climate change, then the value of the refugia is somewhat 

reduced. However, because we should be able in most or all 

cases to transport the biota ourselves (seed, larvae, nymphs, 

juveniles, etc) using some management programs, this 

concern is minor. Thus, most river ecologists would strongly 

agree that provision of refugia is a great way to enhance 

long term resilience in the face of climate change. In fact, 

use of such approaches (setting aside “preserves,” which 

are a form of refugia) is already in place in some cases, on 

the advice of scientific boards in advance of any research 

or data showing that there is high agreement. 

National Estuaries

Amount of evidence: Low

There has been little work done on this topic in estuaries. 

However, if features such as oyster reefs are restored in 

replication along a depth gradient or along some other 

environmental gradient, then when perturbations occur that 

are depth-dependent or vary in intensity along the gradient, 

one end of the gradient is more likely to serve as a refugium 

into which mobile species can escape the threat or impact 

of the perturbation. This is illustrated by the Lenihan et al.

(2001) example, in which fish and crabs escape hypoxia/

anoxia (which can be climate change-induced) that develops 

in deep water by retreating to shallow water refugia.

Relative sea level rise does vary geographically, so some 

salt marsh systems may be able to build soils at rates fast 

enough to keep up with sea level rise for a relatively long 

time. However, patterns of geographic distribution in 

relative rates of sea level rise are too coarse geographically 

to enable “surviving” estuaries to be successful refugia and 

sources of migrants. Most estuarine fishes and most marine 

invertebrates possess highly dispersive planktonic larvae, so 

there may be some value to refugia at these large distances, 

but little information is available.

Marine Protected Areas

Amount of evidence: Low

A number of authors note the potential value of refu

McClanahan, Polunin, and Done, 2002; West an

2003; Coles and Brown, 2003; Salm, Done, and M

2006; Marshall and Schuttenberg, 2006).5 Neve

experimental or empirical evidence is limited (e.

and Piller, 2003).

Amount of agreement: High

Both the more-speculative as well as at least one e

study are consistent, so agreement is consider

high.

B8. ADAPTATION APPROACH: 

RELOCATION

Description: Human-facilitated transplanting of or

from one location to another in order to bypass 

(e.g., urban area).

Confidence: Is relocation an effective way to 

system-wide (regional) resilience by moving spe

would not otherwise be able to emigrate in res

climate change?

National Forests

Amount of evidence: High

For plants, relocation has been a common techn

commercial plant species. Provenance studies dem

the appropriateness of different germplasm, and man

is based on the likelihood of planting different prov

across widely scattered landscapes and within lan

5 See also Salm, R.V. and S.L. Coles, 2001: Coral bleachin

rine protected areas. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on M

Coral Bleaching Impact Through MPA Design [Salm

S.L. Coles (eds.)]. Proceedings of the Coral Bleaching a

Protected Areas, pp. 1-118.

 See chapters in Johnson, J. and P. Marshall, 2007: Clima

and the Great Barrier Reef: a Vulnerability Assessm

Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Annex B.indd 13 nnex B.indd 13 
14

more broadly.

National Parks

Amount of evidence: Low

Some studies have shown successful colonization of native 

after removal of invasive species; aggressive control of 

invasives followed by restoration of native species might 

be successful in preventing, or slowing, the establishment 

of unwanted species. 

This approach is not well understood, particularly with 

respect to system-wide resilience. 

Amount of agreement: Low

Relocation of desired species may allow that species to 

persist, but ecosystems are made up of complex webs of 

living organisms, including insects, soil flora and fauna, 

and many other types of organisms that would not be 

relocated. 

There is little agreement about whether relocation would 

increases system resilience.

National Wildlife Refuges

Amount of evidence: Low

Translocation of species is a very common species-specific 

management tool. However few of these efforts are conducted 

with appropriate experimental design. Translocation has 

been successfully used to introduce game species around 

the globe. Efforts to use translocation for establishing or 

re-establishing populations of threatened or endangered 

species have been highly variable in their success. Synthesis 

studies indicate that success is very dependent on quality 

of available habitat and the mitigation of stressors at 

translocation site prior to relocation. Movement of a species 

across a dispersal barrier (e.g., fish over dams) assumes 

that suitable habitat is available beyond the barrier and the 

uncertainty of climate change challenges that assumption. 

Climate change projections engender a fear that changes 

in habitat will result in the loss of species on refuges as 

There is generally low agreement that relocation will b

effective way to promote system-wide (regional) resilienc

climate change. Ethical concerns regarding the unpredict

effects on other species and communities that result f

introducing a species into a previously unoccupied ha

are notable; it is not clear that the net effect of transloca

will be positive at the system-wide scale. Relocation 

be effective at smaller scales; for example, in the case 

threatened or endangered non-disperser that was unli

to negatively affect a suitable target area.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Amount of evidence: Low

While fish have been translocated and are able to survi

put into an appropriate reach, there is no evidence that 

will end up promoting system-wide recovery. Most scien

would say the more critical thing for system wide reco

is removing the “insult” to the system. With climate cha

that will be pretty hard to do. If you can move the spe

to a totally new watershed where the climate is appropr

then it is hard to say.

Amount of agreement: Low

Some scientists speculate that we may be able to, 

example, shift fish species from lower latitude/altit

places that have become too warm to higher latitude/alti

places that are appropriate under future climates. Howe

others will argue that even if the temperature is compara

getting the flow conditions and ecosystem processes tha

needed to support the species in the long-run is unlike

National Estuaries

Amount of evidence: N/A

Little, if any, work has been done transplanting estua

species to overcome dispersal barriers to latitudinal sh

largely because so many estuarine species are actu

highly dispersive at some life stage. Therefore, it is 

Annex B.indd 14 nnex B.indd 14 
An assessment of “relocation” as a management approach is 

not made for MPAs because advanced web searches on all 

the major literature databases result in very little information 

on the concept of relocation as defined in this report. 

Amount of agreement: N/A

Since there is virtually no scientific evidence and little 

discussion of relocation as it would apply to MPAs, it is not 

applicable to discuss level of agreement in this approach at 

this time. However, such an approach should not necessarily 

be written off as a future option; despite the cost, relocation 

may become an attractive option to managers of small, 

secluded, higher-impacted reef environments.

Annex B.indd 15 nnex B.indd 15 
Information Offi ce (GCRIO) web site: 

http://www.gcrio.org/orders 

Climate Change Science Program and the 

Subcommittee on Global Change Research

William J. Brennan, Chair 

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Acting Director, Climate Change Science Program 

Jack Kaye, Vice Chair 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Allen Dearry 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Jerry Elwood 

Department of Energy 

Mary Glackin 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Patricia Gruber 

Department of Defense 

William Hohenstein 

Department of Agriculture 

Linda Lawson 

Department of Transportation 

Mark Myers 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Jarvis Moyers 

National Science Foundation 

Patrick Neale 

Smithsonian Institution 

Jacqueline Schafer 

U.S. Agency for International Development 

Joel Scheraga 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Harlan Watson 

Department of State 

Executive Office and Other Liaisons

Stuart Levenbach 

Office of Management and Budget 

Stephen Eule 

Department of Energy 

Director, Climate Change Technology Program

Katharine Gebbie 

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Margaret McCalla 

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorolog

Bob Rainey 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Gene Whitney 

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Back Covers.indd 1 ack Covers.indd 1 
2

U.S. Climate Change Science Program

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW • Suite 250 • Washington, D.C. 20006 US

1-202-223-6262 (voice) • 1-202-223-3065 (fax)

http://www.climatescience.gov

Back Covers.indd 2 ack Covers.indd 2