U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

52–524 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 111–94 

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON NATIONAL 

PARKS IN COLORADO 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TO

CONSIDER CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON NATIONAL PARKS IN 

COLORADO AND RELATED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

ESTES PARK, CO, AUGUST 24, 2009 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

MARK UDALL, Colorado Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JEFF BINGAMAN and LISA MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Frost, Herbert C., Associate Director for Natural Resource Stewardship and 

Science, National Park Service , Department of the Interior ........................... 5 

Madden, Alice, Climate Change Coordinator, Office of the Governor, Denver, 

CO .......................................................................................................................... 19

McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Arizona .................................................. 3 

Saunders, Stephen, President, Rocky Mountain Climate Organization, Denver, CO .................................................................................................................. 25 

Schimel, David, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric 

Research, and Chief Executive Officer, National Ecological Observatory 

Network, Inc., Boulder, CO ................................................................................. 15 

Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado ................................................... 1 

(1) 

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON NATIONAL 

PARKS IN COLORADO 

MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Estes Park, CO. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12 p.m., in the 

Board Room of Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue, Hon. Mark 

Udall presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM COLORADO 

Senator UDALL. This subcommittee hearing will come to order. 

We want to welcome everybody. I have a short statement for the 

record, and then I’ll turn to Senator McCain, and then we’ll turn 

to hearing from our witnesses. 

The purpose of this afternoon’s hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks is to consider climate change impacts 

on national parks in Colorado and related management activities. 

As chairman of the subcommittee, I understand that the impacts 

of climate change are a major management challenge for the National Park Service. I wanted to hold a hearing in Colorado because 

these impacts are an issue of particular importance, not only for 

Rocky Mountain National Park and other national parks and forests, but they also reflect an emerging area of concern for our agricultural communities, for our larger economy, and even pose implications for our national security. We will not address the full scope 

of global climate change at this hearing, but we will endeavor to 

look through this through the unique lens of the national parks. 

Our national parks are national treasures. They embody the diverse beauty of the American landscape, as well as our history and 

culture as a people. We must do all we can to preserve and protect 

them while also continuing to provide public access and enjoyment 

to future generations of Americans. 

There are a number of important issues facing our national 

parks, from budget shortfalls to increased use and recreational 

pressures. They are also not immune from the larger issues facing 

our Nation and the globe. 

To a large degree, our national parks are the canary in the coal 

mine when it comes to the on-the-ground effects of a warming climate, and that’s especially true for our western parks and the park 

right down the street from this hearing room, Rocky Mountain National Park. It’s clear that these impacts are real, significant, and 
2 

can have lasting effects on our resources and our ability to protect 

them. 

So, today’s hearing is focused on what is happening in parks due 

to climate change, how these impacts are being assessed and monitored, how these impacts my be affecting visitor experiences, and 

some thoughts on what we can do with the parks, directly, to help 

address these impacts. 

A wiser person than I described the challenge with these words, 

‘‘The threat to our world comes not only from tyrants and their 

tanks; it can be more insidious, though less visible. The danger of 

global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make 

changes and sacrifices so that we do not live at the expense of future generations. Our ability to come together to stop or limit damage to the world’s environment will be perhaps the greatest test of 

how far we can act as a world community. No one should underestimate the imagination that will be required, nor the scientific effort, nor the unprecedented cooperation we shall have to show. We 

shall need statesmanship of a rare order. It’s because we know 

that, that we are here today.’’ That was Margaret Thatcher speaking in 1990. 

Today, nearly 2 decades later, her words are still relevant and 

even more pressing. She was right about the challenge and right 

about the need for statesmanship. It’s encouraging that we finally 

have an administration in Washington, DC, that is taking this 

issue seriously. 

I’m also fortunate to be joined today by a leader in the United 

States Senate who’s shown statesmanship and courage on this 

issue and so many other issues, and that’s Senator John McCain. 

Senator McCain and I took a brief tour of Rocky Mountain National Park this morning and, in addition to that, yesterday, we 

took a wonderful hike along the MacGregor Ranch periphery and 

met some very interesting wildlife. Probably the most interesting 

wildlife are the rock climbers—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL [continuing]. Of whom I’m a member of that 

tribe. But, I know Senator McCain will speak to our experiences at 

some point. But yesterday and today, we had a chance to look at 

the climate change impacts that are occurring right in this national 

park. 

Now, unfortunately, the sorts of things we saw, such as trees 

killed by a bark-beetle epidemic that’s been exacerbated by the 

warming climate, are not limited to this park, but are being felt 

throughout the national park system. I’m looking forward to learning about these impacts and the challenges we face in mitigating 

and confronting them. I intend to work with my colleagues on this 

committee and in the Senate and the Congress to respond to the 

needs and challenges presented by climate change and the myriad 

of other issues affecting our parks. 

Let me thank Mayor Pinkham and the Estes Park Town Board, 

for hosting us today, as well as Jackie Williamson, the town clerk, 

for all of her help getting us set up here in this important town 

of Estes Park. 

I’m very pleased to be joined by my good friend Senator McCain. 

We spent the previous 2 days in Grand Canyon National Park in 
3 

northern Arizona. Senator McCain has graciously reciprocated, 

traveled up to our great State of Colorado. I’d like to turn to Senator McCain for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ARIZONA 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling today’s hearing to highlight the mounting affects of climate 

change on our national park systems. 

I also would like to thank the Estes Park mayor and city council, 

and all who made this hearing possible, and thank you, the citizens, for coming today and showing your concern on this very important issue. 

I might add a small item of trivia. This is not the first Chairman 

Udall that I have had the honor of serving with, and—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MCCAIN. I must say that, in every respect, the apple 

didn’t fall very far from the tree, and I’m very grateful for the opportunity of serving with Senator Mark Udall. 

I, again, want to appreciate—express my appreciation that Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, as well as Senator Udall, joined us 

in the Grand Canyon National Park, and it’s a great pleasure to 

be here. 

We’re not here today to discuss the complexities of cap-and-trade 

legislation or to debate national energy policy. Today’s hearing 

rises above politics as an examination of how a warming world is 

reshaping our cherished national parks. 

I’ve spent considerable time studying the issue of climate change, 

and a common misperception is that this is a crisis that’s down the 

road, a future generation’s problem, or that global warming is limited to the distant reaches of the Earth. I’ve traveled the globe to 

see firsthand how it’s changing the lives of people in Alaska, Australia, New Zealand, South America, Norway, and other parts of 

the Arctic region. But, the startling reality is, you no longer need 

to journey to faraway places to experience the effects of climate 

change. 

A report released last month by the United States Global Change 

Research Program, which is a consortium of experts from 13 

United States Government science agencies, several major research 

institutions, offers the most up-to-date scientific findings, which reaffirm, with even greater clarity and persuasiveness, that which we 

already know: climate change is real. It’s happening now, and it’s 

happening right here in the United States of America. 

Average United States temperature has risen by 1 and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the last 50 years. Winters are now shorter 

and warmer than they were 30 years ago. With the largest winter 

temperature rise, more than 7 degrees Fahrenheit, observed in the 

Midwest and northern Great Plains. In the Southwest, warming 

has been among the most rapid and severe, driving declines in 

spring snowpack and affecting measurable changes to Colorado 

River flow. 

But, this issue has gone beyond calculating temperature averages and projecting computer models. When it comes to the visible 

signs of climate change in the United States, our national parks— 
4 

our national parks—have been likened to the miner’s canary. Just 

over the past two decades, warmer and shorter winters linked to 

global warming have intensified bark-beetle outbreaks, as you can 

see every day, and doubled tree mortality rates in seemingly 

healthy conifer stands in much of the West, including in the Grand 

Canyon and the Rocky Mountain region. In the Virgin Islands National Park—the Virgin Islands National Park—abnormally elevated water temperatures in the Caribbean are contributing to 

coral bleaching. In Apostle Islands National Park, a loss of winter 

ice in the Great Lakes is disrupting fish reproduction and bird 

habitat. In the Sonoran Desert, longer summers and prolonged 

drought are fueling cactus-killing brush fires and prompting 

invasive plant growth at places like Saguaro and Joshua Tree National Parks. 

These are but a few examples of the changes that we’re seeing 

in our Nation’s 58 national parks and over 300 national monuments, trails, and other park units. 

In 2016, the National Park Service will celebrate its 100th anniversary. As our world continues to warm, we must ask ourselves, 

What will our parks look like in another 100 years? What will become of their native wildlife habitat? How do we adopt our management practices to preserve our parks for the enjoyment of future 

generations? How will already complex issues, like balancing recreation with natural beauty, become even more challenging in the 

face of decreased snowpack or prolonged drought? 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I’m equally interested to hear from today’s 

witnesses about the changing conditions of our national parks. Climate change necessitates that we rethink park conservation, and 

I thank you for raising awareness about this important issue, and 

I thank the witnesses for being here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Before we hear from this exciting and well-informed expert 

panel, let me speak to a few administrative issues. 

This is a formal subcommittee hearing; it’s not a town-hall meeting. As such, we will take testimony from select witnesses, and we 

will not be taking public comments or questions. However, if you 

want to submit written testimony for the hearing record, you may 

do so by sending it to the subcommittee in Washington or to one 

of my offices here in Colorado. We will keep the record of the hearing open for 2 weeks following today’s hearing, so you could summit those comments. 

Let me add one last note. This is an important hearing on the 

topic at hand, but if you have other comments or questions that 

you don’t want to make a part of the official congressional record 

for the hearing, we have distributed comment cards throughout the 

room, and I’d like to hear from you. Fill it out. I have a number 

of my staff members here. We take your comments and your input 

very, very seriously. 

So, with that, we’re going to turn to our panel of experts. I’m 

going to ask each of them to summarize their written testimony in 

a—generally, a 5-minute timeframe. Your full written testimony 

will be made a part of the official committee hearing record. 
5 

Let me do this, I’ll introduce each panelist in turn, so that, as 

you prepare to give your remarks, the audience is clearly aware of 

your background and your interest. 

So, we’ll start with Dr. Herbert Frost, who’s the associate director for the—natural resource stewardship and science for the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior. 

Dr. Frost, the floor is yours for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HERBERT C. FROST, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR 

FOR NATURAL RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP AND SCIENCE, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the 

Department of the Interior on climate change impacts to the national parks across the Nation, including Colorado. 

Because of the close link between this community and Rocky 

Mountain National Park, we are pleased that you chose to hold this 

field hearing here in Estes Park. Just like to also say that it was 

a pleasure to spend some time with you and Senator McCain this 

morning out in the park, to actually see the effects of what’s going 

on there. Oftentimes, we talk about these things in boardrooms and 

committee rooms, and we don’t get out on the ground to see what’s 

going on, and it’s a refreshing pleasure to have had that experience 

with you today. 

Climate change is potentially the most far-reaching and consequential challenge to the National Park Service mission in our 

history, challenging the foundation of the national park system and 

the ability to leave America’s natural and cultural heritage 

unimpaired for future generation. 

Parks are already experiencing impacts from a changing climate. 

Warming temperatures are accelerating the melting of glaciers and 

snow fields in parks like Glacier and North Cascades and throughout Alaska. Alaska parks are experiencing dramatic effects. Melting sea ice threatens marine mammals and coastal communities. 

Thawing permafrost can destabilize buildings, roads, and facilities. 

Coastal parks are also extremely vulnerable. The NPS manages 

74 coastal units, encompassing more than 5,100 miles of coast, and 

over 3 million acres of marine resources, including beaches, wetlands, estuaries, coral reefs, and kelp forests. Sea-level rise threatens the remains of some of the earliest human-occupation sites, 

dating back over 10,000 years. 

Here at Rocky Mountain, high temperatures and drought have 

triggered a bark-beetle outbreak visible in the dead and dying pine 

trees in the West Slope, and the skeletons of 800-year-old limber 

pines. Warming temperatures are also a factor in the expansion of 

one of the West’s most noxious weeds. Cheatgrass is now found at 

elevations in the park up to 9,500 feet. Preliminary data suggests 

that picas are also being affected because they don’t tolerate high 

temperatures. 

As climate warms, mountain ecosystems become more fragmented, making it harder for other species, such as elk and bighorn sheep, to migrate, or connect to subpopulations, potentially 

compromising the genetic integrity and health of those populations. 
6 

To effectively respond to these challenges of climate change, the 

Department is undertaking a collective and coordinated strategy 

that builds on and expands existing partnerships. 

Adaptation planning and implementation is a critical area for the 

future. This involves building our science information and ecosystem monitoring capacity for sound decisionmaking by park managers. Begun almost 9 years ago, the National Park Service Vital 

Signs Monitoring Program is strategically positioned to help parks 

acquire the information they need to make informed decisions so 

that park managers can be flexible in the face of climate change. 

Toward this end, the National Park Service is working with the 

USGS and other partners toward a scenario-planning approach designed to help manager identify—managers identify policies and 

actions that will be most effective across a range of potential futures. Four case studies have already been conducted, and 12 more 

are planned in 2010. The NPS is also leading by example in reducing our carbon footprint and promoting sustainable operations. Energy Smart Parks and Climate Friendly Parks are two of these key 

programs. 

Climate Friendly Parks was created with the Environmental Protection Agency, in 2003, to promote sustainable operations and create climate action plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Almost 60 parks, including Rocky Mountain, now participate. 

The Pacific West region has a very ambitious leadership initiative that supports—that also supports reducing our carbon footprint. The 58 parks in the region have set a target of carbon-neutral for park operations by 2016, and they now generate over 4 percent of their energy from renewable resources. 

Parks can also serve as a platform to effectively communicate 

about climate change. With 275 million visitors annually, the NPS 

is ideally positioned to raise awareness and provide information 

about solutions. A number of efforts are underway, including a 

monthly Web-based seminar featuring climate change experts; a 

climate change wildlife and wildlands toolkit for K–12 students; a 

series of biogeographic impact summaries with focus on national 

parks and refuges; and some pilot-interpretive products and training, such as those that have been developed here at Rocky Mountain. 

Looking forward, the NPS has a goal of every park having climate change information available through brochures, wayside exhibits, interpretive programs and handouts and park Websites. 

While efforts to date are significant, much work lies ahead. The 

Park Service must position itself to respond to the effects of climate 

change on park resources and to prescribe management actions 

that are suitable for parks. National parks are environmental baselines to track changes, and they stand as some of the last vestiges 

where ecological components function naturally. In order to protect 

these treasured landscapes, we must take responsibility for understanding how climate change will impact the national parks, develop science-based plans for adapting, and take steps to improve 

the resiliency of natural systems by reducing other stresses on 

park. 

Finally, the Department and the NPS must lead by example in 

minimizing our carbon footprint, promoting sustainable practices, 
7 

and communicating both the scientific evidence and the choices we 

make to our partners and the public. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statements. I’ll be pleased to 

answer any questions. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HERBERT C. FROST, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP AND SCIENCE, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to present testimony on the role of the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the 

National Park Service (NPS) in addressing climate change impacts on National 

Parks in Colorado and related management activities. Accompanying me today are 

Dr. Leigh Welling, Climate Change Coordinator for the National Park Service and 

Vaughn Baker, Superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park. 

Secretary Salazar has prioritized the issue of climate change within the Department of the Interior. He is in the process of designing a climate change strategy 

to integrate the work of each Bureau to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate 

change in the pursuit of each Bureau’s mission-this includes the National Park 

Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Geological Survey, Bureau of Land 

Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Reclamation, and Minerals Management Service. In 2008 the Department of Interior had a multi-agency taskforce 

that put forth a number of recommendations relating to climate change adaptation 

and mitigation activities. The Department works closely on many levels with the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the United States 

Forest Service (USFS) in addition to other federal agencies in coordinating activities 

relating to climate change. 

An integration of science, adaptive management tools, and other resources across 

the Federal Government is essential to the DOI’s mission to address climate change 

across all federal lands, wildlife, and cultural and natural resources (including mitigation, adaptation, and communication/engagement strategies) and to the NPS’ mission to do the same. We are pleased that you chose Estes Park Colorado as the site 

of this field hearing. This mountain community is inextricably linked to Rocky 

Mountain National Park and the loss of resources due to climate change affects both 

the park and the surrounding towns and their economies. 

Climate change is potentially the most far-reaching and consequential challenge 

to our mission than any previously encountered in the entire history of the NPS. 

In setting aside Yellowstone National Park in 1872, Congress stated that the purpose of the park was: 

preservation, from injury or spoliation, of all timber, mineral deposits, 

natural curiosities, or wonders, within the park, and their retention in their 

natural condition. 

This concept of ‘‘retention in their natural condition’’ became the cornerstone of 

our National Park System when Congress passed the National Park Service Organic 

Act, which states that the mission of the NPS is: 

. . . to promote and regulate the use of the... national parks... which 

purpose is 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. 

Climate change challenges the very foundation of the National Park System and 

our ability to leave America’s natural and cultural heritage unimpaired for future 

generations. Our national park units can serve as the proverbial canary in the coal 

mine, a place where we can monitor and document ecosystem change without many 

of the stressors that are found on other public lands. 

DOI and the NPS are rising to this challenge, and today my testimony will focus 

on four major areas. First, our observations of the effects and potential future 

changes related to climate change in national park units. Second, the actions and 

programs we have underway to prepare for the current and anticipated changes 

from climate change. Third, some of the actions the NPS plans to undertake in the 

coming years. Fourth, some other considerations related to climate change. 
8 

THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NATIONAL PARK UNITS

Parks are already experiencing some dramatic impacts that may be resulting from 

climate change. Warming temperatures may be accelerating melting of mountain 

glaciers in national parks such as Glacier and North Cascades while perennial 

snowfields throughout Alaska are disappearing. Reduced snowpack and changes in 

the timing and amount of stream flow affect aquatic communities. Alaskan parks 

are seeing some of the earliest impacts of possible climate change—melting sea ice 

threatens marine mammals as well as coastal communities, while thawing permafrost can destabilize buildings, roads, and facilities and disrupt the structural basis 

of large regions of interior lands. In Yosemite and Great Basin National Parks, we 

have documented high-elevation species, such as the pika and alpine chipmunk, 

moving upslope, thereby reducing the effective area for their survival; this upslope 

migration may be attributable to changes in climate. 

Here at Rocky Mountain National Park (park) high temperatures and drought 

have contributed to a bark beetle outbreak unprecedented in the park’s history. The 

effects are noticeable in the red lodgepole, limber, and ponderosa pine trees most 

visible on the west slope and in the skeletons of 800 year-old limber pines. Dead 

trees have replaced much of the green canopy that shaded park campgrounds. The 

park has committed to removing approximately one million hazard trees over the 

next five years to ensure human safety around buildings, parking lots, and other 

developed areas. The USFS is tackling this problem outside of park boundaries. 

Fire frequency and intensity may also be related to climate change. NPS data indicates that fire ignitions are occurring both earlier and later in the season now and 

the average duration of time that a wildfire burns has increased from less than 10 

days to more than a month. Fires in some places may be increasing in frequency 

and intensity, threatening native plant communities and contributing to the spread 

of invasive exotic species (Westerling et al. 2006). Wildland fire frequency and intensity can have a significant impact on cultural resources, as hotter fires and our efforts to fight them directly damage buried archeological sites. 

Ongoing climate changes are expected to include modified patterns of precipitation and runoff, and changes in hydrologic regimes and the availability of water to 

park ecosystems. Recent literature on climate change suggests: increased precipitation, streamflow, and runoff in the Northwestern and Eastern United States will increase flood risks; warming temperatures will reduce mountain snowpack, and cause 

earlier spring snowmelt runoff across the Western United States and Alaska; and 

drought severity and duration will intensify in the Western and Southwestern 

United States. (IPCC 2007) 

Here in Colorado it is expected that the amount of precipitation stored as 

snowpack will decrease, and annual snowmelt will commence earlier in the spring 

with the overall effect of decreasing the volume of water available annually for storage in Colorado River basin reservoirs (IPCC 2007). It is also thought that there 

will be increased year-to-year variability in basin hydrologic conditions and decreased certainty as to the amount of annual water production (Guido 2008 and 

Knowles et al 2006). Given the present allocation of Basin water resources and the 

ever increasing demand for water in the Southwest, even moderate decreases in 

streamflow will present challenges to both water and park resource managers. 

Coastal parks are extremely vulnerable to climate change. The NPS manages 74 

coastal units encompassing more than 5,100 miles of coast and three million acres 

of submerged resources including beaches, wetlands, estuaries, coral reefs, and kelp 

forests. These parks attract more than 75 million visitors every year, and generate 

over $2.5 billion in economic benefits to local communities. The United States Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product on Coastal Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise (2009) states: 

Critical coastal ecosystems such as wetlands, estuaries, and coral reefs 

are particularly vulnerable to climate change. Such ecosystems are among 

the most biologically productive environments in the world. 

These coastal ecosystems are significant habitats for the production and health of 

recreationally and commercially valuable fish and shellfish, they provide important 

environmental services, and offer beautiful landscapes for marine recreation and 

wildlife watching. A major finding of the United States government’s recently-released landmark report, Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009), is 

that these ecosystems are predicted to undergo significant stress as a result of climate change 

Shorelines and park boundaries will change as sea level rises resulting in a net 

loss where parks cannot migrate inland. At Everglades National Park, rising seas 

may overwhelm the mangrove communities that filter out saltwater and maintain 
9 

the freshwater wetlands. Indeed, changes have already been observed as coral 

bleaching and disease caused by increased sea surface temperatures led to the loss 

of more than 50 percent of reef-building corals in the Virgin Islands park units since 

2005 (IPCC 2007, Hoegh-Guldberg 1999, Buddemeier 2004). Increasing the resilience and adaptive capacity of coastal ecosystems will be critical to maintaining 

their enormous biological value and ecological services to the Nation and local communities. NPS’s Organic Act uniquely positions us to work cooperatively with other 

federal agencies, states, local agencies and the public to address the cumulative impacts of overfishing, pollution, and coastal development that increase the vulnerability of these valuable ecosystems to the effects of climate change. 

While some impacts from climate change are already measurable, the long-range 

effects of climate disruption on park natural and cultural resources, infrastructure, 

and visitor experience are just beginning to be understood. The policy implications 

for protecting species in a rapidly changing climate are complex and without precedent. 

Cultural resources will also be significantly affected by climate change, primarily 

due to increased erosion from rising seas and more intense storm (and hurricane) 

surge. Rising sea levels are already damaging archeological sites, historic structures, and cultural landscapes such as Fort Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas and 

Jamestown. Sea level rise and storms threaten the tangible remains of some of the 

earliest human occupation sites, dating back over 10,000 years, along the west 

coast, as well as associated Native American burial grounds at places like Channel 

Islands National Park and shell middens on the Gulf Coast of Everglades National 

Park. Alternately, decreasing lake levels expose vulnerable archeological resources 

and critical park infrastructure in places like Lake Mead National Recreation Area. 

Our Nation’s maritime history, including lighthouses from Massachusetts to Oregon, 

historic forts including Fort Jefferson and Fort Sumter, and historic coastal communities also face threats from rising seas and more intense storm surges. 

The 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) created 10 

Alaskan parks and expanded parklands by 43 million acres. It also recognized the 

critical importance of access to subsistence resources found in parks, including fish, 

game, and plants, to both Native and non-Native residents of rural Alaska, and directly linked this access to their continued physical, economic, social, traditional, 

and cultural existence. While the threats that climate change poses to salmon, caribou, and seals may be viewed as threats to natural resources, they also clearly 

challenge our ability to provide appropriate subsistence opportunities to local rural 

residents around our units in Alaska. 

Many questions exist regarding how physical processes, species populations, and 

ecosystems will respond to a changing climate. The science of predicting the complexities of these interactions over relatively long periods of time is highly uncertain, yet the NPS is committed to working with our sister agencies within the Department to understand and monitor the effects of climate change on park resources 

and ecosystems. The focus of the climate change discussion has largely shifted from 

the evidence to what we can do about it. As stewards of our Nation’s natural and 

cultural heritage, we have an obligation to act now. 

THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AT ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK

Twenty years ago cheatgrass, one of the west’s most noxious weeds, occurred only 

below 8,000 feet. It is now found at elevations in Rocky Mountain National Park 

up to 9,500 feet (Pilkington 2009). Although climate change is likely not the only 

factor in its expansion, this weed overwinters as a seedling and is therefore poised 

to take advantage of the warm spring weather typical of our changing climate. 

Ungulates are also responding to changes in their environment. This year the 

park embarked on a plan to manage elk and vegetation. The plan was needed because with the absence of predators and loss of historical migration routes elk have 

been overbrowsing in their park winter range. Elk winter range includes riparian 

areas that historically were centers of biodiversity and beaver constructed water 

storage. Restoring wetlands to full health is crucial to helping many species adapt 

to changing conditions because healthy ecosystems are generally more resilient to 

change. Scientists studying climate change and public lands repeatedly note the importance of minimizing other ecological stressors, such as overbrowsing and air pollution (Julius 2008). 

Published evidence indicates that recent warming may have resulted in a pulse 

of nitrate appearing in a watershed monitored within the park. This nitrogen release is believed to be a sign that old ice, perhaps thousands of years old, is melting 

from between the rocks in alpine watersheds exposing weathering products previously covered by ice (Baron 2009). To date, rock glacier ice has helped buffer 
10 

streams during drought periods. With climate warming hydrologists expect that this 

ice will melt completely and late season stream flows will be greatly diminished 

(Baron 2009). 

Our trees are also rapidly changing. United States Geological Survey (USGS) biologists used long-term records from late successional land to document significant 

trends in earlier tree death without the compensating growth of young seedlings. 

Although work continues to more definitively tie tree death to climate change, foresters are very concerned about these findings because North American forests are 

generally shown in climate models as carbon sinks. Tree death, whatever the cause, 

results in carbon release. The widespread pattern of tree death, including death due 

to insect attacks and fire, means that models may need to be adjusted to reflect another net source of greenhouse gas (van Mantgem 2009). 

Pikas, or rock rabbits, delight park visitors every year but are especially sensitive 

to warming. Because of their warm coats, they are unable to tolerate temperatures 

above 78 degrees Fahrenheit for even an hour. Last year seven known historic locations for pika in the park were checked and pikas were still present in five locations 

but missing in two, the lowest (and warmest) sites. Although investigations continue, this preliminary data suggests pikas are being affected (Peterson 2009). As 

climate warming proceeds, alpine environments will likely become smaller and more 

fragmented, making it harder for true alpine species, such as pika, to migrate or 

connect with others of their kind. 

Rocky Mountain National Park is a Climate Friendly Park with a commitment 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below the 2005 level of 3,540 metric tons by 2017. In 2007 the park formed a Green Team. The team provides an 

interdisciplinary approach to assist in implementing sustainable practices, promoting environmentally responsible behavior, and to help the park serve as a role 

model for environmental stewardship. Important outreach through 

DoYourPartParks.org and messaging in various venues (including podcasts, park 

newspaper, and shuttle buses) continues to inform park visitors and staff about 

ways they can minimize impacts to their Climate Friendly Park. 

The park has recently qualified for DOI-NPS energy audit funding to identify priority energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. With the approved funding, 

the audit will be conducted by a utility company, audit contractor, or through the 

University National Park Energy Partnership Program. The park is working to 

partner with Colorado universities and/or the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to refine energy efficiency and renewable energy project designs. 

An aggressive in-park program and funds provided under the American Reinvestment Recovery Act (ARRA) are changing the park’s fleet. In the past three years 

the park has purchased 10 hybrid vehicles. GSA ARRA funds will be used to replace 

up to 57 of the park’s 141 low efficiency park vehicles with higher efficiency vehicles. The park’s shuttle system was expanded in 2005 and again in 2008 to add/ 

connect the Town of Estes Park to the park’s hiker shuttle and the Alpine Visitor 

Center tour. 

A partnership with Larimer County has converted the park’s recycling system to 

single-stream recycling, allowing for more materials to be recycled. Also, multiple 

efficiencies to park facilities have been implemented including: tankless on-demand 

hot water heaters, solar lighting tubes, energy efficient lighting, recycled asphalt 

used on park roads projects, energy efficient generators at Alpine Visitor Center, the 

Green Rehabilitation of the park’s employee laundry facility, and more. 

THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AT MESA VERDE NATIONAL PARK

Over the past two decades, Mesa Verde National Park has experienced the impacts of several events; some natural and some that may be tied to human-induced 

climate change impacts, the results of which may affect the integrity of the park’s 

ecosystem. Since 1989, the park has endured six wildfires covering approximately 

two-thirds of the park’s acreage. NPS staff surveys suggest that several species have 

either declined or disappeared from this habitat. In areas that have not burned, persistent record-breaking drought has weakened trees to the point where many that 

survived the wildfires have succumbed to forest pathogen outbreaks. This has led 

to a situation where continuing drought leads to wildfires, which weakens trees’ defenses and in turn leaves them vulnerable to disease and increased insect damage. 

This cycle can fuel more fires. Also, these fires have damaged historic structures 

and threatened the loss of archeological sites according to NPS data. 

Due in part to the deforestation caused by wildfires, Mesa Verde has experienced 

two waves of establishment and proliferation of invasive non-native weeds (Floyd et 

al 2006). Biologists have identified some highly aggressive colonizers such as thistles, knapweeds, pepperweed, cheatgrass, and other species. The large amount of 
11 

park acreage impacted by the recent wildfires provided these species with the perfect opportunity to spread throughout the park. Invasive weeds can alter an area 

by, among other things, disrupting the natural food web, promoting soil erosion, and 

interfering with natural plant succession. Rapid deforestation promptly followed by 

non-native weed infestation can quickly convert rare native forests into an impaired 

landscape. These impacts have also affected such federally-listed species as the 

Mexican spotted owl and its habitat (Johnson et al 2008). 

The park has made some important efforts to slow down the spread of invasive 

weeds. Direct control of weeds with mechanical, chemical, and biological control tactics have been applied in some areas in some years. Several larger areas burned 

in recent wildfires have been treated by aerially seeding with native grasses to 

quickly reestablish competitive native species. This has been proven to be very cost 

effective if done promptly after wildfires. But, in the long-term, the park’s forests 

may not fully recover if the extreme heat and dry conditions become the new normal. 

THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AT COLORADO NATIONAL MONUMENT AND GREAT

SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE

At Colorado National Monument, a National Weather Service station has been 

collecting climate information since 1942. Records indicate a 3 to 5 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature during that time. The long-term research being conducted at the park includes impacts to old growth pinion and juniper forests in addition to broader ecosystem impacts. This extensive inventory and monitoring work 

feeds into the NPS Inventory and Monitoring Network databases. 

Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve is undertaking many projects that 

address potential climate impacts to the park’s ecosystems. Those include acid rain 

monitoring and monitoring wet and dry depositions in the form of snow chemistry 

which will give vital information in regards to air quality conditions. The park is 

partnering with USGS to look at the response of pikas to climate change as well 

as monitoring white pine blister rust occurrence. 

CURRENT CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIONS AND PROGRAMS

To effectively respond to the challenges of climate change, the DOI is undertaking 

a collective and coordinated strategy that builds upon and expands existing partnerships such as those between NPS, other bureaus, parks, regions, and national program offices. Building the capacity to respond to climate change will involve identifying, linking, prioritizing, and implementing a range of short and long-term activities. The complex and cross-cutting nature of this issue will require an unprecedented level of cooperation across the DOI Bureaus, other federal and state agencies, the entire NPS, and our partner organizations. 

Because climate change has been identified as one of highest priorities for the 

NPS, many actions and activities have already been undertaken at parks and within 

regions. The NPS is now in the process of developing a strategic framework for action that will detail short and long-term actions in three major areas: mitigation, 

adaptation, and communication. The NPS has hired a Climate Change Coordinator 

and created six working groups—Legal & Policy; Planning; Science; Resource Stewardship; Greenhouse Gas Emission & Sustainable Operations, and Communication. 

We will use the information from these groups to develop a strategic framework for 

action that will address park, regional, and national-level needs and concerns. 

Over the past three years, the NPS has hosted or participated in a series of regional and interagency workshops to explore climate change impacts and coping 

strategies. In conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency in 2003, the 

NPS initiated the Climate Friendly Parks Program to promote sustainable operations in parks and create climate action plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; 

almost 60 parks, including Rocky Mountain National Park, now participate. The 

NPS also requires Environmental Management System Plans that help parks track 

and reduce their environmental impacts and set targets for sustainable park operations. The NPS adopted an Ocean Park Stewardship Action Plan in 2006 to guide 

actions to reduce ocean-related climate change impacts. Finally, NPS formed a service-wide Climate Change Response Steering Committee to foster communications, 

provide recommendations, and serve as an advisory body to NPS leadership. 

Successful approaches to mitigating climate change impacts require the very best 

science, not only in physical and biological disciplines, but also in social, and cultural sciences. Since 1999, the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESU) Network has provided the NPS with a mechanism to collaborate with leading research 

institutions, including universities, NGO’s and State and federal partners to provide 

the necessary science for sustainable adaptive management of NPS resources. Since 
12 

1999, 17 CESUs have been established covering all regions of the country, with a 

total of 250 partners including 13 federal agencies. The program has been highly 

successful in funding cutting edge collaborative research and providing technical assistance and capacity building to the NPS, as well as State and local agencies and 

other federal partners. 

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE-MITIGATION, ADAPTATION, COMMUNICATION

While efforts to date are significant, much work lies ahead. The NPS must position itself to respond to the effects of climate change on park resources and to prescribe management actions that are suitable for parks. Building an effective response to the threats posed by climate change will require action in three interrelated areas: mitigation, adaptation, and communication. These efforts will necessarily involve strong intra-and interagency cooperation and leadership. We need 

to build on the collective knowledge that is available to create new solutions for protecting resources and resource values. 

MITIGATION-LEADING BY EXAMPLE

Our collective carbon footprint must be understood to be managed responsibly. In 

the area of mitigation, the NPS is leading by example in reducing our carbon footprint and promoting sustainable operational practices. The Climate Friendly Parks 

Program and the Energy SmartPARKS Program are two of the key ways that NPS 

is mitigating GHGs through these areas of emphasis: 

Emissions Inventories.—Parks quantify and track their emissions and identify specific areas where reductions can be most readily achieved. An online 

tool—the Climate Leadership in Parks (CLIP) Tool created in 2005, allows 

parks a new and simplified way to do this assessment and to guide them 

through the process. 

Climate Action Planning.—Parks use the CLIP tool to identify carbon reduction goals and actions to follow through on these goals. Sixty parks are now in 

the process of completing these plans. 

Energy Conservation.—Significant portions of GHG emissions in parks come 

from transportation, building energy consumption, and waste management. 

Mitigation solutions include sustainable design and construction, adaptive 

‘‘green’’ reuse of historic structures, use of high-mileage and alternative-fuel vehicles, solid waste reduction, and alternative transportation systems that integrate all modes of travel within a park, including land and water-based vehicles. 

Renewable Energy.—An increasing number of parks are generating and using 

clean renewable energy such as photovoltaic systems and geothermal heat exchange. The Energy SmartPARKS program is a partnership with the Department of Energy that is focusing on generating renewable energy and showcasing 

sustainable energy practices in parks. Currently, NPS-wide, 3.8% of energy in 

parks comes from renewable sources. 

Regions are also moving forward with their own climate change initiatives. For 

example, the Pacific West Region (PWR) of the NPS has a very ambitious Climate 

Change Leadership Initiative that promotes Climate Friendly Parks. The overall objective is to support Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, 

Energy, and Transportation Management, by setting GHG targets. The 58 parks in 

the region have set a target of carbon neutral for park operations by 2016 and now 

generate over 4% of their energy from renewable sources. 

The NPS has made carbon management, energy conservation, and renewable energy a major focus for our future. Accordingly, we have set a goal to significantly 

exceed the federal requirements for reducing total energy use in NPS operations and 

having some of our energy come from renewables by 2016, the 100th year anniversary of the establishment of the National Park System. Additionally, the NPS has 

set a goal of having all parks identify their carbon footprint and have climate action 

plans in place before 2016. 

SAFEGUARDING AND PROTECTING PARK RESOURCES-ADAPTATION PLANNING

While mitigating the cause of climate change is essential, scientific evidence demonstrates that even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, our past actions 

have already committed the planet to some degree of change. Because of processes 

in the atmosphere and oceans, it will take carbon dioxide and temperature on the 

order of centuries to stabilize once GHG emissions are under control. Other responses, such as sea level rise, can take millennia. We have to start planning for 

adaptation options now—while we simultaneously work to stabilize emissions. 
13 

For adaptation planning and implementation, our highest priority is to support 

ecosystem integrity and the resilience of species and communities to respond to 

changing conditions. As climate change causes shifts in weather, we will see 

changes in water availability, fire, and community structure and composition. Park 

vegetation and wildlife will need to adapt to these new regimes or have the ability 

to migrate. By building resilience and reducing other ecosystem stressors, the NPS 

will help to reduce the extent of some of the most deleterious impacts on park resources from climate change. For example, the NPS needs to be aggressive in its 

actions to prevent the intrusion of invasive species, eradicate where feasible, and 

control the spread when prevention and eradication efforts fail. The NPS also will 

undertake measures to restore natural ecosystems, making them healthier and more 

resilient to the effects of climate change. Examples include our on-going efforts to 

restore major ecosystems such as the Everglades, and the establishment of marine 

reserves in units of the National Park System. 

A critical component for adaptation planning and implementation involves building our science information and ecosystem monitoring capacity for sound decisionmaking by park managers. National park units represent a wide range of ecosystems scattered across the Nation, embracing a broad spectrum of diverse and 

natural environments of North America. Parks present a tremendous opportunity to 

observe the effects of climate change on resource conditions that scientists and managers have documented over decades. Begun almost nine years ago, the NPS Natural Resources Challenge Initiative has funded parks across the Nation to conduct 

inventories and initiate vital signs monitoring of natural resources under the NPS’s 

jurisdiction. 

The combination of these sources of information, long-term legacy monitoring 

data, and new inventories has provided timely examples of the possible effects of 

climate change now visible in parks. The NPS Inventorying and Monitoring (I&M) 

Program’s primary goal is to collect, organize, and make available natural resource 

data. This program includes 32 networks serving more than 270 parks. The Vital 

Signs Program, which is part of the I&M Program, is strategically positioned to help 

parks acquire the information they need to make informed decisions and to employ 

adaptive management so that we can be flexible in the face of change. In addition, 

NPS has also been funding baseline documentation, including condition assessments 

of its cultural resources and ethnographic studies that include data on natural resources utilized and monitored by native groups. This data provides critical information for evaluating the potential and real impacts of climate change on cultural resources. Information from these programs also informs state policymakers and assists scientists in looking at regional and national trends. 

Planning for climate change presents a major challenge for park superintendents, 

their staff, and NPS programs. Resource management decisions must be based on 

future expectations. However, in an era of climate change, the future will be characterized by highly consequential and unprecedented changes that cannot be predicted 

with as much accuracy and precision as we would like. Consequently, the NPS is 

utilizing a scenario planning approach that uses the best available science to explore 

a range of plausible ‘‘multiple working futures’’ and consider appropriate actions 

within them. Adaptation also involves rethinking infrastructure and preparing people for those changes that are inevitable. To respond to climate change, park infrastructure may need to be adapted to better perform or maintain functionality. This 

also includes rethinking park planning issues such as zoning and the design or location of buildings and roads. Scenario planning is being specifically designed to help 

managers identify policies and actions that will be most effective across a range of 

potential futures and to promote tactical adaptation responses that are compatible 

with the NPS mission. 

The NPS has made scenario and adaptation planning a major goal for the next 

ten years to ensure parks are prepared for building resilience into ecosystems and 

ensuring future visitor facilities are sited in appropriate locations. 

PARKS SERVE AS MODELS OF SUSTAINABILITY AND PLACES TO COMMUNICATE CLIMATE

CHANGE INFORMATION

There is a great need at this time for messages that communicate the complexities 

of climate change and the actions that can be taken. With 275 million visitors annually, the parks can serve as models of sustainability and platforms to effectively 

communicate information about climate change. Parks can thus be the catalyst for 

visitors to do their part for climate friendly parks. The NPS’s interpretive and education programs strive to connect people to the parks, with opportunities for all 

vis≥itors to form their own intellectual, emotional, and physical con≥nections to the 

meanings and values found in the parks’ stories. Effective interpretive and edu-
14 

cational programs encourage the development of a personal stewardship ethic and 

broaden public support for preserving and protecting park resources so that they 

may be enjoyed by present and future generations. The public has come to expect 

high-quality and up-to-date resource information when they visit parks. 

The NPS is ideally positioned to raise awareness on climate change and provide 

information about solutions that are being implemented across the NPS and the Department. A number of efforts are underway to tell the story about climate change 

and impacts to national parks. These efforts include a monthly web-based seminar 

series featuring climate change experts on science, communication, and management topics and interpretive training using a decision-tree for developing knowledge 

around aspects of climate change. The information will be used to frame interpretive 

programs and answer visitor questions. The NPS has developed a ‘‘Climate Change, 

Wildlife and Wildlands Toolkit’’ (in conjunction with other federal agencies) to be 

used by interpreters in parks, zoos, aquariums, and science centers and by outdoor 

and classroom educators across the country. In addition, summaries of climate 

change knowledge for specific bioregions—a series of 11 bioregional documents—are 

being created in partnership with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service that 

summarize the cur≥rent state of knowledge about climate change and impacts to 

protected areas, with a focus on national parks and refuges. 

Looking forward, the NPS has a goal of every park having climate change information available through brochures, wayside exhibits, interpretive programs and 

handouts, and park websites. The Climate Friendly Parks Program has encouraged 

this and currently, there are many examples such as Point Reyes National Seashore, Glacier National Park, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Everglades National Park, Dry Tortugas National Park, and Kenai Fjords National Park where 

climate change information is readily available to the public. The NPS is currently 

developing and supporting a new and exciting ‘‘Visitor—Do Your Part Program’’ 

which will have visitors voluntarily measure and reduce their carbon footprint. 

The NPS may also utilize the national preservation programs, such as Preservation Assistance and the National Center for Preservation Technology, to develop and 

disseminate information on sustainability, historic preservation, guidance for adaptive reuse of historic buildings and addition of renewable energy sources into historic 

areas. 

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

In the future, collaboration with gateway communities, private partners and state, 

local and federal agencies will be a key element to successful mitigation, adaptation, 

and communication measures. Much of our carbon footprint results from visitor 

services and movement in and around parks. Thus, our ability to mitigate GHGs 

is uniquely tied to our gateway communities and the transportation decisions we 

make. The NPS will need to complement natural mechanisms that mitigate and 

adapt to climate change through strategic approaches including: ensuring wildlife 

and stream corridors are established to enable wildlife to migrate if necessary; promoting and protecting healthy reefs, mangroves and coastal wetlands that can minimize damage to coastal communities; and protecting and restoring forests that can 

reduce soil erosion and mudslides brought on by changing weather patterns and catastrophic events. 

At present, the Vital Signs Monitoring Program is well-established as a key 

source and supplier of reliable, organized, and retrievable information about parks. 

Climate change monitoring efforts by other DOI bureaus, such as the USGS, will 

also be a valuable tool in understanding climate change effects on NPS landscapes. 

By building on the successful network approach of these programs, the NPS will 

likely gain additional capability to collect, analyze, and report data on the condition 

of key natural and cultural resources in parks and how they are changing or may 

change as a result of climate change. 

Coastal and riverine parks are extremely vulnerable to climate change impacts, 

especially sea level rise and storm surges, and these are high priority areas for developing and implementing adaptation actions. For example, shallow estuaries are 

significant for the long-term production and health of many commercial species of 

fish, including salmon and steelhead trout. The survival of these natural resources 

are also critical to maintaining viable cultures that depend on them such as the 

salmon and shellfish critical to Northwest tribes and the reefs that support Pacific 

Island cultures. These important habitats could dramatically change as sea level 

continues to rise. The impacts of rising sea level also reach surprisingly far inland. 

The Hudson River, for example, is tidal more than 100 miles inland, at Albany, New 

York. Implementation of adaptation plans will be critical to ensure facilities and 

coastal systems such as estuaries and tidal rivers continue to function. 
15 

CONCLUSION

Our national park units are environmental baselines to track change, and they 

stand as some of the last vestiges where ecological components function naturally. 

National parks also serve as core essential habitats as well as critical habitats for 

source populations of species. To succeed in its mission in the face of climate change, 

the DOI and NPS must lead by example in minimizing our carbon footprint and promoting sustainable operational practices. We must take responsibility for understanding how climate change will impact the national parks and take appropriate 

steps to protect these national treasures. An unprecedented level of collaboration 

and cooperation with other agencies and partners is required to ensure that scientific information is collected in order to better protect resources, and effectively 

expand the teaching of the benefits and necessity of natural and cultural resource 

conservation across the Nation and the world. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. I will be pleased to answer any questions you and other members of the subcommittee might have. Bibliography 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Dr. Frost. 

We’ll next hear from Dr. David Schimel, who’s the senior scientist for the National Center for Atmospheric Research, known to 

many of us as NCAR, and the CEO for the National Ecological Observatory Network. 

Dr. Schimel, welcome. We look forward to hearing your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID SCHIMEL, PH.D., SENIOR SCIENTIST, 

NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL ECOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY NETWORK, INC., BOULDER, CO 

Mr. SCHIMEL. Thank you, Chairman Udall and Senator McCain. 

Thank you very much for inviting me to testify in Estes Park 

today. 

I will discuss 2 items in this testimony: first, the effects of climate change in the Rocky Mountain region—and I do have some 

charts here that illustrate some of the consequences; and second, 

how we can forecast these impacts better to provide improved information for decision support for resources managers. 

I’m going to discuss the likely to very-likely consequences of climate change. The first chart shows the observed temperature 

trend, and you can see that Colorado sits in a region that has experienced larger-than-average temperature changes over the past 

century. The second chart shows the observed precipitation trend, 

again showing that the historical record shows clearly that the effects of climate change are not yet to come, but, in fact, are occurring right now. Again, Colorado sits in that southwestern region 

that has experienced very significant decreases in precipitation 

over the past century. 

The next chart shows the model-based extension of this for about 

the next 30 years. These are the results from NCAR’s community 

climate system model to 2030. Again, you can see that it projects 

continuing, and fairly substantial, warming. Colorado is in one of 

the parts of the Lower 48 that would experience the greatest 

warming. Again, the models suggest that the trend in precipitation 

will continue as a drying trend for the next century or more. Although these results, in contrast to the results that are often 

shown out to 2100, show the sort of time horizon that our resource 

management strategies are going to need to deal with. 
16 

The next chart shows the impact of these combined trends on 

water availability. I’d just like you to focus on that dark red area. 

Those are areas that, based on these sorts of model projections, 

show decreases in runoff available to the Colorado River system of 

about 25 percent; again, over the next 50 years. So, these are nearterm results. 

Senator MCCAIN. Why would you see increases in Alaska and 

parts of the Midwest? 

Mr. SCHIMEL. So, the effects of climate change on the hydrologic 

cycle, on the water cycle in the atmosphere, are very complex. To 

summarize, warmer temperatures mean more evaporation, more 

evaporation means it’s going to rain more somewhere, but not everywhere, because circulation patterns change. So, the consensus of 

model results for North America basically shows the eastern part 

of the United States and the high latitudes receiving more precipitation, and the areas that are affected most by the monsoon and 

the El Nino patterns receiving decreasing precipitation. With 

warmer temperatures, that’s a double-whammy that results in decreased runoff available for the major river systems. 

The consequences of these changes in climate are profound. 

We’ve heard about some of them, and they include disturbances 

that affect biological resources, the mountain pine beetle, wildfire, 

and other pests and pathogens that are becoming increasingly evident; obviously, changes to water resources for human consumptive 

use, as well as in-stream and biological use. 

One of the dramatic effects that we’re beginning to see comes 

from results from a recent NCAR study that took advantage of 

ground-based and NCAR’s airborne research platform, the NCAR 

C–130, to look at carbon uptake by Rocky Mountain forests. The 

results here show that one of the results of warming is to reduce 

the length of the snow-covered season and increase the length of 

the typically very dry summer. 

Next slide please. 

If you look at the results, it shows that with a 1-month change 

in the length of the snow-covered season, or, if you will, a 1-monthlonger summer period, the amount of carbon uptake by Colorado’s 

forests might be cut in half, dramatically reducing the—if you will, 

the subsidy that society receives from these forests, in terms of taking fossil-fuel carbon out of the atmosphere. 

Finally, we know, from studies in Rocky Mountain Park and elsewhere in Colorado, that many of our most prized wildflower species 

and alpine plants are endangered by this same change in the timing of the snow-covered, versus the summer, season. The possibility 

is that our alpine ecosystems could change, with some species increasing in abundance, including, as Dr. Frost said, cheatgrass up 

to very high elevations, while other species could cease to grow, 

perhaps forever. 

These climate-driven changes pose dramatic challenges to resource managers. Climate is changing, and the impacts of climate 

change are evident in these current observations. However, our existing monitoring systems, while useful for many purposes, are not 

optimized for detecting the impacts of climate change on ecosystems, and we do need to continually evaluate both the observations that are made and the source of analysis systems that are in 
17 

* All figures have been retained in subcommittee files. 

place to take this very large suite of observations—current, 

planned, and future potential observations—to produce an integrated assessment of what’s happening and what could happen— 

not just the climate, but its impacts on living and physical resources—to support decisionmaking by park managers and other 

natural resource managers in the Rocky Mountain region. 

I thank the Senators for the opportunity to provide testimony 

here, and I’m ready to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schimel follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID SCHIMEL, PH.D., SENIOR SCIENTIST, NATIONAL CEN- TER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL ECO- LOGICAL OBSERVATORY NETWORK, INC., BOULDER, CO 

Chairman Udall and Senator McCain, thank you for inviting me to testify in 

Estes Park today. 

My name is Dr. David Schimel and I will discuss two items in this testimony: (1) 

the effects of climate change in the Rocky Mountain region, and (2) the status of 

forecasting climate change impacts so that resource managers can better adapt to 

these future impacts. 

Today I represent two Colorado-based climate research organizations, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), a world leader in modeling the climate system, and the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), Inc., a new 

NSF major facility designed from the ground up to observe climate impacts and 

other environmental changes. I am a Senior Scientist at NCAR currently serving 

as CEO of NEON, Inc. I am also a Co-Convening Lead Author of the United States 

Climate Change Research Program’s Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3 (SAP 

4.3), which addressed the ‘‘Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources and Biodiversity in the United States.’’ SAP 4.3 was a primary source for the science on agriculture, water resources and ecosystems in the 

USGCRP’s recent Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States report. SAP 

4.3 covered a number of issues affecting Colorado’s national parks and provides the 

foundation for my remarks. This said, the views expressed in today’s testimony are 

my own, but I believe they reflect peer-reviewed assessments closely. 

1. Likely to Very Likely Effects of Climate Change in the 

Rocky Mountain Region 

There is documented evidence that our climate is changing, and changes in climate are already affecting land and water resources in the Rocky Mountain West. 

Observations clearly show warmer temperatures (as illustrated in Figure 1)* and reduced precipitation (seen in Figure 2), which are affecting our natural resources in 

the region. Colorado is two to three degrees Fahrenheit warmer than a century ago. 

Winter snowpack is declining and the length of the snow-covered season is decreasing. The longer snow-free seasons are not leading to a longer growing season 

as one might expect, but instead are resulting in more summer drought because 

snowpack is such an important source of water for plant growth in higher elevations. These observations correspond to recent results from climate models that 

show continuing warming and drying in the United States West. One example of 

such a model can be seen in Figure 3 below. 

Based on past observations and today’s climate model projections, we can identify 

a number of key climate change impacts on resources in the Rocky Mountain region 

and in Colorado’s national parks, including: 

• Increases to biological disturbances such as wildfire, mountain pine beetles, and 

other pests and pathogens that flourish in warmer, drier conditions. 

• Changes to water resources. Observed changes include reduced runoff and 

streamflow as well as reduced snowpack. Models project these trends to continue, putting additional stress on groundwater and in-stream water in the 

parks (see Figure 4). 

• Reduction of forest carbon sinks because warmer summers and earlier snowmelt 

lead to less tree growth and higher forest mortality, and thus less carbon storage (as illustrated in Figure 5). Observations just south of Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) show that a one-month change in the timing of snowmelt 

reduced carbon capture in forest ecosystems by one-half. 
18 

• Loss of native plant species. Earlier snowmelt also affects which plants grow 

during what seasons in alpine meadows. Alpine ecosystems could change as 

some species increase in abundance. Other plants could cease to grow, possibly 

forever. 

The climate change impacts described above will affect wildlife and biodiversity 

in natural areas. In addition, they will affect natural landscapes in the parks and 

recreational activities such as fishing and skiing. 

2. Climate Impacts Forecasting 

To adapt to a rapidly changing environment, natural resources managers need access to information on climate impacts and forecasts on potential future climate scenarios. 

While models of climate are constantly improving, there is no organized, integrated observing system and corresponding climate services center for delivering information about climate impacts. Instead, there is a multitude of observing systems, 

each designed for one or more of yesterday’s problems, and a correspondingly fragmented analysis and/or forecast system. The integration of observations and modeling of climate impacts needs the kind of coordinated attention and emphasis that 

weather and climate models currently receive. With such an approach, forecasting 

of climate impacts can achieve the maturity of physical weather and climate science. 

The Nation has established organizations that provide usable information about 

climate change to resource managers. However, research and infrastructure to support management of organizations that study the impacts of climate change are in 

their early development and supported only on a piecemeal basis. As noted in SAP 

4.3, ‘‘existing monitoring systems, while useful for many purposes, are not optimized 

for detecting the impacts of climate change on ecosystems.’’ 

Even with improved observations, we do not have a center or service charged with 

producing usable analyses and forecasting information utilizing these data. In addition, there is no clear plan to implement and sustain the generation and dissemination of regional-to continental-scale environmental information products. For future 

products to be accepted in decision-making, a service must also systematically document how the information was produced and the degree of confidence associated 

with each analysis or forecast. In the current environment, critical information for 

natural resource decision-making and adaptation to climate change is hard to obtain. Most forecasting of climate impacts is done by individual researchers and is 

not reliably available to resource managers. Thus, providing usable information 

about the spectrum of potential future changes to the stewards of a major national 

treasure like Rocky Mountain National Park is extremely difficult. 

New efforts such as NSF’s NEON project and the USGS’ Climate Effects Network 

are beginning to address this gap in information. Colorado is a national center for 

integrating climate science with climate impacts, and those of us who work in the 

state on these global problems are motivated by proximity to Rocky Mountain National Park and Colorado’s other natural resources. NEON is developing a national 

network of climate impact observation sites, which have been selected to span the 

major wildland and managed ecosystems of the United States, including sites in or 

very near a number of national parks. NEON is coordinated with NOAA’s climate 

observations, but also complements them with detailed measurements of the biological consequences of climate change. 

In conclusion, climate is changing and the impacts of climate change are evident 

in current ecosystem observations. Critical natural resources in the national parks 

are under stress as a result of the changing climate, and today’s models suggest 

these changes will intensify, further complicating the already complex set of issues 

facing park resource managers. Although we have a system in place for observing 

the current climate, today’s observing systems, analyses and forecasts are inadequate for providing park resource managers with the decision support they need 

for the future. Colorado’s federally funded laboratories offer the country a unique 

collection of facilities for integrating climate science with climate impacts assessments. Those of us working within the state on these global problems are motivated 

by Colorado’s natural resources and stand ready to contribute to improved natural 

resource management in the face of climate change. 

I thank the Senators for this opportunity to provide testimony and am ready to 

answer any questions. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Dr. Schimel. 

I next want to recognize Ms. Alice Madden, who’s the climate 

change coordinator for Governor Ritter. I’d also note, for Senator 
19 

McCain’s interest, that Ms. Madden is a recovering elected official, 

John. She served as State—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL [continuing]. House Majority Leader for a number of years with great distinction. But, she’s found her way clear, 

and is now gainfully employed. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL [continuing]. Leader Madden, it’s great to have 

you here. Thank you for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF ALICE MADDEN, CLIMATE CHANGE 

COORDINATOR, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, DENVER, CO 

Ms. MADDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. Thank 

you for inviting me here today. 

Senator McCain, welcome to Colorado. We are really please to 

have you here. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Ms. MADDEN. I happened to see the interview of you with George 

Stephanopoulos on the amazing brim of the Grand Canyon, and 

what you said about Glacier National Park, that, you know, sort 

of jokingly, they might have rename the park, I really think encapsulated the stunning consequences in a way that people can grasp. 

So, thanks for having me here today. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Ms. MADDEN. Each of our national park system units within Colorado will have its own unique potential consequences, from retreating glaciers in Rocky Mountain National Park to compromised 

river flows in the Black Canyon on the Gunnison or Dinosaur National Park; but because climate change does not honor or consider 

lines drawn on a map, I was asked to address related natural resource management issues facing us across Colorado. I’ll begin with 

forest health. 

Within recent years, it’s really become pervasive in communities 

and the media coverage, and this is because of the visual aspect of 

this. We all know evergreens are suppose to be green, not red. Our 

best evidence tells us that bark beetles and other diseases have 

killed more than 2.5 million acres of various pine forests. Some estimates of our lodgepole mortality are as high as 90 percent. 

While the majority of this impact has been observed on the West 

Slope, beetles are expected to spread across the front range in coming years. Foresters are now quite concerned about the ability of 

compromised forests to support wildlife habitat, protect watershed 

quality, store carbon, and provide timber and recreational opportunities. Local government officials are concerned about impacts to 

community safety. Utility operators wrestle with strategies for 

maintaining the integrity of water diversions and conveyances and 

power-line rights-of-way. Extensive areas of overly dense, evenly 

aged, and diseased forests have contributed to widespread concern 

in the past decade about the risk of catastrophic fires. This increased risk called significant implications for the health of ecosystems in our national park units and for adjacent communities, 

their watersheds, infrastructure, and residents. 

Next, I want to talk a little bit about water management. The 

importance of sound water resource planning in Colorado, and all 
20 

of the Southwest, cannot be overstated. Many factors make this a 

most complicated undertaking: our relative aridity, our rapid and 

sustained population growth, our role as a headwaters State for 

four rivers, and the discrepancy between where most of our population resides, and where most of our abundant supplies originate. 

Our water managers are highly skilled in managing water supply 

to meet domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and environmental needs in the face of routine uncertainty due to Colorado’s 

highly variable climate and precipitation patterns, which are, in 

turn, a function of the State’s complex topography and location 

near the center of the continent. But, increased warming will make 

an already complex job even tougher. 

So, to aid water managers in addressing future uncertainties, the 

Colorado Water Conservation Board commissioned a team of researchers to synthesize climate modeling important to water supply 

planning. The first-ever Colorado-specific analysis was published 

late last year, and I have copies to be included with this testimony 

as part of the record. 

There’s far too much in this to try to summarize, so I just want 

to recognize a couple of significant shifts. I’m not the scientist at 

this table, I will certainly say that. We may see fewer extreme cold 

months, more extreme warm months, and more strings of consecutive warm winters. We’ll see seasonal shifts in when, and in what 

form, we receive our precipitation. We think there’ll be less 

snowpack, and there’ll be a change in runoff—to earlier in the 

spring—and late summer flows may be reduced. 

This is a fitting segue into our winter sports. This might be debated, but we say we’re the Nation’s winter sports capital. We have 

a 2-percent market share, and it brings in an estimated $2 billion 

in annual revenue. Individual ski resorts are currently taking stock 

on how certain scenarios may affect their bottom line. But the National Conference of State Legislatures has concluded that climate 

change could lead to the loss of $375 million and more than 4500 

jobs annually by 2017 if the number of tourists just drops by 1 percent. 

But, I’d like to touch, just for a moment, on some of the broader 

measures that we’ve taken to combat the consequences of climate 

change. As you’re aware, most of our electricity production is used 

to heat, cool, and light our built environment. Besides reducing 

greenhouse gases, there’s many benefits to making a building more 

efficient. You’re using less energy, utility bills decrease, people get 

to save a little bit of money, jobs are created to do the work; it’s 

truly the low-hanging fruit of potential action. So, we’ve worked 

hard to create realistic incentives for our citizens to choose to make 

these improvements, such as utility rebates and long-term-interest 

loans programs. We’ve aggressively sought to increase the use of 

both solar and wind power on both small and large projects. We’re 

fortunate to have really significant geothermal potential in this 

State, which could be used as a baseload for electricity. We think 

our additional greenhouse gas reductions will be achieved by increasing the use of our abundant natural gas resources, and Governor Ritter is supportive of research being conducted on burning 

coal more efficiently and, of course, on carbon capture and sequestration. We’re supporters of myriad research projects being con-
21 

ducted by the National Renewable Energy Labs, and our wonderful—we have an embarrassment of riches of national labs in Colorado, and we have great research universities. So, we have created 

a collaboratory, so those entities can work together and make sure 

that they get those ideas right out into the marketplace. We’re particularly excited about, things like next-generation biofuels and 

battery storage. 

We have two Smart Grid pilot projects in this State, one of which 

has a pilot—within it has a project testing vehicle-to-grid technologies. 

We’ve learned along the way that addressing climate change can 

help create a sustainable energy future, which has the added benefit of creating a sustainable economy. Our new energy economy 

has flourished here in Colorado, and we have great faith that melding America’s natural resources with our intellectual sources and 

entrepreneurial spirit will help lead the world to develop and adopt 

the solutions needed to adopt these serious problems. 

Thanks for having me today, and I’m happy to answer questions 

later. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Madden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALICE MADDEN, CLIMATE CHANGE COORDINATOR, OFFICE

OF THE GOVERNOR, DENVER, CO 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the invitation to address the Subcommittee regarding climate change impacts to national parks in Colorado and related management 

activities. 

National Park System units in Colorado bear graphic testament to climate change 

through the ages, from the remarkable, abandoned Cliff House in Mesa Verde to the 

vanishing glaciers in Rocky Mountain National Park. Other park system units, like 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Dinosaur National Park, feature 

magnificent rivers whose flows could be severely compromised by projected climate 

change impacts. 

But just as climate warming in Colorado is occurring within larger regional, continental, and global contexts, the future management of our national parks in Colorado will occur within a larger mosaic of land and resource use and protection, land 

ownership, and social-economic conditions. 

Therefore, my comments today will go beyond our national parks to focus broadly 

on key natural resource management, use, and protection issues facing Colorado for 

which climate warming has or could have important implications. 

These include forest management, water management, and recreation. I’ll leave 

to experts from the National Park Service and other organizations the more focused 

assessment of how climate warming may be affecting the various units of the National Park System in Colorado. 

FOREST HEALTH

I’ll begin with forest health issues, which in recent years have come to pervade 

community discussions and media coverage throughout Colorado. This is because 

bark beetles and, to a lesser extent, wildfire and land development are causing dramatic changes to Colorado’s forests. 

Bark Beetles.—Recent aerial survey data collected by the United States Forest 

Service and Colorado State Forest Service indicate that bark beetles and other diseases have killed more than 2.5 million acres of lodgepole, ponderosa and limber 

pine forests. Some estimates of total mortality in Colorado’s extensive lodgepole forests are as high as 90%. Meanwhile, spruce bark beetle has killed about 374,000 

acres of high-elevation spruce forests. Sudden Aspen Decline Syndrome has impacted over half a million acres of aspen, and in the southwest, the ips beetle has 

killed approximately 1.5 million acres of pinyon pine forests in southwest Colorado. 

While the majority of this impact has been observed on the West Slope, beetles are 

now having a marked effect on the forests of Rocky Mountain National Park and 

are expected to spread across the Front Range in coming years. 
22 

Clearly, something unusual is happening. Outbreaks of bark beetles in Colorado’s 

forests occur naturally and with some regularity, but the current infestation, which 

began approximately 10 years ago, is the largest in recorded history both in Colorado and in the western United States. Moreover, beetles are attacking trees in 

places where widespread infestations have never before been recorded. 

In testimony presented in June to this subcommittee’s counterpart in the House 

of Representatives, Rick Cables, Regional Forester for the Rocky Mountain Region 

of the U.S Forest Service, noted that this most recent infestation has prompted concern among foresters and forest ecologists that resulting tree mortality may impair 

ecosystem functions and compromise the ability of forests to support wildlife habitat, protect watershed quality, store carbon, and provide timber and recreational opportunities (both developed, e.g., skiing, and undeveloped, e.g., hunting and fishing). 

Local government officials are concerned about impacts to community safety and infrastructure. Electric and water utility operators wrestle with strategies for maintaining the integrity of water diversions and conveyances and power line rights of 

way. State and federal recreation managers worry about impacts to trail systems 

and campgrounds. To the average Colorado resident or visitor travelling through our 

state’s forested areas, these land management concerns may not be foremost in their 

thinking, but their reaction to the aesthetic impacts to the appearance of large areas 

of formerly green forests are no less real. 

Many factors likely have contributed to the current bark beetle problem. Decades 

of policy promoting fire suppression—pre-dated by large scale human disturbances 

like mining-era logging and stand-replacing fires—have resulted in large areas of 

forest that are overly dense and characterized by trees of similar advanced age. This 

is particular true of lodgepole forests. When further stressed by drought and elevated temperatures such has have occurred across most of Colorado on average over 

the last 10-15 years or so, these forests have become more susceptible to large scale 

beetle infestations. In turn, elevated temperatures—including longer, warmer summers and fewer periods of intensely cold winter weather—have favored explosive 

bark beetle population growth and the resulting widespread infestation. Of real concern in relation to possible future climate warming, these dead and dying forests 

are slowly changing from carbon sinks to carbon sources, thereby further contributing to factors that appear to be leading to widespread re-structuring of forested 

landscapes. 

Wildfire.—Some of the same factors that have contributed to large scale beetle infestations have also likely contributed to increased incidence of large, catastrophic 

fires Colorado experienced around the turn of the century. While the most notable 

of these was the Hayman Fire, the largest on record in Colorado, other large fires 

like the Missionary Ridge fire also occurred in this period. Although climatic conditions in recent years have not provided conditions necessary to promote large, catastrophic fires, extensive areas of overly dense, even-aged and now diseased forests 

have contributed to widespread concern in the past decade about risk of catastrophic 

fires seriously altering Colorado’s forested landscapes and the human and natural 

communities they support. The anxiety of our mountain residents have only been 

intensified by the relentless and truly startling advance of insect pests and the forest mortality associated with them. 

These fears are real and are driving many actions to protect our communities, infrastructure, and watersheds. 

To the extent that climates models predicting warmer temperatures and reduced 

or altered precipitation regimes prove to be correct, wild land fires could increase 

and become more severe. This increased risk holds significant implications for the 

health of the ecosystems in our national park units and for adjacent communities, 

their watersheds, infrastructure and residents. 

WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The importance of good water management and sound water resource planning 

in Colorado cannot be overstated. Many factors combine to make water resource 

management and planning a most intricate and serious undertaking. These include: 

—our state’s relative aridity; 

—our rapid and sustained population growth; 

—future demands associated with new fossil fuel energy development; 

—our role as a headwaters state for four major interstate rivers; 

—and the discrepancies between where most of our population resides and 

where our most abundant supplies originate. 

We’re fortunate in that Colorado water managers are among the most accomplished in their field. These individuals are expert in managing water supplies to 
23 

meet domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and environmental needs in the 

face of significant and routine uncertainty. This uncertainty comes from Colorado’s 

highly variable, year-to-year climate and precipitation patterns, which themselves 

are a function of the state’s complex topography, high elevation, and location near 

the center of the North American continent. 

But even these highly skilled professionals, who are used to managing under variable and uncertain conditions, will find it doubly challenging to manage water supplies effectively should climate models that predict increased warming prove accurate. 

What we think we know.—To aid water managers in addressing future uncertainty associated with climate change, the Colorado Water Conservation Board commissioned a team of researchers under the auspices of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Western Water Assessment to synthesize climate modeling important to water supply planning. This first-ever Colorado-specific analysis 

was published late last year and is included with this testimony as part of the public record. It is entitled Climate Change in Colorado: A Synthesis to Support Water 

Resources management and Adaptation. 

In general, this synthesis of our scientific understanding of a variety of global and 

regional climate models downscaled to Colorado concludes with the following key 

points: 

1) Climate models project Colorado will warm by 2.5 degrees by 2025, relative 

to the 1950-1999 baseline, and 4 degrees by 2050. 

2) By 2050, models indicate that temperatures on the eastern plains will shift 

westward and upslope, bringing into the Front Range, where 80 percent of the 

state’s population resides and is projected to reside, temperature regimes that 

today occur near the Kansas border. 

3) Modeled winter projections show fewer extreme cold months, more extreme 

warm months, and more strings of consecutive warm winters. By 2050, the January climate of the eastern plains is expected to shift northward by about 150 

miles. In all seasons, the climate of the mountains migrates upward in elevation, and the climate of the desert southwest progresses up into the valleys 

of the western slope. 

4) Model projections do not agree whether annual mean precipitation will increase or decrease in Colorado by 2050. When results are averaged, the models 

show little change in annual mean precipitation by 2050, although a seasonal 

shift in precipitation does emerge. Combined effects of a northward shifting 

storm track, potentially wetter storms and a global drying of the sub-tropical 

regions may result in more mid-winter precipitation throughout the state, and 

in some areas, a decrease in late spring and summer precipitation. 

5) Projections show a precipitous decline in lower-elevation (below 8200 feet) 

snowpack across the West. Modest declines (10%-20%) are projected for Colorado’s high elevation snowpack (above 8200 ft). The timing of runoff is projected 

to shift earlier in the spring and late-summer flows may be reduced. These 

changes are probably going to occur regardless of changes in precipitation. 

6) Runoff in the Upper Colorado River Basin could decline in the mid-to-late 

21st century by 6%-20%. 

What we need to know better.—The list is long though we are learning more and 

more each year. For example, though the effects of climate change on the Colorado 

River Basin has been the focus of several studies, we know comparatively little 

about the impact of climate change on the Rio Grande, Platte, and Arkansas rivers. 

More work needs to be done here. 

Though the Colorado River Basin has been studied in greater depth than other 

basins, we still can only speculate about the practical consequences of climate 

change. For example, at this point, we don’t know how compliance by Upper Basin 

States with the Colorado River Compact might be affected by reduced future flows 

at Lee’s Ferry due to warming temperatures, reduced lower elevation snowpack, and 

altered precipitation regimes in the Upper Basin. 

Supported by the CWCB report, Colorado water managers are now fully engaged 

in the process of improving our understanding of the vulnerability of our water supplies to climate change. Within the next several months, we will have completed a 

Colorado River Water Availability Study and the Joint Front Range Climate Change 

Vulnerability Study. 

RECREATION

Wildlife-related recreation.—Our understanding about the specific future impacts 

of climate change to Colorado’s fish and wildlife populations and habitats or on the 
24 

angling, hunting, and wildlife viewing opportunities they support is also still evolving. Still less well understood are the considerations that should drive management 

of wildlife populations and habitats under different climate change scenarios, and 

which adaptation strategies will be most efficacious. The knowledge that we do have 

is still somewhat theoretical and derived from largely anecdotal observations of ecological change or extrapolated from broader principles of ecology. 

That said, information and knowledge is beginning to be developed at a rapid pace 

with potentially real ramifications for managing wildlife, habitats, and ecological 

systems. For example, the Colorado Division of Wildlife is working with a broad 

spectrum of governmental and non-governmental organizations to assess species 

and habitat vulnerability. Our goal is to have a preliminary understanding of species and habitat vulnerability and adaption responses and requirements within 

about one year. This knowledge will help ensure a sound understanding of the adaptation requirements of natural systems, and will help to prioritize and target future 

habitat protection and management actions to the greatest extent possible to address risks to wildlife posed by climate change. 

In the meantime, the Division of Wildlife will continue to work with its partners 

in the public and private sectors to acquire, protect, and restore habitats in priority 

areas throughout the state to ensure that other threats to wildlife and associated 

recreational opportunities are minimized. 

Winter Sports.—As the Nation’s winter sports capital—with 23 percent of the skiing and snowboarding market share and an estimated $2 billion in annual revenue—Colorado could have much at stake should the worst of the scenarios described by climate models materialize. Under some scenarios, we could experience 

considerably shortened seasons (especially in the spring) and less rideable terrain. 

Individual ski resorts are currently taking stock on how certain scenarios may affect 

their bottom line. But in a report published last year, the National Conference of 

State Legislatures concluded that climate change could lead to the loss of $375 million and more than 4,500 jobs annually by 2017 if the number of tourists coming 

to Colorado ski resorts is reduced by just 1 percent. 

AN OVERVIEW OF RITTER ADMINISTRATION INITIATIVES

Governor Ritter published a Climate Action Plan in 2007. It sets aggressive goals 

to reduce green house gas emissions (GHG) by 20% from 2005 levels by 2020 and 

by 80% by 2050. We well know we must be prepared to face some inevitable changes 

and the plan discusses adaptation measures around water, wildlife and forests. 

I would like to touch very briefly on some of the other proactive measures we have 

taken to combat the consequences of climate change. Similar to emission numbers 

we see for the United States, over a third of the GHG emissions in Colorado are 

from electricity production so we have concentrated much of our efforts on that sector. We believe we can get to over 50% of our reduction goals in this sector through 

efficiency measures. As you are aware, most of our electricity needs are used to 

heat, cool and light our built environment. There are many benefits to making a 

building more efficient: less energy is needed; utility bills decrease; jobs are created 

to do the work. It is truly the low hanging fruit of potential action. We have worked 

hard to create realistic incentives for our citizens to choose to make these improvements such as utility rebates and long term, low interest loan programs. 

We believe approximately 30% of the GHG emissions from the electricity sector 

can be addressed by increasing the use of renewable energy. We have aggressively 

sought to increase the use of both solar and wind power on both small and large 

scale projects. Colorado is 11th in wind power potential, sixth in solar power potential and we are fortunate to have significant geothermal potential which can be used 

as a base load source of electricity. Colorado has high heat sources at shallow levels 

which makes this a very realistic option. The remaining percentage will likely be 

reached by a combination of increasing the use of our abundant natural gas resources and new technologies around burning coal more efficiently and capture and 

sequestration. 

Our second area of focus has been the transportation sector which accounts for 

about 1/3 of Colorado’s GHG emissions. We are supporters of myriad research 

projects being conducted by the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden and our 

research universities. We have created a ‘‘Collaboratory’’ among these entities that 

accelerates getting new ideas right out into the market place. 

There is much work to be done but there is great potential in the commercial 

scale production of highly efficient biofuels and concentrated natural gas. Advances 

in battery storage will increase the attractiveness of electric and hybrid vehicles. We 

have the first smart grid city in the Unites States which includes a pilot project 

testing vehicle to grid technologies. 
25 

The state also has a very aggressive greening of government program. Governor 

Ritter believed if we were trying to encourage the citizens of our state and businesses to take action-then the state should lead the way. Utilizing performance contracting, we have made many of our state building vastly more efficient. Both the 

Governor’s mansion and the state capitol are LEEDS certified. 

In the interest of time, I will stop here but I just wanted to share with you a few 

of the ways we are addressing climate change in Colorado. We learned along the 

way that addressing climate change can help create a sustainable energy future 

which has the added benefit of creating a sustainable economy. The New Energy 

Economy has flourished in Colorado and we have great faith that America’s intellectual resources and entrepreneurial spirit will help lead the world to develop and 

adopt the solutions needed to address to this serious problem. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Ms. Madden. 

The important testimony of the panel will be wrapped up by Mr. 

Stephen Saunders, who’s president of the Rocky Mountain Climate 

Organization. 

Welcome, Stephen. We look forward to hearing your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN SAUNDERS, PRESIDENT, ROCKY 

MOUNTAIN CLIMATE ORGANIZATION, DENVER, CO 

Mr. SAUNDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator, 

for coming here. 

There is no question in my mind that human-cause change to the 

climate is the greatest threats that our national parks have ever 

faced. We’ve never lost a national park before. Dry Tortugas’ highest point is no more than 3 feet above sea level. Ellis Island National Monument’s highest point is no more than 3 feet above sea 

level. The government, Senator McCain, in the report that you referred to that came out this year, says that, on the course we’re 

going, the sea level will rise 3 to 4 feet by the end of the century. 

Those parks are in danger of being lost. Most of Everglades is 

under 3 feet. Most of Biscayne is under 3 feet. Sequoia National 

Park—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Bangladesh is less—Bangladesh—most of Bangladesh is less than 3 feet. 

Mr. SAUNDERS. Worldwide, this is problem, too, for sure. 

Sequoia National Park may lose all of its sequoia. Joshua Tree 

National Park may lose all of its Joshua trees. Glacier National 

Park may lose all of its glaciers. Virgin Islands Coral Reef National 

Monument may lose all of its coral reefs. This is the greatest threat 

that we’ve ever faced in our national park system. 

It’s certainly true here. Rocky Mountain National Park will have 

less ice, less snow, less water, more wildfire, less meadows, less 

wildflowers; it is going to be a very different park. 

So, if we now are saying that this is the greatest threat that 

we’ve faced—and I welcome Dr. Frost’s statement for the Department that it is potentially the greatest threat; I would just edit the 

word ‘‘potentially’’ out, but that’s a small difference compared to 

the differences we have had—if this is the greatest threat the Park 

Service has faced, what do we do about that? Mr. Chairman, I’d 

suggest a couple of things. One is that the National Park Service 

has not done its job yet, and there are reports by GAO, and others, 

saying that. 

The National Park Service is a marvelous agency, and the people 

that are in that agency are prepared to do more. They’re waiting 

for a new director, who needs Senate confirmation. Once Jon Jarvis 
26 

is confirmed and gets there, I think the Park Service is going to 

embark, finally, on developing the proper plan for how the Park 

Service addresses this issue. I would urge you, sir, to hold an oversight hearing as soon as Jon has been confirmed and has a chance 

to develop plans. There’s no more aid to an agency trying to do its 

work than to know that an oversight hearing is looming before it. 

The other question’s about resources. Fifteen, 20 years ago, we 

said the greatest threat to the National Park Service was the backlog of maintenance needs. We set up a Fee Demo Program, as we 

call it, where we let the parks keep the entrance fees in the park 

to deal with the backlog that they need to deal with, the visitor 

needs and all that. That’s been a great program. 

One of the superintendents that I’ve talked to, from a park that 

I won’t name, has suggested now is a time to let the Park Service 

use some of the entrance-fee money to deal with climate change. 

Right now, they can only deal with the visitor impacts, and climate 

change is in a different category. I think that’s an excellent idea, 

that if the Park Service and other agencies were able to use some 

of that money to deal with the education of the people coming to 

the parks about threats faced by the park, to deal with assessing 

the impacts, dealing with the impacts, able to use some of that 

money to reduce the emissions from the park’s operations itself, 

that would be something that would really help provide the resources that the Park Service will need to be dealing with this. 

With that, I’ll be happy to let you ask all of us questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Saunders follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN SAUNDERS, PRESIDENT, ROCKY MOUNTAIN

CLIMATE ORGANIZATION, DENVER, CO 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am Stephen Saunders, 

president of the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization, a Denver-based group working to bring about action to reduce the contributions and vulnerabilities of the interior American West to human-caused climate change. Our group is a mainstream 

coalition, with partners that include 13 local governments; Denver Water, the largest water provider in Colorado; five businesses, from the Aspen Skiing Company to 

Wright Water Engineers; and six nonprofits, from the Colorado Association of Ski 

Towns to Western Resource Advocates. 

In 2006, the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization prepared, and released with 

the Natural Resources Defense Council, a report, ‘‘Losing Ground: Western National 

Park Endangered by Climate Disruption.’’ It addressed national parks in the 11 

western states, and identified 12 that we believed to be at the greatest risks. RMCO 

is again working with NRDC on an updated and expanded report, for release later 

this year, on the effects of climate change on national parks across the country, not 

just in the West. I am a principal author of both reports. 

Also relevant to my testimony today is my service from 1998 to 2001, during 

President Clinton’s second administration, as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 

United States Department of the Interior over the National Park Service and the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Of course, climate change is a global phenomenon, with global causes and effects. 

But its effects on national parks are a very appropriate focus. Our national parks 

preserve the very best of our natural and cultural heritages. To continue to provide 

for their continued enjoyment by future generations-to fulfill the central purpose of 

the parks-we have to understand and then address the threats to them. In figuring 

out how to address a changed climate in our national parks, we also will learn some 

of what we need to know to address it everywhere. That, too, is in the best tradition 

of our national park system. 

Human disruption of the climate is the greatest threat our national parks have 

ever faced. If we continue adding heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere in the way 

we now are, we could, for the first time, lose entire national parks. Both Dry 

Tortugas National Park and Ellis Island National Monument are barely above the 
27 

1M. Hoerling and others, ‘‘Reconciling projections of Colorado River streamflow,’’ Southwest 

Hydrology 8, no. 3 (2009), pp. 20–21, 31. 2 Continental Divide Research Learning Center, Rocky Mountain national Park, National Park 

Service, ‘‘Climate change in Rocky Mountain National Park: Preservation in the face of uncertainty,’’ 2008, http://www.nps.gov/romo/parkmgmt/upload/climatelchangelmountain2.pdf. 3 Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, ‘‘2006 Report on 

the Health of Colorado’s Forests,’’ p. 15, http://csfs.colostate.edu/pdfs/06fhr.pdf. 

current sea level, less than the three feet that the United States government has 

said is an appropriate planning scenario for human-caused sea-level rise in this century. Most of Everglades National Park is also less than three feet above the sea 

level, and the rest is not much higher. All three parks could be lost to rising seas. 

Glacier National Park could lose all its glaciers. Joshua Tree National Park could 

lose all its Joshua trees. Saguaro National Park could lose all its saguaros. Virgin 

Islands Coral Reef National Monument could lose all its coral reefs. Mount Rainier 

National Park was recently closed for six full months because of heavy downpours 

and flooding, examples of the extreme weather now occurring more often. 

How much the climate continues to change, and how much the national parks suffer these kinds of impacts, is still up in the air-more precisely, up to what we put 

in the air. Both climate disruption and its impacts on parks will be far greater if 

we continue stumbling into a high-emissions future. Or we can choose a lower-emissions future and avoid the worst projections of future climate change and its effects. 

Time is already running short, but it is still possible to bring down emissions sharply enough to ward off unacceptable changes. As the United States government recently said in an important, new overall report on climate change, that will require 

stabilizing atmospheric levels of heat-trapping gases about where they now are, adding no more additional pollution than can be removed by natural processes. 

I am convinced we can and will do that. One of the many, many reasons to do 

so is to avoid unacceptable effects on the national parks that Americans love. Let 

me describe just some of those impacts, with a particular focus on national parks 

in Colorado. Let me point out at the outset that in our 2006 report, ‘‘Losing 

Ground,’’ we identified both Rocky Mountain and Mesa Verde national parks as 

among the 12 western parks most at risk to the effects of an altered climate. 

In Colorado and the rest of the interior West, many of the impacts of climate 

change flow from its two key manifestations-as a result of heat-trapping gases, it 

will be both hotter and drier here. Not all regions will get drier. Generally, the wetter parts of the globe are expected to get wetter and the drier parts drier. Here, 

we already are seeing reductions in snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and reduced 

streamflows. Of particular significance is the projection of scientists that the flows 

of the Colorado River, which begins in Rocky Mountain National Park, will be diminished by perhaps 4 to 14 percent in this century.1 This is of great significance 

not only to the one-tenth of all Americans who depend on the Colorado River for 

water supplies, but also to the ecosystems of the national parks in the Colorado 

River basin, the largest such concentration in the national park system. 

Plant communities.—The greatest impacts of climate change in Rocky Mountain 

National Park, as in many parks, probably will be large changes in the park’s plant 

communities-especially a loss of forests, a loss of tundra, a loss of meadows, and a 

loss of wildflowers. 

We already are losing today’s forests in Rocky Mountain because of a changed climate. To begin with, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned 

us that it is ‘‘very likely’’ that pest and disease outbreaks in forests will be increased 

by global warming. A prominent example is the mountain pine beetle epidemic now 

in the process of killing virtually every mature lodgepole pine tree in Rocky Mountain National Park. The National Park Service has acknowledged that the mountain 

pine beetles’ ‘‘prevalence is likely a direct effect of climate change.’’2 Our forests are 

now susceptible to a widespread outbreak of beetles, because we have huge stands 

of the mature trees the beetles favor, in large part because of previous fire-fighting 

efforts. Some type of outbreak of mountain pine beetles, a natural occurrence in 

these forests, is inevitable in these conditions. But the extent of the current episode 

and the speed with which it has spread are not natural. They have been made possible by human-caused climate change. The warmer winters we already are experiencing have removed the periods of deep winter cold that have served as natural 

checks on beetle populations. Warmer temperatures in their active seasons have allowed the beetles to both go higher up the mountains and expand their populations 

more quickly than is natural. In particular, in lodgepole forests between 9,500 and 

11,000 feet high, beetles used to take two years to complete their life cycle; now they 

are able to produce a new generation in a single year.3 This has enabled this epi-
28 

4 J. J. Worrall and others, ‘‘Rapid mortality of Populus tremuloides in southwestern Colorado, 

USA,’’ Forest Ecology and Management 255 (2008): 686–696, http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/fhm/reports/ 

sadl2008.pdf 5D. D. Breshears and others, ‘‘Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type 

drought,’’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, no. 42 (2005): 15144–15148. 6P.J. van Mantgem and others, ‘‘Widespread increase of tree mortality rates in the western 

United States,’’ Science 323 (2009): 521–523. 7P.J. van Mantgem and N.L. Stephenson, ‘‘Apparent climatically induced increase of tree mortality rates in a temperate forest,’’ Ecology Letters 10 (2007): 909–916. 8 N. Hobbs and others, ‘‘Future impacts of global climate on Rocky Mountain National Park: 

Its ecosystems, visitors, and the economy of its gateway community—Estes Park’’ (2003), pp. 16– 

17, http://www.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/star/papers/2003lfinallreport.pdf. 

demic to spread so far and so fast, including over mountain ranges that used to 

serve as natural barriers stopping or slowing previous outbreaks. 

Also recently linked to a changed climate is a rapid dieback of aspen trees that 

scientists have labeled ‘‘sudden aspen decline.’’ Beginning in 2004, people began to 

notice that aspen trees in Colorado, particularly in the southwestern part of the 

state, were dying in large numbers and that the dead trees were not regenerating 

as usual through new trees growing from the roots of the old. This aspen dieback 

has increased rapidly, with the affected acreage in Colorado having increased fourfold between 2006 and 2008. Aspen die-off has also been observed in northern Arizona, southern Utah, and Montana. Research by the United States Forest Service 

has linked the sudden aspen decline in Colorado to the hotter and drier conditions 

that represent an altered climate in the interior West.4 The emblematic aspens of 

the West, including those near here in Rocky Mountain National Park, could be at 

risk. 

A loss of other kinds of forests has occurred in Mesa Verde National Park and 

elsewhere in the Southwest, where a combination of hotter and drier conditions and 

another beetle, the pin ̃ on ips bark beetle, has led to widespread forest dieback in 

the pin ̃ ons of the pin ̃ on-juniper forests that are of the dominant forest type of the 

Colorado Plateau. In just the two years of 2002 and 2003, beetles killed 90 percent 

of the pin ̃ on pines in studied portions of Mesa Verde and of Bandelier National 

Monument in New Mexico. Researchers have attributed the underlying cause of the 

pin ̃ on die-off to climatic factors, as sustained heat and drought left the trees particularly vulnerable to bark beetles. More trees died than during an even drier period 

in the 1950s, pointing the researchers to the higher temperatures of the recent 

drought as the key factor in the extent of the recent forest die-off.5

Perhaps most ominous, a recent study of undisturbed forest plots across the West 

found that all types and ages of trees are dying at higher rates, ‘‘with regional 

warming and consequent drought stress being the most likely drivers.’’ Led by two 

United States Geological Survey scientists stationed in Sequoia and Kings Canyon 

national parks, a team of researchers examined records of 76 undisturbed forest 

plots in which all individual trees had been counted in census records going back 

as far as 1955. The studied forests were in Yosemite and Sequoia/Kings Canyon national parks in California and elsewhere across the West, including in Colorado. Almost all plots had experienced an increase in overall tree mortality, including both 

young and old trees. In the Northwest, the tree mortality rate had doubled in 17 

years; in the interior West, in 29 years. The researchers believed that higher temperatures and drier conditions-again, manifestations of a changed climate-were the 

reasons for the accelerated tree deaths.6 This study builds on earlier work by the 

same two USGS researchers showing increasing tree mortality in Sequoia/Kings 

Canyon and Yosemite national parks. Based on that work, they warned: 

if forests in the Sierra Nevada are as sensitive to increasing evaporative 

demand as our findings imply, they may now be poised for die-back during 

otherwise normal periods of reduced precipitation, similar to the recently 

documented die-back in the pin ̃ on-juniper woodlands of south-western 

North America. But even in the absence of periods of significantly reduced 

precipitation, continued temperature-driven changes in mortality rate have 

the potential to dramatically alter forests.7

A loss of mountaintop tundra may well be another change in plant communities 

resulting from a hotter climate. For Rocky Mountain National Park, home to the 

largest expanse of alpine tundra in the United States outside of Alaska, one group 

of scientists projected that warming of 5.6 F could cut the park’s area of tundra in 

half and that of 9 to 11° F of additional heat could virtually eliminate it, as forests 

move upslope.8 In Glacier National Park, where there has been an effort to study 

changes in the extent of tundra, scientists using repeat photography have docu-
29 

9D.B. Fagre, ‘‘Spatial changes in alpine treeline patterns, Glacier National Park, Montana,’’ 

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/treelinelrsrch.htm. 10D.B. fagre and D. L. Peterson, ‘‘Ecosystem dynamics and disturbance in mountain wildernesses: Assessing vulnerability of natural resources to change,’’ Climatic Change 59, nos. 1–2 

(2003): 74–81. C. Milar and others, ‘‘Response of subalpine conifers int he Sierra Nevada, California, U.S.A., to 20th-century warming and decadal climate variability,’’ Arctic, Antarctic and 

Alpine Research 36 (2004):181–200. 11T.J. Perfors, J. Harte, and S. Alter, ‘‘Enhanced growth of sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate) 

in response to manipulated ecosystem warming,’’ Global Change Biology 9, no. 5 (2003): 736– 

742. F. Saavedra and others, ‘‘Changes in flowering and abundance of Delphinium nuttalianum 

(Ranunculaceae) in response to a subalpine climate warming experiment,’’ Global Change Biology 9, no. 6 (2003): 885–894. 12 Hobbs and others; see note 1. 13 E. A. Beever and others, ‘‘Patterns of apparent extirpation among isolated populations of 

pikas (Ochotona princeps) in the Great Basin,’’ Journal of Mammalogy, 84 no. 1 (2003): 37–54. 14 C. Mortiz and others, ‘‘Impact of a century of climate change on small-mammal communities 

in Yosemite National Park, USA,’’ Science 322(5899)(2008): 261–264. 15 United States Global Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts int he 

United States (2009, p. 87. 

mented that trees just below timberline have already begun to grow more upright 

and have filled in forest edges.9

Other changes in plant communities include a loss of mountain meadows, which 

exist where the combination of heavy snow cover in the winter and a short growing 

season in the summer keep tree seedlings from surviving. Scientists have predicted 

that a hotter climate will reduce snow cover and extend the growing season, shrinking alpine meadows. I know of no studies yet in Rocky Mountain National Park, but 

scientists have already detected a loss of mountain meadows in Glacier, Olympic, 

Sequoia/Kings Canyon, and Yosemite national parks.10

Scientists also have documented how higher temperatures suppress the growth of 

mountain wildflowers. Researchers at the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory 

near Crested Butte, Colorado-the official wildflower capital of the state-have found 

that using heat lamps to warm mountain test plots by 4°F leads to a substantial 

reduction in wildflowers and their replacement by sagebrush, normally found in 

lower-elevation, dryer areas.11

To step back from the scientific studies and put this in its proper perspective, earlier this month I sat on a log at the edge of Mill Creek Basin in Rocky Mountain 

National Park, reveling in that meadow and its profusion of wildflowers, set off 

against a backdrop of aspens and, behind them, a pine-forested mountainside. I 

thought that I had better let this scene really soak into my memory, because each 

of those elements-the meadow, the wildflowers, the aspens, and the pines-are already being disrupted by the changes we are making in our climate. I feared that 

my children may not be able to enjoy such a scene in their adult lifetimes. 

Wildlife.—An altered climate also will change the wildlife species in our parks. 

At particular risk are alpine species that can run out of higher elevations to climb 

to find cooler conditions. Rocky Mountain National Park’s tundra along Trail Ridge 

Road has what has long been one of the most accessible and famous populations of 

white-tailed ptarmigan in the country. In just two decades, however, the numbers 

of this local population have been cut in half, and researchers predict their extinction in the park by mid-century if temperatures rise as predicted.12 I’ve been going 

up there for over three decades, and I certainly notice the change in the ptarmigan 

numbers. Pikas, little known across much of the country but well known to visitors 

to Trail Ridge Road, are not able to survive even short periods of temperatures 

above 75°F or so. Across the West at elevations lower than on Trail Ridge Road, 

some local pika populations have already disappeared.13 The United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service is currently considering whether pikas should be listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act because of the threat to them of a hotter 

climate. In Yosemite National Park, about half of small mammal species are now 

found at different ranges of elevation than early in the last century; on average, the 

range of the mammals is now about 500 yards higher.14

Mountaintop species are not the only vulnerable ones. In Mesa Verde National 

Park, the Mexican spotted owl-a threatened species-is disappearing from the park. 

The park’s chief of natural resources attributes this to the drier conditions so far 

this century-conditions consistent with the hotter and drier effects of climate change 

in the interior West. 

Fishing.—Some of the best trout fishing in the western United States is in our 

national parks, including Rocky Mountain. But trout are cold-water fish, and higher 

temperatures could lead to losses of western trout populations exceeding 60 percent 

in certain regions by 2050.15 At Yellowstone, the extreme heat of July 2007 led the 
30 

16 R.B. Richardson and J.B. Loomis, ‘‘The Effects of Global Warming on Mountain Tourism: 

A Contingent Behavior Methodology,’’ prepared for Hobbs and others; see note 1. 17 B. Jones and D. Scott, ‘‘Climate change, seasonality and visitation to Canada’s national 

parks,’’ Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario (2005), p. 2, http:// 

lin.ca/Uploads/cclr11/CCLR11-132.pdf. 

National Park Service to close 232 miles on 17 prime fishing rivers during afternoons. The high temperatures killed enough trout to produce the largest fish kill 

in the park’s history. A park biologist predicted that it would become the norm for 

the future. 

Overcrowding.—As temperatures soar with a changed climate, to escape the oppressive heat people may well flock to cooler mountain parks, overcrowding them. 

In Rocky Mountain National Park, a survey of park visitors suggests that under the 

climate conditions projected by 2020 enough visitors would come more often and 

stay longer to increase the number of visitor days each year by more than one million-nearly a one-third increase.16 So far, there has been little attention paid by the 

National Park Service or others on how higher temperatures may increase summer 

visitation to cooler parks, national seashores, and national lakeshores-or on how 

that increased visitation can be accommodated. In Canada, researchers concluded 

that heat-driven increases in visitation to Canadian national parks could be so large 

that ‘‘parks that already report visitor-related ecological stress would require more 

intensive visitor management, perhaps including strategies such as de-marketing, 

visitor quotas, and variable pricing for peak periods.’’17 I am not advocating those 

particular measures, just using these suggestions to illustrate that the effects of increased visitation could be significant enough to necessitate real responses of some 

kind. 

More wildfires.—The United States government, in its overview report this year 

on climate change, noted, ‘‘In the western United States, both the frequency of large 

wildfires and the length of the fire season have increased substantially in recent 

decades, due primarily to earlier spring snowmelt and higher spring and summer 

temperatures.’’ Wildfires can disrupt summer vacations for park visitors. In the 

summer of 2002, when hot and dry conditions combined to produce Colorado’s worst 

fire season in history, the number of July visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park 

dropped by nearly 100,000 from the previous year, even without any fires in the 

park itself. Two years earlier, in Mesa Verde National Park, two back-to-back fires 

burned more than half the park and closed it to visitors for nearly three weeks. 

I am afraid that I could go on at even greater length, detailing other ways in 

which climate change is affecting our national parks, from a loss of glaciers, 

snowfields, and opportunities for winter recreation to a loss of historical and archaeological resources. Instead, though, let me turn to what the National Park Service 

should be doing about all this. 

Recommendations for NPS actions.—When it comes to protection of the resources 

and values of the national parks, the National Park Service has an obligation under 

law, its own policies, and its long, proud tradition of environmental stewardship to 

take a leading role. ‘‘The Service will use all available authorities to protect park 

resources and values from potentially harmful activities,’’ the NPS Management 

Policies boldly declares. Sadly, the NPS has not yet followed its creed and exercised 

its authorities to address human disruption of the climate and its effects, the greatest threat ever to park resources and values. As the United States Government Accountability Office concluded in 2007 about the Park Service and other federal natural resource management agencies, they: 

have not made climate change a priority, and the agencies’ strategic 

plans do not specifically address climate change. Resource managers focus 

first on near-term, required activities, leaving less time for addressing 

longer-term issues such as climate change. In addition, resource managers 

have limited guidance about whether or how to address climate change and, 

therefore, are uncertain about what actions, if any, they should take. In 

general, resource managers lack specific guidance for incorporating climate 

change into their management actions and planning efforts. Without such 

guidance, their ability to address climate change and effectively manage resources is constrained. 

Too often, the NPS has so far just looked the other way when it comes to climatechange impacts. In preparing in 2000 a management plan for Dry Tortugas National 

Park, at risk of being totally submerged by rising seas, the Service wrote about climate-change risks and what to do about them: ‘‘These external forces are beyond 

the scope of this plan.’’ 
31 

Fortunately, change is already underway at the National Park Service. President 

Obama’s choice as NPS Director, Jon Jarvis, when he was Regional Director of the 

Service’s Pacific West Region, established the strongest record of leadership on climate of any senior NPS manager. I hope and expect that Director Jarvis will bring 

the same vision to his management of the entire Service, and am confident that if 

he does he will be met by enthusiastic support from other NPS managers and employees. I know that frustration is widespread within the Service about its failure 

so far to take a leading role in addressing climate change. With proper leadership, 

I believe that the National Park Service will live up to its proud history in taking 

on this major challenge. 

But I certainly do not think that Congress, or the American people, should just 

blindly trust that there will be the needed changes. It seems entirely prudent to me 

for this Subcommittee to hold a thorough oversight hearing on what I expect will 

be major new Park Service plans to address climate change, once Jon Jarvis is confirmed and he and Secretary Salazar have had a chance to develop those new plans. 

An agenda of actions that would be appropriate for the National Park Service in 

addressing a changing climate and its effects on national parks includes the following. 

Making climate change a priority.—Human-caused changes in the climate are the 

greatest threat ever to national parks, and the National Park Service should act accordingly. Particular recommendations are: 

• The NPS Director should issue a Director’s Order making it clear that addressing climate change and its impacts is among the highest priorities throughout 

the Service. The Order should launch action on some of the particular recommendations outlined below. 

• The NPS should amend its Management Policies to incorporate specific references to management responsibilities with respect to climate change and its 

impacts in parks. 

• The Park Service should have a separate NPS climate change office within the 

Service, to ensure crosscutting support for Service actions to address climate 

change and its impacts in parks. The Administration requested a modest 

$800,000 for such an office for next fiscal year, but the House appropriations 

bill would block that new office. 

Expanding scientific knowledge.—Identifying and monitoring climate change effects on key resources of national parks are not only essential for protection of those 

resources, but also important for a broader understanding of climate change effects 

in the world at large. National parks are areas with spectacular resources, usually 

much less affected by human activities and other stresses than other lands; the 

parks provide some of our very best opportunities to learn how climate change is 

affecting and will affect natural and cultural resources. Much of the research I have 

cited above, such as about a loss of today’s forests, represents not just what we 

know about those effects in national parks, but all of what we know about those 

effects anywhere. Specific recommendations: 

• The NPS should identify in every park the resources and processes at risk from 

climate change. This need not await full park management planning efforts; it 

can be accomplished through summaries of the literature, guided research, 

gatherings of experts, and simple brainstorming. Climate Friendly Parks workshops (see below) are a beginning. 

• The NPS should review its Inventory and Monitoring Program, in which every 

national park has established a number of vital signs for monitoring change 

over time; these should be reviewed to ensure they adequately include the impacts of climate change. If not-and I fear that will nearly always be the casethe vital signs and the monitoring plans should be updated. 

Planning and managing to protect resources.—According to the Service’s Management Policies, ‘‘NPS managers must always seek ways to avoid, or minimize to the 

greatest degree possible, adverse impacts on park resources and values.’’ To do this 

in the case of climate change and its impacts, specific recommendations are: 

• The NPS should develop park-specific and resource-specific plans for protection 

of the resources most at risk in individual parks. 

• The NPS should be innovative in considering and using a broad array of tools, 

including unconventional ones, to preserve resources most at risk in individual 

parks. Protected corridors to allow migration of species between areas of changing habitat may often be necessary, which would require cooperative action with 

other land managers. Experience with ecosystem-wide approaches such as the 

one by different federal agencies through the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating 
32 

Committee should be examined for lessons that can be applied to deal on a 

landscape-wide scale with climate change and its impacts. 

• The NPS should plan for different possible future scenarios-plausible conditions 

that could occur but may not. To await certainty in what the future will bring 

may take away the ability to address it in a sufficient and timely manner. 

• The NPS should consider the combined effects of climate change and of other 

stresses on park resources and values and work to reduce those other stresses 

when doing so may ease the effects of climate change. 

Reducing emissions.—National parks are among the most important places to concentrate efforts to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases, because successful actions there can inspire the millions of Americans visiting the parks to make and 

support similar efforts elsewhere. Specific recommendations: 

• The NPS should work to reduce the emissions from its own operations, on a 

Service-wide basis, as undertaken in the Pacific West Region through Regional 

Director Jarvis’s Climate Change Leadership Initiative. 

• The NPS should give an even greater priority to reducing emissions from visitor 

activities than from its own operations, as emissions from visitor activities 

dwarf those from NPS operations. 

• The NPS and Congress should review the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to consider the use of funds from national park entrance and recreation fees to address climate change and its impacts in national parks, so long 

as information on those expenditures and their purposes and accomplishments 

is communicated to park visitors. 

Expanding Climate Friendly Parks.—Fifty-three national parks (out of 391) have 

held an initial workshop in the Climate Friendly Parks program, NPS’s most visible 

climate-change initiative to date. That program is a partnership between NPS and 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency to help those parks protect 

their natural and cultural resources from climate change. Twenty-three have conducted an inventory of their emissions of heat-trapping gases, and 16 have action 

plans to reduce their emissions. That is a start, but clearly more can be done. Recommendations: 

• The NPS should make a national commitment and develop a schedule to expand 

the Climate Friendly Parks program to all parks (with exceptions only for those 

few parks with small enough operations and visitation where doing so would 

not make sense.) 

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

• The NPS should post online all emission inventories and climate action plans 

for parks for which they are completed. (Not all now are posted.) 

Communicating with others.—With 275 million visitor-days of visitation to national parks in 2008, the NPS has an enormous, unique opportunity to communicate 

what climate change may do to us and what we can do about it. Recommendations: 

• NPS officials, beginning with the Director, should speak out publicly about the 

threats that climate change and its impacts pose to national parks. The NPS 

Management Policies state that when park resources and values are at risk 

from external threats, ‘‘It is appropriate for superintendents to engage constructively with the broader community in the same way that any good neighbor 

would. . . When engaged in these activities, superintendents should promote 

better understanding and communication by documenting the park’s concerns 

and by sharing them with all who are interested.’’ 

• NPS should require concessionaires in a position to provide environmental education to park visitors (and many are required to do so) to provide information 

on climate change and its effects in national parks and what NPS and the concessionaires are doing to address them. 

Partnering with other agencies and organizations.—Much of the best work done 

in national parks to understand climate change and its effects is done by others besides the NPS, including the United States Geological Survey, universities, and others. Cooperation with other federal, state, and local natural resources agencies and 

land managers can also be more important than ever in dealing with the broad-scale 

effects of climate changes. A recommendation: 

• The NPS should continue and even expand its cooperative efforts with other researchers, land management agencies, and others to address climate change 

and its effects in national parks and surrounding lands. 
33 

Exercising international leadership.—The National Park Service is the bestknown and most respected natural resource management agency in the world. A 

recommendation: 

• The NPS should exercise leadership in promoting cooperation and communication among natural resource management agencies around the world in how to 

address climate change and its impacts in protected areas. 

In taking these actions, the National Park Service will need support from this 

Subcommittee, Congress as a whole, and, especially, the American people. We Americans deeply love our national parks, and have always rallied around when they 

have been in peril. Now, more than ever, is such a time. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Saunders, for that insightful and 

compelling testimony, and duly noted that an oversight hearing 

would make great sense. 

In the regular order, if we were in Washington, DC, I would recognize Senators in turn for anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes. I want 

to be a gracious host, so I want recognize Senator McCain initially 

for something on the order of 10 to 15 minutes, and we will have 

a series of conversations and questions over the next 50 minutes 

or so that’s left in the hearing. 

So, let me recognize the great Senator from Arizona, John 

McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the witnesses again. This has been extremely 

helpful. 

Ms. Madden, thank you for your continued service to the State 

of Colorado. You stated the Upper Colorado River Basin could decline in the mid- to late-21st centuries, by 6 percent to 20 percent. 

What does this do to activities on the Upper Colorado River Basin? 

Ms. MADDEN. Again, There’s folks to my left and right who know 

this more in detail than I do. The report I referred to goes into that 

into much further detail. 

I do want to note that one of the authors shares the same last 

name as your neighbor there. Randy Udall, is also an author of 

this, as is Stephen Saunders. So, Stephen might be able to answer 

that a little better. 

But, there’s many things that we don’t know at this point in 

time, and we’re developing more studies on what’s going to go on 

in the Colorado River Basin and our other river basins. As it becomes—if drought areas affect different parts of the State, it’ll effect timing and—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Has it already affected the ski industry? 

Ms. MADDEN. Yes, it has, in the sense that when they’re making 

snow, they can’t afford for that snow to melt. So, they have to wait 

until they know any snow that they make will stay frozen. So, it 

means that the season starts a little bit later and it ends a little 

bit sooner. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Dr. Schimel, have you seen effects on climate change from overseas, specifically China? 

Mr. SCHIMEL. If you’re referring to the transport of material, one 

of the very complex impacts on the hydrology, the water resources, 

of Colorado is the deposition of dust on snow. The deposition of 

dust on the snowpack darkens it and makes it melt more quickly. 

We have seen a dramatic increase in the amount of dust deposited 
34 

on the Colorado snowpack over the past century and a half, and 

much more dramatically, even, in recent decades. 

There are several primary sources of this material. The first one 

is dust originating from land use in the Four Corners area, but one 

of the significant sources of dust is, in fact, transpacific transport 

of dust from the Asian continent. This is one of the better examples 

of the complex, interwoven nature of the global environment. 

So, yes, we do see consequences—very difficult to quantify at this 

time—but we do see consequences of material being transported 

globally. 

Senator MCCAIN. Ms. Madden, have you seen any results yet 

that you could report on the Smart Grid test project? 

Ms. MADDEN. Yes. Just to the point that Dr. Schimel just made, 

I took a trip to Tanzania this summer, and worked on some issues 

around this black soot that travels, and it’s largely among many 

other sources, but there’s a significant source coming out of open 

fires. So, there’s been some work to allow people in Africa and Asia 

to have more efficient cookstoves, so they’re not creating that black 

soot that then, of course, attracts the sunlight and melts ice faster. 

The Smart Grid—one is in Boulder and one is in Fort Collins— 

Xcel has put over a $100 million into Boulder to do this, and one 

of the things that they’re seeing, and other studies have also 

proved out, is, when people have that information about how much 

energy they are using, they get a little competitive about it, and 

they want to bring it down, which is great. So, these monitors 

allow you to see how much energy you’re using, where it’s—where 

you’re getting it from, and perhaps even doing things like telling 

your dishwasher to go on at 2 a.m., when the grid—when the supply on the grid is much less demanding. 

The vehicle-to-grid pilot project allows your car to become a little 

distributed-generation resource, and puts energy back onto the 

grid. Fort Collins has a district that they’re actually calling the 

‘‘zero energy district.’’ Their program’s called FortZED, for ‘‘zero energy district.’’ So, both those cities are really moving things along; 

and, matter of fact, I think that they are farther along than any 

other place in the United States. 

Senator MCCAIN. Dr. Frost, have you got any stimulus money for 

this effort—research or addressing climate change? 

Mr. FROST. No, sir. Park Service received, I think, around $750 

million of stimulus money, and the majority of that went to work 

on our maintenance backlog. The other portion went—indirectly, 

yes, we did get a little bit of money to work on some invasive-species issues; so, again, trying to remove stresses from the environment. Then, the rest of the money went help restore some abandoned mine lands. that’s so—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Obviously you could use some climate change 

money, then. 

Mr. FROST. Yes, we could. I will not argue with you there. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MCCAIN. When Jon Jarvis is confirmed by the Senate— 

and we all look forward to having that happen soon, as—when he 

was the Pacific West regional director, he instituted a goal to have 

the parks within the region to have carbon-neutral park operation 
35 

by 2016. Would that be a good idea, to expand that to the rest of 

the country? 

Mr. FROST. It would be wonderful. Let me just relate a quick—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Do you think it can be done? 

Mr. FROST. I think it’ll be difficult, but I think, as a leader of 

conservation and as a teacher of—as a teacher to our kids, the 

Park Service should step up to the challenge. It may take us a few 

years to do it, but I think it’s a worthy goal and one that we should 

set. 

Mr. SAUNDERS. Senator, may I chime in on that? Just to 

point—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Yes. 

Mr. SAUNDERS [continuing]. Out that Jon Jarvis has done a great 

job, and that’s one of the things that’s encouraging about his being 

picked to be the whole Park Service director. However, they did 

take the date out of that goal, just last month, so they no longer 

have a goal of doing that by 2016. 

Senator MCCAIN. Is that because he left? 

Mr. SAUNDERS. No, he hadn’t—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SAUNDERS [continuing]. He hasn’t actually left yet. I have 

not had much of an exchange yet with people about the changes, 

other than I understand that they just found it was hard to be able 

to get there in the case of all 56 parks in that region, or something. 

So, now they have a vision, without a date, of having the Park 

Service operations be carbon-neutral ‘‘sometime.’’ 

Senator MCCAIN. I think history shows, unless we give a datecertain, that date never arrives. 

Mr. Saunders, I don’t mean to be too parochial, I know this is 

a very big issue, but we’ve just traveled around the Rocky Mountain National Park, here. With Chairman Udall, it’s always an enlightening and enjoyable educational experience, but an exhausting 

endurance test, also—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MCCAIN. As you know, but I’ve been very—— 

Senator UDALL. Takes one to know one. 

Senator MCCAIN. Obviously, one of the most striking issues is 

this pine-beetle issue. 

Mr. SAUNDERS. Yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. What—it’s a unbelievable. Every home in 

America should see what’s happening; every citizen should see 

what’s happening here. Do you have any specifics, besides the 

whole issue of climate change, as to how, perhaps, we could address this—what may turn out to be one of the most devastating 

thing that’s ever happened to our national parks, at least here? 

Mr. SAUNDERS. I’m afraid I don’t have an answer for what we do 

to deal with the changes in the ecosystem. The first thing that I 

would say, though, is that, I certainly hear people that say, ‘‘Mountain pine beetles are a natural part of the forest.’’ That is true, just 

as the seas are a natural part of the world. If we—in a few years, 

or in Everglades or someplace, and we see that the seas have risen 

higher up than ever before, and spread farther over the land than 

ever before, I would not think that’s a natural phenomenon any-
36 

more. I would look at that, and I would think, ‘‘That is nature that 

we have knocked out of kilter.’’ That’s how I—— 

Senator MCCAIN. We’ve never—— 

Mr. SAUNDERS. That’s how I—— 

Senator MCCAIN. We’ve never seen an infestation of this scale, 

have we? 

Mr. SAUNDERS. No. That’s how I look at the bark beetles. Yes, 

bark beetles are a natural part of the forest. But, because we have 

warmed up the winters, and we’ve warmed up the summers, the 

beetles are now going higher than they ever have before, they are 

reproducing at a quicker rate. Above 9,000 feet, it used to take 

them 2 years to have a single generation; now they do it in a single 

year. At lower elevations, it used to be one generation per year, 

and now we are seeing two generations per year. Their period is 

longer. We used to have very deep, cold periods that would knock 

back the populations during the winter. We’ve lost that natural 

check on their population. So, it is no longer a natural phenomenon, it’s something that started out as a natural phenomenon. 

I, like you, wish that everybody would see that, and I wish that 

the National Park Service and other agencies were doing a better 

job of explaining to people why it has reached the scale that it has 

now reached. I think that would do a whole lot. As Dr. Frost pointed out, there are 275 million visitor days of visitation to the national parks every year. The National Park Service has an enormous opportunity to educate people. The national parks are a place 

where our impacts are the most visible. If we are doing a proper 

job—we, the whole country, are doing a proper job of pointing out 

the consequences as they happen, I think our attitudes will change. 

Once our attitudes change, our actions will change, and we will be 

more interested in meeting our energy needs in ways that don’t destroy our forests. 

Ms. MADDEN. May I add on to something—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Please. 

Ms. MADDEN [continuing]. Here. Thank you. 

When you look at these, they almost look like matchsticks, which 

is a really scary thought. I mean, they’re—you just know there’s 

going to be, you know, one of two results: they’re going to fall down 

or they’re going to light on fire. So, we’ve been looking at these as 

potentials for energy around biomass. A lot of our—a large portion 

of our forests are on Federal land. So, I think the State and the 

Federal forest services have to work together about how we’re 

going to deal with these, and if there’s any real potential for using 

these for biomass. 

One story in Colorado—we had one of the last coal-burning boilers in a grade school, I think probably in the United States, and 

it broke down in the middle of the winter, and we were able to 

quickly create a new boiler system made out of beetle-kill highly 

efficient wood pellets. So, it was really just this very holistic approach to this. 

So, I think there’s great answers. Of course, you know, there’s— 

it’s very complicated how we would be able to get this wood, and 

use it, and where you produce it, and do you haul it on trucks, all 

those things. But, I think, using a least some portion of this as biomass is perhaps a good solution. 
37 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank you. I thank the witnesses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Let me address some questions, and we’ll continue this conversation. Then if Senator McCain has additional questions, I’ll yield to 

him again. 

Dr. Frost, to follow up on what Senator McCain had to say and 

what Mr. Saunders had to say about the beetle-kill situation, 

would you tell us a little bit about what the park is doing? Are you 

thinning? Are you using other treatments? Is the process effective? 

To put a final question in the mix, what kind of funding do you 

have, and is it adequate? 

Mr. FROST. Always comes back to money, doesn’t it? 

The park is responding. The Park Service, as you well know, is 

a little bit different than the Forest Service and the BLM. How 

we’re responding to the beetle-kill is, trying to protect health and 

human safety. The parks identified about a million trees that need 

to come down, and they’re primarily around campgrounds and visitor services areas, so—— 

Senator UDALL. What was the term you used, ‘‘If you sit, stand, 

or sleep as a visitor, the Park Service is focused on mitigating or 

eliminating the danger in those’’—— 

Mr. FROST. Right—— 

Senator UDALL.—‘‘settings’’? 

Mr. FROST [continuing]. That’s our high priority. We don’t have 

plans to do any other types of removal activity—sort of, out in the 

back-country. The Park Service policies state that we want to encourage natural processes. While, the natural—as Dr. Saunders 

has stated, the outbreak of beetles may—beyond a natural process. 

We want to try and maintain those processes as much as we can 

in national parks. So, we are not—we don’t have plans to thin the 

forests, to cut the trees down, but to—but, where it is responsible, 

where it is for health and human safety and close to our neighbors, 

that we are making plans in order to do that. 

In terms of funding, I don’t think there’s any—well, I’m pretty 

sure there is not line item in the Park Service budget that has to 

deal with beetle-kill. Superintendents deal with this on a regular 

basis; they redirect funds from other projects, so other things don’t 

get done. That’s the way we’ve done business for many, many 

years. I suspect we could use some of our fee money, because it is 

related directly to fee services. I assume that that has happened 

in parks across the country. 

Senator UDALL. I assume, on pretty good authority, that there’s 

an increasing interest, on the group of political subdivisions, to coordinate, whether it’s the Forest Service at the national level or it’s 

our State forester, county of Larimer, even the town of Estes 

Park—there’s a much greater awareness that potential fire events 

don’t respect boundaries, that Mother Nature has evolved and developed in a way that didn’t take into account the need for human 

political—— 

Mr. FROST. Right. 

Senator UDALL [continuing]. Entities, but that there’s much 

that’s happening there. I know there could be more, and I look forward to playing a role to encouraging, to cajoling, to even sternly 
38 

saying to the various parties, ‘‘Look, you’ve got to work together 

and combine these resources.’’ I think just, for example, in the eastern edge of the park, as you travel down to the northern area of 

Boulder County, there are homeowners and others who are concerned about kill-trees in the park itself, and that you’re working 

to find a way to assuage their concerns. 

Mr. FROST. Definitely. I would suggest that our fire-attack process may change in these areas, that we may put these—as opposed 

to a let-burn policy in some of our back country, we would put 

these fires out fairly quickly in order to not have a huge event that 

could come into the front country and cause a lot of damage. 

Senator UDALL. If I could continue this line of discussion, and I 

want to extend an opening to each of you on the panel to comment, 

and also in the spirit of Senator McCain, who’s always forwardlooking—what happened in the past, happened in the past; now we 

have new challenges in front of us. Is there anything, in hindsight, 

that the Park Service could have done to mitigate these impacts on 

the park or in the surrounding communities? 

Mr. FROST. Whoa, that’s a great question. I don’t know, maybe 

I could turn to Superintendent Baker—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FROST. I mean, that’s a tough—it’s really—— 

Senator UDALL. We’ll ask Vaughn that question for the record. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. I know he’d—otherwise, he’d feel left out. 

Mr. FROST. That’s a tough question, Senator. I mean, we often 

say hindsight’s 20/20, but, you know, climate change is such a large 

issue, and there—and the beetle outbreak is larger than climate 

change. It has to do with how we’ve fought fires over the past 100 

years. We have even stands of forest, so we have this monoculture 

out there. So, as opposed to having a distributed—you know, more 

of a distributed age class of trees, we have this mature growth out 

there. So, we don’t have new recruits coming up. It’s how we’ve 

managed our—a variety of other things. 

So, it’s not just the beetles, it’s—the beetles is a key part, but 

it’s a variety of other of our management techniques. 

So, could have we prevented it? I don’t know if we could have 

prevented it, in the context of a larger climate change issue, but 

we sure could have changed things. We hope that, as our stands 

do change over time, that we manage forest fires differently, we 

manage disease outbreaks differently, we—— 

Senator UDALL. When you say ‘‘stands,’’ you mean stands of 

trees, not—— 

Mr. FROST. Stands of trees, yes. 

Senator UDALL [continuing]. Political stands or—— 

Mr. FROST. No, no, no. That would be—— 

Senator UDALL. Yes. 

Mr. FROST [continuing]. Your job, not mine. 

Senator UDALL. All right. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. Dr. Schimel, you care to comment? 

Mr. SCHIMEL. Yes. I think that your question bears on an issue 

that’s of great concern. If we look at the efforts that we’re making 

to understand the physical climate system, we have large national 
39 

investments in integrating a wide range of observations—from surface observations, airborne, satellite observations—into models that 

provide some degree of predicative capability, fairly well understood for the weather, in its early days for climate. But, when we 

look at the issue of forecasting potential impacts of climate change, 

things like the pine-beetle outbreaks still come as surprises to us, 

because we aren’t investing very much resource in attempting to 

forecast the ecological consequences of climate change. As we begin 

to develop more targeted observing systems, the potential that we’ll 

be able to forecast these phenomena, that today come as surprises, 

becomes a real possibility. 

It’s a different sort of thought process than we’ve usually used 

in natural resource science, where most of this sort of modeling has 

been done in a very investigator-oriented sort of a way. But, the 

problems are complex, they require drawing in all sorts of information. The beetle problem is a beautiful one, because it’s an effect 

of climate, it’s an effect of 100 years of land-use history, it’s an effect of the—exacerbated by the recent drought, and so on. Right 

now, we don’t have the capability to integrate information about all 

those different sorts of stresses on the system to say what might 

be the next surprise after the mountain pine beetle. 

Senator UDALL. So, again, I hear you suggesting—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Looks like Mr. Saunders has a—— 

Senator UDALL [continuing]. We’ll go to—that you’re saying, 

‘‘Let’s look at applying all of this data, let’s look at even more sophisticated modeling.’’ But, it has to be of use to people in communities, has to be of use to policymakers, has to be of use to the 

State forester and many others who are on the front lines. 

I know Senator McCain chaired the Commerce Committee for a 

number of years. He knows the importance of our research institutions and of actually turning that data into something that’s useful 

to people on the ground. 

Mr. SCHIMEL. That’s right. Right now, the effort to do this sort 

of forecasting is being done by individual researchers or small research groups, and the value added to turn that into information 

that can be used by resource managers happens in at best, a haphazard way, if it happens at all. So, the transfer of—well, first of 

all, there’s not that much ecological forecasting being done; and to 

the extent that it is, it gets into the hands of managers in a very 

haphazard sort of a way. 

Senator UDALL. We’d welcome further thoughts and comments, 

and I know you’ll be forthcoming with us. 

Mr. Saunders. 

Mr. SAUNDERS. There is, again, a resource question, as there always is here, in terms of what the Park Service can understand, 

what the Park Service can forecast, what the Park Service may do 

in planning how to adapt. I mentioned a long-term idea about getting more money from the entrance fees. A short-term thing, that 

is waiting for you when you get back to Washington, is the spending bill for the next fiscal year. The Park Service requested $10 

million for a new climate change initiative for fiscal year 2010. The 

House committee bill allows that full $10 million, but prohibits the 

Park Service from setting up a climate change office. 
40 

I think the Park Service should have a climate change office, myself; not that that one office is going to be the sole answer, but to 

have, in the Washington headquarters or somewhere in the system, 

one central place where all of the climate change information is 

coming together and being shared and all that, strikes me as making excellent sense. On the Senate side, the Senate committee bill struck $2 million 

out of that $10 million, did not prohibit the climate change office 

from taking place, but lowered the dollar amount. If this is the largest threat the national parks system faces, $10 

million does not strike me as very much money to be trying to figure out how we’re going to deal with this. This bill is not done. Certainly it would be crazy for Dr. Frost to come before you and criticize what your friends elsewhere are doing, in terms of the budget 

for next year, but let me just point that out to you; that may be 

something that, having seen firsthand all that there is to deal with, 

maybe you can go back and help move that small bit of funding 

along. 

Senator UDALL. Let me turn back to Senator McCain. If he 

doesn’t talk about and ask questions about water, I will. 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Saunders, to follow up on your comment, I was surprised, when were talking about $780 billion of stimulus 

funding, that more of it did not go to this issue. I think it creates 

jobs. I think addressing the issue of climate change, if you appreciate the enormity of it, is going to create a lot of jobs in the future, 

and we’d better get a hold of it. So, I’ll go back and we’ll look at 

this process of—and I’m not sure why the Park Service should be 

prevented from establishing a climate change office. 

I don’t have anything more, Mr. Chairman, except to say that I 

thank the witnesses. I thank them for their hard work. 

I guess while I’m here, I should, on behalf of the citizens of the 

state of Arizona, thank you for the water. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MCCAIN. My predecessor in the Senate, Senator Barry 

Goldwater, used to say that, ‘‘In Arizona, we have so little water 

that the trees chase the dogs.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MCCAIN. From the projections on the Colorado River 

flow, that may be more true than humorous. 

So, I do want to thank the witnesses. I want to thank the people 

of Estes Park, and the great job they do in creating such a wonderful environment here; and what a great experience it was to spend 

the night at the Stanley Hotel. I didn’t see a single ghost, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MCCAIN. Maybe I didn’t stay long enough. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Let me direct a couple more questions to the panel. I did mention 

water, and Senator McCain did. We thought about taking him over 

to the Grand Lakes side, and we thought he’d be so excited to see 

the headwaters of the Colorado River, we didn’t predict what he 

might do, although John was also excited to hear about the moose 

and the wolverine sighting. I found something out, I didn’t know 

that there are otters in Rocky Mountain National Park; because 
41 

Senator McCain had the insight to ask one of the rangers about the 

otter population. 

But, I want to direct this question to Dr. Frost and others who 

might comment—since we’re, as I’ve said, literally at the headwaters of Colorado River and acutely affected by a warming climate, are there vegetation or soil management techniques that 

could be employed to reduce water loss so that we can be good partners with our friends in the lower-basin States, and also take care 

of our own needs, obviously? 

Mr. FROST. Again, going to back to some of my earlier comments, 

you know, we try to keep natural processes in force, and to reduce 

stressors, and we need to continue to do that, in the face of a 

changing climate. 

You know, if we have a massive beetle kill and we have a fire, 

we have a potential of a huge loss of erosion and water going, you 

know—water and soil running downstream, and that soil goes into 

reservoirs that clogs up the reservoirs, the storage capacity is reduced. So, we need to—you know, we need to continue to try and 

reduce the stressors on our environment as much as we can to— 

especially in parks, and try and encourage those natural processes. 

In areas that are—that have been—had some damage, we need to, 

you know, aggressively restore those areas. Those types of projects 

would have been great projects for stimulus money, to go through 

those areas that have been degraded in national parks, and to get 

them back into functioning ecosystems. 

So, that’s our primary goal in national parks, is to keep those 

natural systems functioning in a way that will produce those ecosystem services that we could never pay for. I mean, and that’s 

really the key, is—the ecosystem of our national parks provides so 

much service to us that we take for granted, and our goal is to just 

keep those systems functioning the best to our ability. 

Senator UDALL. Other panel members, comment on how we enhance water supplies, or at least maintain the levels that we’ve 

come to depend on, here in the West. 

Mr. SCHIMEL. Just to mention this point about dust on snow, 

that is one of the major impacts increasing the rate of runoff and 

making it more difficult to capture that water for later consumptive 

use. So, land management that minimizes at least the continental 

United States source of dust to the Rockies could fairly substantially improve the job of the water managers today. 

Senator UDALL. Have not the Western Governors been working 

on that challenge? Do they not have a policy now that, at least, is 

in its nascent stages of being developed? 

Mr. SCHIMEL. That is exactly correct, yes. 

Senator UDALL. Leader Madden, you—— 

Ms. MADDEN. Thank you. I just want to brag a little bit about 

what Dr. Schimel does, and who—and he’s associated with NEON. 

They have 60 observatory sites around the Nation? 

Mr. SCHIMEL. Planned. 

Ms. MADDEN. Planned sites around the Nation. Because we really—we always need the data to rely on, and I think NEON is, just, 

a pretty spectacular entity that he’s responsible for starting. So, I 

want to just thank him. 
42 

You know my world, it’s politics and policy. In the State, there’s 

a group of folks who sort of, you know, run the water show, and 

we call them ‘‘water buffalos.’’ They’re better at stopping bills then 

they are at actually passing bills, and we have a tough time moving this whole policy forward, because it’s just—we have a prior appropriation system which, you know, the—they say, you know, 

‘‘Whiskey’s for drinking, and water’s for fighting, in Colorado,’’ and 

you see that every time you try to make some sort of changes. So, 

we’ve slowly made some changes in the State legislature around— 

making sure that we’re conserving this resource. 

It is very tough, and I think, as we work more regionally, that’ll 

become very— 

Senator MCCAIN. What is the rationale for the opposition? 

Ms. MADDEN. One, just being afraid of change. You know, we 

have the system that works. We have very old water rights in the 

State and people are afraid that they’re going to mess with them. 

Even things, just like, when water passes through the State, if you 

conserve water, maybe it won’t—or if you conserve water, it might 

change when—what time of year it leaves the State. So, you know, 

there’s political, there’s science, there’s all kinds of reasons that 

people are afraid of any sort of change. 

We were able to pass a bill, just—if a new neighborhood is going 

up, they had to prove they actually had water for it. That was 

fought, initially. 

So, I think it’s just being afraid of change. We are a headwaters 

State for four different rivers, so the buck stops here, literally, with 

that water. We have to send a certain amount both east and west. 

So, Colorado’s going to have to come to grips with conserving 

water. But, I think the more we can work regionally, the better 

we’ll all be. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Saunders, do you have a comment—— 

Mr. SAUNDERS. No—— 

Senator UDALL [continuing]. Directed to water? 

Mr. SAUNDERS [continuing]. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Following on what Alice had to say, and the good 

doctors, we did just pass this new law, you can collect rainwater. 

Am I correct? I think—as you know, Arizona has similar statutes. 

First in time, first in right. The rainwater doesn’t belong to anybody, but the watersheds themselves. So, that’s an important step 

for—there are also cost models that need to be changed, from what 

I understand—where we reduce costs, the more water you use. It’s 

a similar challenge we face in the world of electricity production, 

where we have an opportunity to create cost models where you actually make money, as a utility or as a water utility or as a water 

provider, if you use less. There’s some creative ways in which to 

do that. 

Senator McCain and I got to talking about tamarisk, and some 

of the experiments that are occurring with tamarisk. There are 

other national park units were tamarisk is a scourge. I hate to say 

that about any living thing, but it’s—— 

Mr. FROST. There’s lots of them out there. 

Senator UDALL. There’s lots of them. Would you care to comment 

on tamarisk and the efforts underway to restrict its range and perhaps make it more difficult for tamarisk to thrive? 
43 

Mr. FROST. There are a variety of efforts going on. You know, 

tamarisk is, again, one of these invasive exotic species that we talk 

about, sort of, in generalities, and this one of the things that have 

really taken over. It was originally brought into the country, you 

know, as a water—as a stabilizer of river banks. So, it was planted 

everywhere in order to stabilize these river banks. What it has 

done is, now it’s sucking water out of the ground faster than we 

can talk. So, I know, in the Grand Canyon—if you take a float-trip 

down the Grand Canyon, there used to be willows down there. You 

know, the big willow tree that John Wesley Powell sat under, is— 

you almost can’t see it anymore cause of tamarisk. I mean, you see 

tamarisk—I’ve seen tamarisk, like, this big, which is just extraordinary. It’s just sucking water up. It’s replacing the native vegetation. It has consequences for wildlife. Tackling a problem of that 

magnitude is extraordinary. 

So, what the Park Service has done, initially, is to keep the 

spread of tamarisk going up from the drainages. You know, water 

in the Grand Canyon is a critical substance; and where you have 

seeps and springs, you know, it’s like 1 percent of the land mass, 

but, like, 90 percent of the biodiversity. If you get tamarisk and exotic species in there—— 

So, the Park Service is taking a very aggressive stance in the national—in Grand Canyon—to work up those drainages and keep it 

contained. We’re not—we don’t have the capacity, right now, to 

eliminate that in the main stream of Colorado. But, if we can keep 

it contained and keep it out of the side drainages—and actually, 

that’s where the big push is going on. 

There’s other areas in—I think, at Glen Canyon, where they’re 

actually doing—they’ve got some beetles that they’ve released, from 

Asia, that are native predators of tamarisk, and they’ve done a lot 

of trials to make sure that they’re not going to kill native—other 

native species. But, they let these beetles out, and they go through 

and the devastate the tamarisk stand. Sometimes you have to go 

back and do some follow-up. 

There’s also—there’s a volunteer group in Glen Canyon that— 

this guy—and I can’t remember his name; I wish I could—but, he 

lives, dies, and breathes to pull exotic species around Glen Canyon. 

He’ll put together a volunteer group, jump on a boat, go up the reservoir, and they’ll just spend a day, or a week, 10 days, out in the 

field, and do nothing but pulling weeds. It’s inspiration like that, 

that is just tremendous, that helps us address these problems in 

ways that we couldn’t do it by ourselves, because of lack of manpower and lack of funding. 

Senator UDALL. Yes, I note those volunteer organizations that 

are affiliated with, I think, almost every national park unit, would 

be a real resource. I see a number of the lovers of Rocky Mountain 

National Park here in the audience, who’ve, at times, slapped me 

on the back and at times, slapped me upside the head—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL [continuing]. When you thought I haven’t been 

doing the right thing on behalf of Rocky Mountain National Park. 

Let me ask one last question, give each one of you a change to 

comment, and then we’ll see if Senator McCain has any final 

words, and we’ll bring the hearing to close. 
44 

Dr. Frost, Dr. Schimel, Ms. Madden, Mr. Saunders, you all implied, and in some cases were specific, about the threats that you 

see from climate change in relationship to the West and in Colorado, and I’m going to put Arizona on that list, as well. Can you 

explain why Colorado, why Arizona, based on these models, would 

be affected more significantly than some other areas of our country—or of the world, for that matter? 

Mr. FROST. I think ‘‘location, location, location’’ is part of the 

deal, is, you know—Arizona—you look at the Southwest, it’s where 

those—it’s how the weather patterns have developed over time, and 

the models suggest that those weather—as those weather patterns 

change, it’s going to get dryer, hotter, and droughts are going to be 

extended. In—and so, it’s—to me, it’s just a fact of location, you 

know. If Colorado happened to be in—this doesn’t make any sense 

but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FROST [continuing]. If Colorado happened to be in Montana—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FROST [continuing]. They’d be another—they’d be a different 

suite of problems. So, I think, the problems are unique to Colorado 

and Arizona, but a lot has to do with the location, the terrain—the 

physical terrain, the type of vegetation, and then, obviously, the 

impacts that humans have had on the environment. Iin fact, it may 

not be as bad in some areas, because the human impact hasn’t 

been as great as in other areas. 

Senator UDALL. Dr. Schimel, you care to comment? 

Mr. SCHIMEL. Scientifically, the impacts of climate change on 

natural resources tend to be at a maximum when the effect of 

warming is combined with drying. Within the United States, Colorado and Arizona are in that zone that’s experiencing both warmer 

temperatures and less precipitation. Models project that those two 

trends will continue. That means that the impact on vegetation, on 

in-stream organisms, fish, insects, and the plants that depend on 

the streams, are going to be very dramatically affected. 

There are two other aspects of the environment. One is the alpine environment, Islands in the Sky. As tree line pushes up, as 

temperatures warm, and the temperature becomes warmer at high 

elevations, those are environments that, literally, will be pushed off 

the tops of the mountains—not move north or somewhere else, but 

they have nowhere to go. 

Finally, of course, Colorado is part of the grassland region, as 

well. The grasslands of Colorado were devastated during the Dust 

Bowl, and again in the droughts of the 1950s. That’s likely to happen again. If there’s extensive warming and drying in the Great 

Plains, we’ll see both the native grasslands and our agricultural 

systems there having to cope with a very, very stressful sort of 

combination of impacts. 

Ms. MADDEN. I would just say that cultures and economies develop around the way things are, and, if you’re lucky, you can 

maybe have some visionaries who see into the future, and you can 

slowly change things. These changes have come on hard and 

they’ve come on fast. I don’t think we were prepared, and I don’t 

think we’ve acted quickly enough, politically. I think everyone now 
45 

seems to be concerned and very on the ball, and I just hope that 

we can take the political actions that are necessary to change this. 

I—you know, I live in a world where I want to know what I’ve 

accomplished by the end of the day, and so my focus is really 

around things like fuel-switching and increasing what we use for 

natural gas, energy efficiency, reaching into our existing housing 

stock, and making sure all of our buildings are more efficient, increasing the use of renewable energy, and just, then, knowing that 

we have reduced the greenhouse gas emissions in this State. These 

are things that can be done fairly quickly. I think it’s incredibly important, and we have a real responsibility to do it. 

Senator UDALL. Stephen, do you have a—— 

Mr. SAUNDERS. You’ve—— 

Senator UDALL [continuing]. Final comment? 

Mr. SAUNDERS [continuing]. You’ve heard us say, several times, 

that here ‘‘climate change’’ means being both hotter and dryer. 

They work back and forth. Because we’re hotter, we’re going to be 

dryer. The scientists say if we have a 10-percent reduction in the 

precipitation, we’ll have a 20-percent reduction in the stream flow. 

That’s because the rate of evaporation is going to go up. 

Because we are dryer, we’re also going to be hotter. A human 

body cools from sweat evaporating. A planet cools, also, from the 

evaporation of the water. If we have less water to evaporate, the 

heat stays in the ground, if you will. So, those two things play back 

and forth and make each other worse. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for taking the time to be with us 

today. 

I want to thank everybody in the audience for taking time to 

come and participate as a citizen. 

When I was so fortunate to represent the 2nd Congressional District in the House of Representatives, initially I represented the 

lower third of the park in Boulder County, then the district 

changed to—John, I represented three-quarters of the park, including the west side. Now, I have the great fortune—it’s all mine. I 

represent—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL [continuing]. All of Rocky Mountain National 

Park in the United States Senate. 

The town of Estes Park, thank you for your gracious hospitality. 

Again, I want to thank my good friend, one of the people I look 

to for mentorship and wisdom, who’s a patriot, who’s dedicated 

himself to a cause greater than his own self-interest, and that’s 

Senator John McCain. He took the time to come to Colorado to see, 

firsthand, what’s happening here, and I look forward to our partnership continuing as we face a lot of the challenges that our Nation has, but also, I think—what I love about John McCain is, he 

sees opportunities in those challenges. That’s what I see in this 

great climate change challenge we face. 

John, I don’t know if you wanted to add anything else, but—— 
46 

Senator MCCAIN. I do not, Mr. Chairman, except to thank you 

again, and thank the witnesses, and thank everybody for coming 

today. 

Senator UDALL. The subcommittee on National Parks stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:18 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ