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

54–563 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–239 

IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE 

TO NATIONAL PARKS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TO

RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE CURRENT AND EXPECTED IMPACTS OF 

CLIMATE CHANGE ON UNITS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM 

OCTOBER 28, 2009 

( 

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 

Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator From North Carolina ..................................... 2 

Jarvis, Jonathan B., Director, National Park Service, Department of the 

Interior .................................................................................................................. 3 

McMahan, Iliff, Jr., Mayor, Cocke County, Newport, TN .................................... 25 

Noss, Reed F., Ph.D., Davis-Shine Professor of Conservation Biology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL ................................................................... 29 

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

Williams, Steven, Ph.D., President, Wildlife Management Institute, Gardners, 

PA .......................................................................................................................... 19

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 41 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 43 

(1) 

IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE 

TO NATIONAL PARKS 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall presiding. 

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

FROM COLORADO 

Senator UDALL. The Subcommittee on National Parks will come 

to order. 

Good afternoon. Welcome to all of you. This is a hearing I have 

been looking forward to holding for a number of months. 

I want to start with an opening statement. I will turn to the 

ranking member for his opening statement, and then we will turn 

to the Director of the National Park Service for his comments. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to consider the impacts of climate change on the National Park System. Understanding the 

challenges of climate change and how they are affecting the National Park Service is an issue that is important to me and certainly is one of the major management challenges facing the National Park Service. 

Last August, the subcommittee held a hearing in Estes Park, 

Colorado to better understand the impacts of climate change on national parks in Colorado. I was pleased that Senator McCain was 

able to join me at that hearing, and we had a very good discussion 

on the climate-related challenges facing Rocky Mountain National 

Park and other parks in Colorado. I hope to use today’s hearing to 

continue to build upon that discussion by broadening the scope to 

look at climate-related impacts to all units of the National Park 

System throughout the country. 

The recent Ken Burns’ PBS documentary on national parks reminded millions of Americans of the incredible and varied resources that are conserved and protected in the National Park System. As the documentary showed, it took incredible vision to set 

aside these lands during a period of development, expansion, and 

growth in our country. Despite the challenges that were overcome 

to protect these areas, they now face new threats to their long-term 

viability, and I am not sure of any long-term management issue 

more significant than climate change. 
2 

The climate issue is unique in that it is sweeping and unprecedented in scope. While many of our parks are relatively pristine, 

they are not immune to the rising temperatures that threaten fish 

and wildlife habitat, the increase in invasive species that displace 

native plant life, and the loss of irreplaceable artifacts and archeology that may be submerged with rising sea levels. While climate 

impacts can vary across individual regions and landscapes, it is 

likely that many parks will see drier summers, fewer snowfalls, 

and more intense wildfires. Temperatures are expected to rise most 

dramatically in higher latitudes, affecting high alpine ecosystems 

and habitat. 

To a large degree, our Nation’s parks are the canary in the coal 

mine when it comes to the on-the-ground changes due to the impacts of a warming climate. These impacts are real, significant, and 

can have lasting effects on these resources and our ability to protect them. 

Senator McCain and I took a brief tour of Rocky Mountain National Park before the August hearing to look at places where climate change impacts are occurring. Unfortunately, the sorts of 

things we saw—such as trees killed by a bark beetle epidemic that 

has been exacerbated by a warming climate—are being felt 

throughout the National Park System. 

As an avid park supporter, I want to ensure that our national 

treasures are understood and protected for generations of Americans to come. I am looking forward to learning about the impacts 

and the challenges we face in managing the park system in light 

of the challenges posed by climate change. 

As I mentioned earlier, in a few minutes we will hear from the 

new Director—congratulations again, Director Jarvis—of the National Park Service who has a long history of working on this issue, 

and we also have a distinguished panel of witnesses, each of whom 

brings a unique perspective to this issue. 

At this time, I would like to recognize my friend and the ranking 

member of the subcommittee, the Senator from North Carolina, 

Mr. Burr. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator BURR. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. 

Mr. Jarvis, I welcome you, as I will our other panelists. 

I want to thank you for holding this subcommittee hearing. It 

has been about 3 months since we have had the opportunity to 

have a hearing and address the issue of the changing climate as 

it relates to our national parks. 

Our parks provide Americans with an excellent source of solitude, wilderness, and a glimpse in our Nation’s history. I agree 

with you, the PBS special that was run—I have contacted PBS and 

asked that 99 copies be delivered to other members’ offices so that 

those that did not have an opportunity to see it will have that opportunity. 

We must be good stewards of these national treasures so that 

they are preserved for the enjoyment of future generations. 

I also hope that my colleagues, both sides of the Congress, will 

allow science and science alone to drive our policies in the future 
3 

and, more importantly, our investments as it relates to the efforts 

on climate change. 

I look forward to the witnesses today, what they provide as a 

snapshot at this point in time. I believe that policy of this significance is snapshots over a continual period of time as we see 

changes that we might not have anticipated or changes that alter 

what in fact we anticipated. 

I also look forward to hearing from the director today specifically 

on how climate affects our parks, and we might sneak in some 

other questions since he has come into this position. 

I also want to thank the chairman for the time he has provided. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Burr. 

Without further ado, let us move to Director Jarvis. Again, welcome. It is a treat to have you here and we look forward to your 

testimony. then we will direct some questions your way when you 

are finished. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN B. JARVIS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, members of the 

committee. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to come to this 

body and speak on this major issue of climate change. 

For nearly a century, the National Park Service has been 

charged with managing the parks, as mandated by the Organic Act 

of 1916. In that history, as well articulated by Mr. Burns, we have 

faced a lot of challenges, but the challenge of climate change is 

probably one of our greatest. It is a challenge to maintaining America’s natural and cultural heritage unimpaired for future generations. 

Secretary Salazar has prioritized the issue of climate change 

within the Department of the Interior and recently issued a secretarial order on September 14, 2009, establishing a climate change 

strategy to integrate the work of the various Department of the Interior bureaus to mitigate and adapt to the effects that we are already seeing and those that we anticipate from climate change. 

The National Park Service’s climate change strategy will complement the secretarial order by developing a focus on sort of three 

areas. Collaboration at the landscape scale, amongst all of the bureaus, particularly to derive appropriate scientific information and 

to develop adaptation strategies. There will be a mitigation strategy as well that is developed through and incorporated into all of 

our planning processes and a communications strategy that relates 

to both communication internally and with the public about the climate change effects that we are seeing. 

The management implications for protecting species, biological 

communities, our visitor facilities, and cultural resources within 

park boundaries in a rapidly changing climate are very complex 

and frankly without precedent. We are already documenting accelerated melting of mountain glaciers in places like Glacier National 

Park and the North Cascades and reduced snowpacks and changing in the timing of stream flows that affect terrestrial and aquatic 

communities in our mountain parks. These have direct effects on 

species such as wolverine and lynx which depend on winter snow 

and icepacks. 
4 

The coastal parks are already seeing changes to their shorelines 

and their boundaries and expect even greater as sea levels rise. 

Marine ecosystems already show signs of coral bleaching and disease caused by increased sea surface temperatures that have resulted in the loss of more than 50 percent of the reef-building corals in the Virgin Island parks since 2005. 

Fire ignitions are occurring both earlier and later in the seasons 

and now fires in some places have increased in both frequency and 

intensity, changing native and animal plant communities and contributing to the spread of exotic species. 

Cultural resources are often, I think, forgotten in this process are 

also going to be affected by sea level rise and climate change. For 

instance, archeological sites and historic structures are being already damaged by these effects at Fort Jefferson, Dry Tortugas, 

and at Jamestown in Colonial National Historic Park. 

As I mentioned, we are developing a strategic framework that I 

will detail briefly but am open to any questions in terms of mitigation, adaptation, and communication. 

First in the area of mitigation, the NPS is leading by example 

by reducing our own park carbon footprint and promoting sustainable operational practices. We have set a goal in the National Park 

Service to exceed the Federal requirements for reducing total energy use in NPS operations, and we have established very specific 

goals to reach by 2016, which is the 100th anniversary of the National Park System. We want to establish a leadership role in sustainability and meeting and exceeding the Department of the Interior greenhouse gas emission goals. We already have programs like 

the Climate Friendly Parks Program and the Energy SmartPARKS 

Program as key ways that NPS can use to reduce greenhouse gases 

through emission inventories, climate action planning, energy conservation, and renewable energy. 

There are already activities in these fields. In the Pacific West, 

where I was the regional director for the last 7 years, we have 

heavily implemented the Climate Friendly Parks Program and we 

are now generating over 4 percent of our own energy from renewables. 

Today the U.S. Department of Energy is honoring two NPS facilities in their annual Federal Energy and Water Management 

Awards, one of which is the visitors center at Lassen Volcanic National Park which is receiving an award for achieving the leadership in energy and environmental design, or LEED, certification at 

platinum. That is the highest level that can be achieved. This is 

the first year-around visitor center in the National Park System to 

achieve a LEED platinum. It is also the first Federal building in 

the State of California to achieve LEED platinum. The Blue Ridge 

Parkway Destination Center, which opened in 2007, achieved a 

LEED certification of gold for its green roofing and low-flow plumbing. 

So all of these kinds of efforts are great because they reduce our 

footprint, but they are also opportunities to demonstrate sustainability to the public. 

We have 84 photovoltaic solar panels now operational on and 

around the Grand Canyon visitor center, which reduces 30 percent 

of their energy demand for that facility. 
5 

The second piece is adaptation, and in this case the broad impacts of climate change require us to begin to think and act at the 

landscape scale. The NPS will fully participate in the Department 

of the Interior-proposed landscape conservation cooperatives and 

the regional climate change response centers that will include partners like universities, tribes, States, other Federal agencies, private 

landholders, and all the other partners out there that have a stake 

in the changes that we are going to see at the landscape scale. 

These are integral to providing the key scientific and technical 

support to managers and to partners for developing and implementing conservation strategies at the landscape scale. We hope to 

use new technologies and new strategies to help our parks be more 

resilient to the changes we expect to see. 

The third leg of the stool is communication. With 275 million 

visitors to our national parks annually, we can serve as models of 

sustainability, adaptation, and as platforms to effectively communicate information about the effects of climate change. Information 

that parks provide can be a catalyst for visitors to do their own 

part to assist in energy conservation and the effects of climate. 

The National Park Service, in conjunction with other Federal 

agencies, has developed a Climate Change, Wildlife and Wildlands 

Toolkit that interpreters in parks, zoos, aquariums, science centers, 

and outdoor classrooms across the country can use to help us talk 

about climate change. 

We are also in parks making climate change information available through brochures, wayside exhibits, interpretive programs, 

and handouts. Information is also available on our Web site. 

This administration has embarked on an ambitious and muchneeded strategy to reduce the generation of greenhouse gases and 

our dependence on foreign oil. The National Park Service supports 

this effort and is committed to working with Department of the Interior and other agencies to ensure that this is done in a way that 

protects our national parks and our natural and cultural heritage. 

Renewable energy development is not without its environmental 

impacts. We must make sure that these are the right projects, they 

are being permitted in the right locations, and they are done in the 

right way. The National Park Service is committed to engaging actively with all the agencies that are involved in this for proposed 

renewable energy projects near or adjacent to national parks. 

In conclusion, our efforts to date are significant but there is 

much work to be done. Our actions will require involving interagency and intra-agency cooperation and leadership to build on the 

collective knowledge and to create solutions for protecting resources 

and resource values and providing for appropriate visitor enjoyment. Parks are reference markers upon which we can measure the 

effects of climate change. So one of our most precious values is our 

ability to teach us about ourselves and how we relate to the natural world. This important role may prove invaluable in the near 

future as we strive to understand and adapt to a changing climate. 

Thank you for this opportunity to present this testimony, and I 

am ready for any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis follows:] 
6 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JONATHAN B. JARVIS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

to present testimony on the impacts of climate change to National Parks. For nearly 

a century, the National Park Service (NPS) has been charged with managing the 

parks within the breadth and complexity of our mission as mandated by the Organic 

Act of 1916. While the NPS has faced daunting challenges to effective natural and 

cultural resource management since its inception, park managers are currently facing an increasing array of dynamic issues and unprecedented challenges, more than 

any encountered in the history of the National Park System. Climate change is our 

newest, greatest challenge to maintaining America’s natural and cultural heritage 

unimpaired for future generations. 

Secretary Salazar has prioritized the issue of climate change within the Department of the Interior (DOI). Secretarial Order No. 3289 of September 14, 2009, established a climate change strategy to integrate the work of each DOI bureau to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change in the pursuit of their respective missions. Recently, DOI met with Congressional staff to describe this new approach to 

climate change adaptation and mitigation activities. 

The NPS Climate Change Strategy will complement the Secretarial Order. We are 

holding scenario planning workshops, assessing the vulnerability of facilities and 

cultural and natural resources, acquiring data and implementing a climate friendly 

parks program. Our climate change response steering committee is developing a 

strategic plan that will be presented to me and my NPS National Leadership Council. This plan will include action items for responding to the Secretarial Order and 

will focus on collaboration at the regional and landscape level to develop scientific 

information and adaptation strategies; mitigate greenhouse gases; incorporate climate change into park planning processes; and communicate internally and with 

the public about climate change issues. 

The National Park Service Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units, Research Learning Centers, and Inventory and Monitoring networks have been designed to link 

science to management issues and they will be tapped to ensure that NPS needs 

and interests are addressed through the Regional Climate Change Response Centers 

and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Finally, with respect to the mitigation 

elements of the Secretarial Order, the NPS has taken a leadership role through the 

Climate Friendly Parks Program. 

Since implementation of the Natural Resource Challenge nearly a decade ago, the 

NPS has been increasing its science capacity and the professional expertise of natural resource managers. However, there is still much to be done. Earlier this month, 

I announced the appointment of our first ever science advisor to the director. This 

new and important position will help build on existing NPS science programs and 

advance the role of science within our bureau as we meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. 

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

our observations of the effects and potential future changes related to climate 

change in national park units. I will also discuss the NPS actions and programs underway that will prepare us for the current and anticipated impacts from climate 

change. 

THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NATIONAL PARK UNITS

In October 2009, the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and the Natural Resource Defense Council published a report entitled National Parks in Peril. The 

Threats of Climate Disruption. The report cited human disruption of climate as the 

‘‘greatest threat ever to our national parks’’ and identified eleven types of risks our 

parks are facing. These risks include loss of ice and snow; loss of water; higher seas 

and stronger coastal storms; more downpours and flooding; loss of plant communities; loss of wildlife; loss of historical and cultural resources; intolerable heat; loss 

of fishing; and more air pollution. This report shows broad public concern over the 

impacts of climate change to parks. 

We have documented accelerated melting of mountain glaciers in national parks 

such as Glacier and North Cascades, disappearance of perennial snowfields in Alaska parks, reduced snowpacks and changes in the timing and amount of stream flow 

that affect terrestrial and aquatic communities in mountain parks. These impacts 

not only affect recreational opportunities including cross-country skiing and fishing, 

but the very species that depend upon winter snow and icepacks such as the ice 

worm, wolverine, and lynx. 

Alaskan parks are seeing some of the earliest impacts of possible climate 

change—melting sea ice threatens marine mammals as well as coastal communities, 
7 

thawing permafrost destabilizes buildings, roads, and other facilities. Parks such as 

Yosemite and Great Basin are seeing high-elevation species, such as the alpine chipmunk, moving upslope, thereby reducing the effective area for their survival as well 

as those species that prey upon them. (Moritz et. al. 2008) 

Coastal parks are a central concern. The NPS manages 74 coastal units encompassing more than 5,100 miles of coast and three million acres of submerged resources including beaches, wetlands, estuaries, coral reefs, and kelp forests. These 

parks attract more than 75 million visitors every year, and generate over $2.5 billion in economic benefits to local communities. The U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1 on Coastal Sensitivity to Sea Level 

Rise (2009) states: 

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

are particularly vulnerable to climate change. Such ecosystems are among 

the most biologically productive environments in the world. 

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

recreationally and commercially valuable fish and shellfish; they provide important 

ecosystem services, and offer beautiful landscapes for marine recreation and wildlife 

watching. The U.S. government’s recently-released landmark report, Climate 

Change Impacts in the United States (2009), identifies a variety of changes these 

ecosystems are forecast to undergo. Such changes in a park context may include 

shoreline and park boundary changes as sea level rises. Already observed changes 

in marine ecosystems include coral bleaching and disease caused by increased sea 

surface temperatures that have led to the loss of more than 50 percent of reef-building corals in the Virgin Islands park units since 2005 (IPCC 2007, Hoegh-Guldberg 

1999, Buddemeier 2004). 

NPS data indicate that fire ignitions are occurring both earlier and later in the 

season now and the average duration of time that a wildfire burns has increased 

from less than 10 days to more than a month. Fires in some places may be increasing in both frequency and intensity, changing native plant and animal communities 

and contributing to the spread of invasive exotic species (Westerling et al. 2006). 

Wildland fire frequency and intensity also are impacting cultural resources, as hotter fires and our efforts to fight them directly damage both surficial and buried archeological sites. 

Because the amount of precipitation stored as snowpack is expected to decrease 

and annual snowmelt is expected to commence earlier in the spring in mountain 

states such as Colorado, the overall expected effect will be decreasing volume of 

water available annually for storage in Colorado River basin reservoirs (IPCC 2007). 

It is also thought that there will be increased year-to-year variability in basin hydrologic conditions and decreased certainty as to the amount of annual water production (Guido 2008 and Knowles et al 2006). Given these expected changes and the 

present allocation of Colorado River Basin water resources and the ever-increasing 

demand for water in the southwest, the expected changes will present challenges 

to both water and park resource managers. 

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

effects of climate disruption on park natural and cultural resources, developed infrastructure, and visitor experience are just beginning to be understood. The management implications for protecting species, biological communities, and physical resources within finite land management boundaries in a rapidly changing climate are 

complex and without precedent. 

Cultural resources are also expected to be significantly affected by climate change. 

For example, rising water levels are already damaging archeological sites, historic 

structures, and cultural landscapes such as Fort Jefferson in Dry Tortugas National 

Park (Florida), Jamestown in Colonial National Historical Park (Virginia), and Ellis 

Island National Monument and the Statue of Liberty National Monument in Upper 

New York Bay. Sea level rise and storms threaten the tangible remains of some of 

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

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

Islands National Park and ancient shell middens at George Washington’s Birthplace 

National Monument and on the coast of Everglades National Park. Decreasing lake 

levels expose vulnerable archeological resources and critical park infrastructure in 

places like Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Our nation’s maritime history, including lighthouses from Massachusetts to Oregon, historic forts including Fort Jefferson and Fort Sumter, and historic coastal communities also face accelerated erosion from rising seas and more intense storm surges. 

The focus of the climate change discussion has largely shifted from the evidence 

that climate change is occurring to what we can do about it. As stewards of our nation’s natural and cultural heritage, we have an obligation to act now. 
8 

CURRENT CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIONS AND PROGRAMS

To effectively respond to climate change challenges to parks, NPS is working with 

DOI to undertake a collective and coordinated strategy that builds upon and expands existing partnerships such as those between NPS, other bureaus, and nongovernmental stakeholders. Building the capacity to respond to climate change will 

involve identifying, linking, prioritizing, and implementing a range of short and 

long-term activities. NPS’s ability to work cooperatively with other federal agencies, 

states, local agencies and the public to address the cumulative impacts of climate 

change on park natural resources was greatly improved with the passage of section 

301 of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, which authorizes NPS to 

spend appropriated funds cooperatively on work conducted outside park boundaries 

for the purpose of protecting park natural resources. 

The NPS now is developing a strategic framework for action that will detail short 

and long-term actions in three major areas: mitigation, adaptation, and communication. The framework will address park, regional and national-level needs and concerns by incorporating actions to address the core elements associated with 

proactive climate change impact management—Legal and Policy; Planning; Science; 

Resource Stewardship; Greenhouse Gas Emission and Sustainable Operations; and 

Communication. 

Some of our key actions to date include: 

• Initiating the Climate Friendly Parks Program in 2003 in conjunction with the 

Environmental Protection Agency. The program promotes sustainable operations in parks and creates park climate action plans to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. It now involves almost 60 parks. 

• Utilizing Environmental Management System Plans to track and reduce park 

environmental impacts and set targets for sustainable park operations. 

• Hosting or participating in a series of regional and interagency workshops to 

explore climate change impacts and coping strategies over the past three years. 

• Adopting an Ocean Park Stewardship Action Plan in 2006 to guide actions to 

address ocean-related climate change impacts. 

• Forming a service-wide Climate Change Response Steering Committee to foster 

communications, provide recommendations, and serve as an advisory body to 

NPS leadership. 

Successful park approaches to mitigating climate change impacts require the very 

best science, including physical, biological, social, and cultural disciplines. Since 

1999, NPS has used strategically placed Research Learning Centers throughout the 

country, in addition to the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESU) Network 

to collaborate with leading research institutions, including universities, NGOs and 

State and federal partners, to provide the necessary science for informing sustainable adaptive management of park resources. The 17 CESUs in the network cover 

all regions of the country, with a total of 250 partners including 13 federal agencies. 

The program has been highly successful in producing cutting edge collaborative research and providing technical assistance and capacity building for the NPS, State 

and local agencies, and other federal and non-governmental partners. 

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE—MITIGATION, ADAPTATION, COMMUNICATION

While efforts to date are significant, much work lies ahead to address climate 

change impacts on park resources and visitor enjoyment and to respond strategically 

to those impacts in ways that are compatible with park purposes and values. Our 

actions will necessarily involve strong intra-and interagency cooperation and leadership to build on collective knowledge and to create new solutions for protecting resources and resource values and providing for appropriate enjoyment. 

MITIGATION—LEADING BY EXAMPLE

In the area of mitigation, the NPS is leading by example by reducing park carbon 

footprints and promoting sustainable operational practices. The NPS has set a goal 

to significantly exceed the federal requirements for reducing total energy use in 

NPS operations and having a portion of park energy come from renewables by 2016, 

the 100th year anniversary of the establishment of the National Park Service. We 

also look forward to taking a leadership role in meeting or exceeding the DOI greenhouse gas emission reduction goals developed in response to Executive Order 13514 

on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance issued 

October 5, 2009. 
9 

The Climate Friendly Parks Program and the Energy SmartPARKS Program are 

two of the key ways that NPS is mitigating greenhouse gases through these areas 

of emphasis: 

• Emissions Inventories: Parks quantify and track their emissions and identify 

specific areas where reductions can be most readily achieved. 

• Climate Action Planning: Parks use the Climate Leadership in Parks (CLIP) 

tool to identify carbon reduction goals and actions to follow through on these 

goals. Almost sixty parks are now in the process of completing these plans. 

• Energy Conservation: Significant portions of greenhouse gas emissions in parks 

come from transportation, energy consumption in buildings, and waste management. Mitigation solutions include sustainable design and construction, adaptive ‘‘green’’ reuse of historic structures, use of high-mileage and alternative-fuel 

vehicles, solid waste reduction, and alternative transportation systems that integrate all modes of travel within a park, including land and water-based vehicles. 

• Renewable Energy: An increasing number of parks are generating energy from 

renewable sources, such as photovoltaic systems and geothermal heat exchangers. The Energy SmartPARKS program is a partnership with the Department 

of Energy that is focusing on generating renewable energy and showcasing sustainable energy practices in parks. Currently, NPS-wide, 3.8% of energy in 

parks comes from renewable sources. 

NPS regions are also moving forward with their own climate change initiatives. 

For example, the Pacific West Region (PWR) has a very ambitious Climate Change 

Leadership Initiative that promotes Climate Friendly Parks. The overall objective 

is to support Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, 

and Transportation Management, by setting greenhouse gas targets. The 58 parks 

in the region have set a target of becoming carbon neutral for park operations by 

2016 and now generate over 4% of their energy from renewable sources. 

SAFEGUARDING AND PROTECTING PARK RESOURCES, STRUCTURES, AND USES— 

ADAPTATION PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION

While mitigating the causes of climate change is essential, parks must plan now 

for adapting to the resource and visitor use impacts of climate change. Worldwide, 

national parks and protected areas represent the core areas, refugia, and often, 

habitat and source populations for species which disperse nationally and internationally. 

Within North America, declines in native species populations and their ability to 

persist have been observed, and climate change and habitat loss and fragmentation 

are among the factors contributing to these declines. Over 800 animal species that 

occur in national parks migrate beyond boundaries through air, water, and over 

land. Because animal species do not detect jurisdictional boundaries, the success of 

recovery programs for imperiled or at-risk species often depends on cooperation and 

collaboration among our nation’s governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, private landowners, and the international community. 

Given the broad impacts of climate change, management responses to such impacts must be coordinated on a landscape-level basis. Enhancing scientific expertise 

within the Service will enable NPS to expand formal relationships with partners 

outside park units who share our concerns, and will foster development of cooperative projects to further conservation of shared species and their habitats. 

The NPS will fully participate with each of the DOI-proposed Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) and Regional Climate Change Response Centers 

(RCC) including universities, tribes, states, federal agencies and other partners and 

stakeholders. The LCCs and the Regional Climate Change Response Centers are integral to climate adaptation efforts, providing scientific and technical support to 

managers and partnerships responsible for developing and implementing conservation strategies at landscape scales in a changing climate. With these partners and 

others, we will use new technologies and strategies in a more unified approach to 

make parks key participants in continental conservation. 

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

the ability of species, communities, and ecosystems to respond to changing conditions. For example, changes in weather patterns, water availability, and wildland 

fire will stimulate changes in the distribution and abundance of plants, animals, 

and ecological communities through both adaptation and migration. NPS actions to 

build resilience and reduce other ecosystem stressors, especially the effects of exotic 

species, will help to reduce the extent or intensity of some of the most deleterious 

impacts on park resources from climate change. NPS actions to restore currently de-
10 

graded natural ecosystems can make them more resilient to future effects of climate 

change. These types of resource management activities are already occurring in national parks, but will become increasingly important as park management priorities. 

We need to intensify our exotic species control work and subsequent ecosystem restoration by developing comprehensive resiliency strategies for four initial focus 

areas: high altitude, high latitude, southwest arid lands, and ocean ecosystems. Examples of our current activities include the restoration of major ecosystems such as 

the Everglades; the establishment of marine reserves in units of the National Park 

System; removal of invasive exotic animals such as Burmese pythons, feral pigs, and 

goats; and reduction of the abundance and impact of exotic plant species. 

A critical component for adaptation planning and implementation involves continuing to build our long-term science information and ecosystem monitoring (Vital 

Signs) capacities. The National Park System represents a wide range of ecosystems 

scattered across the nation, and therefore, embraces a broad spectrum of diverse 

natural environments. Because of this diversity, parks present tremendous opportunities to observe the effects of climate change on known resource conditions that 

park scientists and managers have documented over decades. 

The NPS Inventory and Monitoring program includes 32 networks serving more 

than 270 parks, and data from this program are presently being summarized and 

synthesized to better establish the current condition of park resources and to provide a baseline against which to better assess and understand future natural resource conditions. Inventory and Monitoring networks are strategically positioned to 

help parks acquire the information they need to make informed decisions, to employ 

adaptive management, and to test alternative strategies for adapting park resources 

and visitor uses to the effects of climate change. 

In addition to natural resource monitoring and condition assessments, we conduct 

condition assessments of cultural resources and ethnographic studies that include 

information on past and current subsistence uses of park natural resources. Information from these programs also informs state and other members of landscapescale partnerships and provides valuable site-specific information for use by scientists looking at regional and national scale trends. 

Although resource management planning for future decision-making must be 

based on expectations of future conditions, in an era of climate change, the future 

will be characterized by highly consequential and unprecedented changes that cannot be forecast with as much accuracy and precision as we would like. Consequently, 

during the next ten years the NPS will utilize a scenario planning approach that 

uses the best available science to explore a range of plausible ‘‘multiple working futures’’ and consider appropriate actions within each of those possible futures, including changes in park zoning, the landscaping of developed park areas with native 

rather than exotic species, and the design or location of buildings and roads and infrastructure. Scenario planning is being specifically designed to help managers identify policies and actions that will be most effective across a range of potential futures and to promote tactical adaptation responses that are compatible with the 

NPS mission and contribute to landscape-scale partnerships. 

PARKS SERVE AS MODELS OF SUSTAINABILITY AND PLACES TO COMMUNICATE CLIMATE

CHANGE INFORMATION

There is a great need at this time to communicate the complexities of climate 

change and the actions that can be taken. With 275 million visits annually, the 

parks can serve as models of sustainability and adaptation and as platforms to effectively communicate information about the effects of climate change. Information 

that parks provide can be a catalyst for visitors to do their part for climate friendly 

parks and beyond. 

NPS is instituting a number of efforts to communicate the effects of climate 

change and its impacts to national parks. These include a monthly web-based seminar series featuring climate change experts on science, communication, and management topics. They also include interpretive training using a decision-tree for developing knowledge around individual aspects of climate change that will help park 

rangers to frame interpretive programs and answer visitor questions. The NPS, in 

conjunction with other federal agencies, has developed a ‘‘Climate Change, Wildlife 

and Wildlands Toolkit’’ that interpreters in parks, zoos, aquariums, science centers 

and outdoor and classroom educators across the country may use to talk about climate change. In addition, NPS in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service together are creating summaries of climate change knowledge for specific bioregions—a series of 11 bioregional documents envisioned to date—to summarize the 

current state of knowledge about climate change and impacts to protected areas in 

those bioregions, with a focus on national parks and refuges. 
11 

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

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

achieving this goal, and many parks, including Point Reyes National Seashore, Glacier National Park, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Everglades National Park, 

Dry Tortugas National Park, and Kenai Fjords National Park, make climate change 

information readily available to the public. The NPS is currently developing and 

supporting a new and exciting ‘‘Visitor—Do Your Part Program’’ which will have 

visitors voluntarily measure and reduce their own carbon footprints. In addition, 

NPS also is exploring ways to utilize its national preservation programs, such as 

Preservation Assistance and the National Center for Preservation Technology, to develop and disseminate information on sustainability, historic preservation, and guidance for adaptive reuse of historic buildings. 

MEETING OUR NATION’S RENEWABLE ENERGY GOALS WHILE PROTECTING TREASURED

LANDSCAPES

The Administration has embarked on an ambitious and much needed strategy to 

reduce the generation of greenhouse gases and our national dependence on foreign 

oil in a way that safeguards our environment. As part of that strategy, the Secretary has set specific goals for generating renewable energy from the public lands 

and the outer continental shelf, including solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and hydroelectric projects. The Secretary has committed to fast tracking the compliance 

and the development of corridors to carry this energy to the areas of greatest demand. He also has made clear that he is committed to doing so in a manner that 

protects the environment, including our treasured landscapes. 

The NPS supports this effort, and is committed to working with DOI and others 

to ensure that the siting and permitting of renewable energy development, including 

energy transmission and needed ancillary facilities, is done in a way that protects 

our natural and cultural heritage. We definitely need to be ‘‘smart from the start.’’ 

Renewable energy development is not without its environmental impacts. We must 

be sure that the right projects are being permitted in the right locations and in the 

right way. 

The NPS is pro-actively engaging other agencies and project proponents to resolve 

concerns associated with proposed renewable energy projects adjacent to park 

boundaries. I will be meeting with my counterparts in DOI to further this coordination and collaboration. 

CONCLUSION

Our national park units provide environmental baselines to track and assess 

change, and they stand as some of the last vestiges where species populations, essential habitats, and ecological components function naturally. National parks also 

serve as core essential habitats as well as critical habitats for source populations 

of species. To succeed in the face of climate change, the NPS must lead by example 

in minimizing carbon footprints and promoting sustainable operational practices to 

ensure that intact ecosystem services are sustained within and outside of park 

boundaries. 

One of the most precious values of the national parks is their ability to teach us 

about ourselves and how we relate to the natural world. This important role may 

prove invaluable in the near future as we strive to understand and adapt to a 

changing climate. We must engage in an unprecedented level of collaboration and 

cooperation with other agencies and partners to ensure that scientific information 

is collected, analyzed, and applied to better protect resources and explain the benefits and necessity of natural and cultural resource conservation across the nation 

and the world. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. I am pleased to answer 

any questions members of the committee may have. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Director Jarvis. 

Let me recognize myself first to begin a round of questions. 

As Senator Burr mentioned, we ought to really focus on science. 

I understand that there is a general consensus among scientists 

that park resources are being affected as the result of climate 

change in a wide variety of environments, whether they be coastal 

or alpine or desert, what have you. 
12 

Do you feel that the Park Service has a good handle on where 

these effects are happening and the severity of them? If not, what 

else would you like to see done? 

Mr. JARVIS. First, I agree absolutely that the key to developing 

adaptation strategies and resilience and even communicating to the 

public—we need a very robust science program. As you may have 

heard, I have added to my National Park Service staff a science advisor, Dr. Gary Machlis, who is here with us today, to serve in that 

role, to help us synthesize and direct both the science we have and 

to help us procure and obtain the science that we need in order to 

better understand this. 

The Department of the Interior is, in cooperation with the other 

bureaus and particularly led by the U.S. Geological Survey, going 

to launch a series of regional climate change response centers 

which are intended to be, for the most part, university-based, geographically focused on developing specific science, specific research 

that will help us design our future adaptation programs. It is intended to be applied science that will really assist our managers. 

I think the role of Dr. Machlis and our organization is to ensure 

that our managers are actually getting the science they need to address these things. I think in some areas we have fairly good 

science, and there are a lot of areas we really do not yet understand what these effects may mean. 

Senator UDALL. In your testimony, you discussed the role of renewable energy on public lands. Director Jarvis, could you expand 

on how the NPS is working more broadly with the Department 

itself on developing renewable energy? 

Mr. JARVIS. In two areas. One, in sort of our own house, we are 

looking to where renewables may be appropriate that are for our 

operations. We are really not looking on national park lands, nor 

should we frankly, to be producing renewable powers for export. 

However, on the public lands that in many cases are immediately 

adjacent or within the environs of national parks, such as BLM 

lands, there are large proposals for major development of solar arrays, hydro-solar, hydro-kinetics, wind energy, all of those kinds of 

things. Then that energy must be moved via corridors across the 

landscape from perhaps places that energy can be developed to energy where it is really needed. 

My experience thus far within the Department of the Interior 

where most of this work is being done has been a very robust and 

very cooperative relationship where all of us are at the table to ensure that as these developments are completed—and many of them 

are on fast tracks to get them done—that the National Park Service’s concerns for connectivity, for wildlife corridors, for viewsheds, 

for water, for cultural resources effects are all being strongly considered as we develop this on a landscape scale. So we are very actively engaged in all of this at this time. 

Senator UDALL. My time is expiring, but let me at least ask you 

one question that may take additional testimony for the record. 

You have to manage within finite boundaries in an increasingly 

complex and rapidly changing environment and really without 

precedent, as you point out. Do you think you have the authority 

to manage for the ongoing and expected effects of climate change 

or those effects related to climate change? 
13 

Mr. JARVIS. At this time, I cannot specify any additional authorities that I think the National Park Service needs. 

If there is any silver lining to climate change, it forces us as a 

country, as particularly Federal agencies that have this responsibility, to think and act at the landscape scale. 

As you well know, the Federal estate of this country or the entire 

estate was divided up into specific boundaries, whether it was military reservations or Indian reservations or national parks or forests or BLM lands and then the private side as well. For many 

years, we have managed those with some expectation of predictability about their long-term sustainability and climate change 

challenges that, challenges us in a very large way, that perhaps for 

migratory species like migratory waterfowl, that these wetlands 

will no longer be there. 

So the question becomes, where are they going to be, where 

should they be? 

At this point, we are in that dialog. We are in that discussion, 

and I do not think we are ready yet to say we need new authorities. What we need is the commitment on the part of the Congress 

and the President and the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, as the other major land managers here, 

to really work cooperatively to look at strategies for long-term sustainability of these ecosystems. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for those answers. 

Senator Burr. 

Senator BURR. Mr. Jarvis, welcome. Let me go straight to sort of 

the Pacific West where you instituted a goal in 58 parks to have 

a carbon-neutral park operation by 2016. Let me ask, if I could, 

what was the cost of that program projected over that period of 

time? 

Mr. JARVIS. We found that it depends on which—we set that goal 

and then we began to dive down into it to really understand it. A 

lot of it depends—— 

Senator BURR. But you had started instituting things, I think I 

heard you say in your testimony. 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, we had. 

Senator BURR. What was the achievement of a carbon-neutral 

parks operation in 58 parks going to cost? 

Mr. JARVIS. I do not have the bottom line figure on that. I do not 

know what that total would cost. 

Senator BURR. So the Park Service, before starting this program, 

did not ask for what the price tag was going to be. 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir, we did not. 

Senator BURR. Let me ask for a clarification. You talked about 

the reduction of electricity at the Grand Canyon by 30 percent, if 

I understood you, for Grand Canyon facilities. 

Mr. JARVIS. That one facility. 

Senator BURR. That one facility. 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator BURR. Since the Grand Canyon derives their power from 

the Hoover Dam, therefore, reducing that electricity did not reduce 

carbon at all. Is that a wise investment if the goal is to reduce the 

carbon footprint? 
14 

Mr. JARVIS. As I understand the electrical system in this country, 

it is very much of an integrated system, and there is sort of a total 

demand and then some of that demand comes from green power 

and some of it comes from coal-fired powerplants or a variety of 

other sources. I think the goal here is, where we can, to look for 

those opportunities to add renewables where it is appropriate. I 

think what it does is it offsets the overall demand in that case. 

Senator BURR. You are right in a general sense, but from the 

standpoint of our inability to store electricity when you have got 

something as massive as the Hoover Dam project, it means that 

that is either consumed or you cut back on your generating capacity. Yet, you still have the water flow. I only point out the point 

because you made it perfectly clear. The goal is to reduce carbon, 

to become carbon-neutral. I just found it odd that that would have 

been a project that we would have invested in since it had no impact on what the goal was. 

Do you intend to expand this program park-wide? 

Mr. JARVIS. We have not done the analysis nationwide to figure 

out how we would get our organization to sort of a carbon-neutral 

standpoint. 

Senator BURR. So we would not know what that would cost for 

the entire park system. 

Mr. JARVIS. No. 

Senator BURR. I have heard that there is a goal of 2016, and I 

have heard that the 2016 was removed. Can you clarify that for 

me? 

Mr. JARVIS. We are reconsidering whether or not we can bring 

the Pacific West—let me get down into the details on that. Under 

current regulations for power in, for instance, southern California, 

essentially if you are an agency like the National Park Service, we 

can produce power at the local site but, as they say, behind the 

meter. So I would have to, under current regulatory law, build 

enough solar arrays in Yosemite National Park in order to offset 

its use. That would be unacceptable for a variety of reasons. It is 

fairly obvious that you would not want to build that kind of solar 

array in Yosemite National Park. What I would like to be able to 

do is to build a solar array on other lands, perhaps abandoned 

mine lands some place like within the Mojave, that could offset Yosemite. But we do not have the regulatory authorities to do that 

at this time and that is one of the things we have been negotiating 

with the regulators and the power producers who are actually very 

supportive of this in concept, but in terms of current authorities, 

we are not there. 

Senator BURR. Are you not also talking about regulating land adjacent to parks, buffer zones that are not under Park Service jurisdiction? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir, we are not proposing any type regulation or 

buffer zones outside—— 

Senator BURR. Would you agree that to do that, you would have 

to have legislation passed in Congress in some fashion that 

would—— 

Mr. JARVIS. In order to regulate? 

Senator BURR. Sure. 
15 

Mr. JARVIS. Absolutely. We are not proposing or even asking for 

that. 

Senator BURR. Let me ask for just a clarification on your point 

about the increased fire hazards in parks and climate playing a 

role in that. Would it be wise for us to consider a timber harvest 

program more aggressive so that we can get some of that dry timber out to reduce the fire impact? 

Mr. JARVIS. In the National Park Service, we do not allow that 

kind of timber harvest because it is in conflict with our organic legislation, and I really cannot speak to the other public lands in that 

regard. 

I think what we need to do in my opinion is reevaluate our fire 

policies in terms of both how we use wildland fire, prescribed fire, 

as well as fuel reduction. 

Senator BURR. I spoke incorrectly. I meant the fuel reduction 

program. 

I thank the chairman. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Burr. 

Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Congratulations, Mr. Jarvis, on your recent approval. 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I share the concern that you and the chairman have expressed about the impact that climate change is having on our national parks and applaud efforts to mitigate in whatever way you can those impacts and believe that what we need is 

legislation at the Federal level that is going to address this issue 

throughout the country, not just in the national parks. 

While we do not have any national parks in New Hampshire, we 

are the home to Ken Burns who is the documentary filmmaker of 

the national park series, and he said that that has been one of the 

series that he has enjoyed most. So it is truly an impressive film. 

I am actually here not, however, to discuss with you the impacts 

of climate change on our national parks, but to raise another concern that we have in the Northeast about what is happening with 

reorganization of the park office in the Northeast Region. As you 

may recall, I raised this concern with you at your nomination hearing. The reorganization is leading to the reduction of staff from 107 

to 45 in the Boston regional office, a loss of 62 positions that are 

going to be replaced in Philadelphia actually, as I understand, with 

even more positions. The real impact for us is what is happening 

with parks programs in the Northeast and particularly in New 

Hampshire, the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program is one that we have relied on. It has made a huge difference 

for us as we have tried to protect special places in New Hampshire. 

I am very concerned about what the impact of this reorganization 

is going to be on that program and other Park Service programs 

in New Hampshire and throughout New England. 

I understand that the plan has been in the works for some time. 

But when you were here at your confirmation hearing, I asked you 

about the status of the reorganization, and you committed that you 

would take a close look at what is being proposed once you were 

confirmed. You said—and I quote—‘‘my commitment to you is to 
16 

take a very close look at what is being proposed in the Northeast 

Region and work with your office to find a solution.’’ 

Unfortunately, since we spoke, I received a letter that indicates 

to me at least that the decision has already been made, that the 

reorganization is going forward. I found that very disappointing 

and just wondered if you could clarify the status of the reorganization and whether, in fact, you are going to have an opportunity to 

take a close look at what is being proposed and consider whether 

to go forward with that. 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Senator. I actually have looked into this 

with some detail, and there are three parts to it. As you indicated, 

a lot of these actions, particularly the personnel actions, at the 

time of my confirmation hearing were already in play and related 

to offers of early retirement for, I believe, 22 employees, of which 

a number took those opportunities as Federal employees, which 

they can. 

But I did insist on a reevaluation with the Regional Director of 

the Northeast, Dennis Reidenbach, to give me an alternative reorganization, which retained most of the existing staff in that office, 

which he has presented to me. We had a conversation on it this 

past week, which I think will retain pretty much all of the existing 

staff in that office. 

The third piece, though, is that the Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program, which is the community assistance arm 

of the National Park Service (it has nothing really to do with the 

units) it has been in decline for 8 years in terms of the budget. So 

those positions have just—I mean, you speak specifically of your 

home State, but across the country, these positions have been in 

decline. So it is an area that I want to regrow in the organization. 

I have hired a deputy director for community assistance, feeling 

that these are very important individuals and assets for the program. But that is an appropriations issue, but it is my intent—although fiscal year 2011 is really the first budget that I am having 

an opportunity to have any influence over—to talk about rebuilding 

the RTCA program, which can be collocated pretty much anywhere 

and certainly in your State. 

So I am on top of this and would be glad to come by and give 

you the details on our proposed alternative. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I would appreciate that, and we will contact 

your office about setting up a time. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. 

I think we will do a second round, and let me recognize myself. 

Director Jarvis, you talked about several park units that face a 

potential threat from rising sea levels. Could you talk about specific management tools that you are beginning to utilize to protect 

cultural resources in national parks from the effects of climate 

change? Of course, it would not just apply to coastal areas but 

those are very, very obvious. 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, chairman. The coastal areas are one of our highest concerns in terms of cultural resources. We have literally thousands of miles of coastal resources in national park units. For instance, in the Hawaii Islands on the big island of Hawaii, there are 

cultural resources that are very important to native Hawaiians like 

at Kaloko-Honokohau or Puukohola Heiau, and these potentially 
17 

will be impacted by sea level rise. So No. 1 is prioritizing their inventory to determine what is truly at risk, and if possible, in some 

cases, documenting them or, in some cases, collecting them if we 

really feel that they are going to be damaged by sea level rise or 

storm surge. I think in some cases it is going to require us to do 

a triage to say what is our highest value and what can be protected. 

The second question, just what is uphill, we are working with the 

U.S. Geological Survey to do detailed mapping of our coastlines 

within the national parks, down to fairly tight detail, and then taking the predictive models of sea level rise to sort of look at what 

zone will have the predominant both effect of a sea level rise, as 

well as storm surge, and then refocusing our priorities in terms of 

inventory of cultural resources within those zones. 

Senator UDALL. One of the most interesting adventures I had 

through the years was hiking the Olympic seashore during the winter during a high tide cycle and a storm cycle. Those are small 

beaches. 

Mr. JARVIS. Did you make it up the slope before the waves 

hit—— 

Senator UDALL. There were some fairly desperate beach crossings trying to time it and not be caught up in the backwash of the 

huge logs and all the rest that the surf picks up. But I think just 

about that area and how it would be affected. 

A little closer to home, talking about fish and wildlife, I was recently notified in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park 

that the native Colorado cutthroat which has refuge there has lost 

90 percent of its historic range according to experts. What will you 

do to ensure that fish and wildlife habitat remains intact across 

park units? What can you do, I should add. 

Mr. JARVIS. I think particularly fish species that have depended 

upon snowpack, which as it melts through the summers, really retains the cool temperatures particularly that trout need, are going 

to be one of our greatest challenges. 

Our two best partners in preserving wildlife and fish are the 

States and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I think these landscape conservation cooperatives that are being designed and being 

launched—there is funding in fiscal 1910 and fiscal 1911 to stand 

these up. We are already starting to make a determination of 

where the most sensitive environments are that we really need to 

stand these up and to put wildlife, in particular fish and wildlife 

which certainly do not pay any attention to administrative boundaries, are going to be the absolute key to figure out how we preserve these over the long term where these animals are going to 

have to move to in order to survive. 

Senator UDALL. The National Park Service management policies 

say very little that directly refers to climate change. Should that 

document reflect more broadly the state of our knowledge and concern about climate change? 

Mr. JARVIS. At some point, yes, but the management policies currently provide us, I think, the appropriate level of guidance in 

order to begin this process of understanding climate change and 

the effects. But I think within 3 or 4 years, when we really get 

these landscape conservation cooperatives up, we begin to really 
18 

focus the science and better understand these effects, then I think 

there are going to have to be at least some amendments ultimately 

to our management policies. But not at the moment. 

Senator UDALL. Not at the moment. You would wait until we had 

more developed knowledge and—— 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes. 

Senator UDALL [continuing]. Had a better sense of the field of 

play. Then that knowledge could inform revision of those policies. 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator UDALL. Senator Burr. 

Senator BURR. Mr. Chairman, I will be really quick. 

Mr. Jarvis, I am really searching for your help in leading me in 

the direction to convince people on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, some old enough to remember when most of the banks were 

covered in ocean, that there is a fear for the developed end of those, 

as well as the Hatteras National Seashore area, that climate 

change makes them susceptible now to those barrier islands being 

gone, given that they remember when they were not there. How do 

I explain that to them? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think it is a challenge, Senator. I think that climate change is a tough concept for a lot of folks to get their grips 

on. Our frame of reference as humans tends to be fairly short. 

Some of us have been around a long time, so it seems long. But 

I think that this is an effect that has been building for some time. 

I think this is one of the roles of the National Park Service. 

For instance, at Mount Rainier National Park where I was the 

superintendent, we have folks that have been coming there for generations. They ask, well, what about the ice caves? I used to go in 

the ice caves. The ice caves are long gone. It gives them sort of a 

frame of reference. 

We have fairly good data that can link the loss of the ice caves 

and the retreat of the glaciers to climate change. 

Senator BURR. But can you do a similar thing as it relates—I will 

ask Dr. Noss the same thing because he goes into great depth 

about water levels. How do you make the connection when those 

barrier islands were covered prior to us producing the level of carbon that we are doing today? I am not sure that you can all do it 

on currents, which do have an impact on where an inlet is cut but 

not necessarily whether an entire barrier island is under water. At 

what point do you require science to say here is the link? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think that personally I am not qualified to speak 

to that particular issue in terms of how you link climate change to 

the barrier islands, and I would defer to Dr. Noss to answer that 

question. 

But I think it is a challenge for us to make it relevant, to make 

these issues understandable enough for individuals to take action 

and be concerned. I think that is a challenge. 

Senator BURR. Let me just say, Mr. Jarvis, that is exactly the 

point I wanted to make, that if you want the American people to 

buy into an effort—because this is their parks. This is their investment. Ken Burns said it is about the future and future generations, 

and I believe in that. But without the willingness of the American 

people to make the investment, we will come up woefully short of 

what you might want to do or what science might suggest that we 
19 

want to do. I think every step that we make has to be one that we 

get the buy-in from the person who actually signs the check, and 

that is the American taxpayer, that this is beneficial. 

I think when we have areas that we cannot make the direct connection—to me, I will not try to go sell that the water rise is a 

function of climate change to people on the coast that probably are 

over 80–some years old because they can remember when the islands were covered, and you lose the credibility right then. So my 

point to you is we have got to think through what we do about the 

way that we communicate it, but it has to be sellable. 

Mr. JARVIS. I could not agree more. I think it is a responsibility, 

and I think it is one of the unique responsibilities of the National 

Park Service to help communicate it. But we cannot be hysterical 

about it and we cannot take it beyond what the science really supports either. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Burr. 

I want to thank you, Director Jarvis. If you had any final comments for the record, I am happy to either hear them now or you 

can certainly direct them to us over the next couple weeks. 

I did want to also mention when you mentioned your stint at 

Mount Rainier, we have been blessed on the committee with the 

services of one of the NPS’ finest, Mike Gauthier, who is also 

known as ‘‘Gator.’’ He is sitting behind me here, and we want you 

to know that we appreciate his service and his knowledge of the 

National Park Service and the great work the flat hats do. 

But thank you again for being here today. 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator UDALL. We will ask the second panel to take your seats 

and we will turn right to your testimony. 

Gentlemen, welcome. Let me turn immediately to Dr. Williams 

who is the President of the Wildlife Management Institute from 

Gardners, Pennsylvania. We would like to hear your testimony, 

and then we will come across to the other two witnesses, and then 

we will come back around for a series of questions. If you can keep 

your remarks in that 5– or 6–minute timeframe, that would be appreciated so we can then have some time for an exchange of ideas 

and questions. Dr. Williams, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN WILLIAMS, PH.D., PRESIDENT, 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, GARDNERS, PA 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to address the impacts of climate 

change on our National Park System. 

I am Steve Williams, the President of the Wildlife Management 

Institute. We are a nonprofit organization founded in 1911. It is a 

scientific and educational organization dedicated to conservation of 

North America’s wildlife and natural resources. 

Prior to serving in this capacity, I had the honor to serve as the 

Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and in addition have 

17 years of experience working for three State fish and wildlife 

agencies. 

I sit here today before the subcommittee not as an expert in the 

origin or solution to climate change, but as a wildlife professional 

who has had the good fortune of experiencing most of the major 
20 

biomes on this continent and the ability to interact with professional managers of those properties. 

Climate change, I believe, whether a function of natural processes, human processes, or probably more likely a combination of 

both, is occurring across the continent. I make this statement 

based on my understanding of the scientific literature, discussions 

with Federal, State, and academicians, and some of my personal 

experiences. 

Very briefly, in terms of short-term observations, not scientific, 

but anecdotal, I just bring up, I guess, two situations. 

Thirty years ago, my wife and I on our honeymoon went to Glacier National Park. We had the good fortune about 4 years ago to 

return to that park, and both remarked on the loss of glaciers that 

we thought we observed. Looking at the pictorial history of Glacier, 

our observations were confirmed. 

In a similar vein, over the last 35 years, I have spent a fair 

amount of time in Grand Teton National Park, worked there for 7 

years guiding float trips on the Snake River and experienced the 

same loss in glaciers. 

Warmer and drier climates are expected to alter weather patterns, and I will not go through all those details. I think Director 

Jarvis did a good job of hitting on those. But those changes will 

have impacts on the timing and process of plant and animal life cycles, and they will also have an impact on a species’ ability to reproduce and survive. If you combine those climate change impacts 

with human impacts on the environment related to energy development, population growth, just development of places to live, transportation, and so on, that impact is really quite substantial. If we 

view it over thousands of generations that have resulted in what 

we observe in the wild today, I do not think there is any question 

that the last 100 years has really caused a different set of circumstances in how those species have evolved. 

The National Park Service has an excellent—along with some of 

our other public lands—but provide an excellent venue as a natural 

laboratory, if you will, to measure some of the impacts of climate 

change. Are species moving up attitudinally? What are the impacts 

on forage production on those national park lands, fish health studies, and so on? 

So that is sort of the ecological side of it. 

If I could, just for the last part of my comments, focus more on 

the management challenges for the National Park Service just in 

general. 

Director Jarvis mentioned in the Organic Act the reference to 

leaving these lands unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. That is the language in the act. 

I think a challenge for the service will be to try to meet that 

goal—as the entire landscape changes in response to climate 

change, to meet that goal of areas within portions of that whole 

natural landscape. 

Second, that is the way the Park Service has been managing, 

rightfully so, for the life span of the agency. I suspect that there 

may be some challenges in trying to meet that mission and some 

of the realities of climate-induced change. 
21 

I am very happy to hear and understand that the National Park 

Service is also putting together a strategic plan, similar to the 

draft the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has put together. I hope 

that strategic plan is flexible and adaptive. I hope that that plan 

recognizes the uncertainty associated with climate change, adaptive management processes, and the potential scenarios that may 

face parks. 

I will conclude by saying that adaptation funding, which fortunately is included in the climate change legislation that Congress 

is considering now, will be absolutely essential for our national 

parks, national forest, national wildlife refuges, and even some of 

the State conservation lands to monitor climate change impacts, 

survey plant and animal species and their distribution, restore and 

manage habitats, deal with impacts to wetlands, and so on and so 

forth. 

We have invested a lot in our national parks and public lands 

through the years, and the past political leaders and members of 

the administration and Congress have created a very powerful conservation legacy that we all enjoy. I hope that as we move forward, 

the way we treat our national parks and other public lands will 

speak volumes, I believe, with regard to our commitment to the 

past, certainly our commitment to the future and our own conservation legacy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN WILLIAMS, PH.D., PRESIDENT, WILDLIFE

MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, GARDNERS, PA 

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

to address the issue of current and expected impacts of climate change on the National Park System. 

I am Steve Williams, President of the Wildlife Management Institute. Founded in 

1911, WMI is a private, nonprofit, scientific and educational organization, dedicated 

to the conservation, enhancement and professional management of North America’s 

wildlife and natural resources. Prior to serving in this capacity, I had the honor of 

serving as the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, I have 

17 years of experience working for three state fish and wildlife agencies. I serve on 

the Board of Directors of the American Wildlife Conservation Partners, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the Conservation Committee of the Boone and Crockett Club. 

I come before you today not as an expert in the origin or solution to climate 

change, rather as a wildlife professional who has had the opportunity to experience 

most of the major biomes of this continent and to interact with the professional resource managers responsible for their management. Climate change, whether a 

function of natural processes, human processes, or a combination of both, is occurring across the continent. I make this statement based on my understanding of the 

scientific literature, my discussions with federal, state, and academic scientists, and 

my personal experiences. 

First from a personal and admittedly anecdotal perspective, I can identify two National Parks where I believe, in my short life span, I have seen the effects of climate 

change. The first is Glacier National Park. Thirty years ago while on our honeymoon, my wife and I visited the Canadian Rockies and Glacier National Park. We 

were astounded by the beauty of these alpine areas. About four years ago we returned to Glacier only to see fewer surface areas and volumes of glaciers. We both 

remarked about how the park had changed and how the pictorial vistas had been 

diminished. Later I viewed a pictorial history of the major glaciers in Glacier National Park and our observations where confirmed. Some predict that in less than 

30 years the glaciers will cease to exist at this ‘‘Crown of the Continent.’’ If so, the 

crown will have lost much of its luster. 

My second example involves my 35 year span of time with Grand Teton National 

Park. During the summers between 1974 and 1981, I worked on a dude ranch in 
22 

the middle of Jackson Hole. Four of those summers I guided float trips on the Snake 

River which entailed conducting 3-4 trips a day, six days a week, through the heart 

of Jackson Hole. The spectacular Grand Teton mountain range was the backdrop 

and focal point of these trips. Although I did not conduct any scientific analysis of 

snowpack and glacial volumes, I knew those mountains both from afar and near. 

Over the course of the last 35 years, I have a spent a few days most every summer 

visiting Grand Teton National Park. My most recent trip there was in August of 

this year. Through the years, I noticed a considerable decline in the glaciers that 

I had become familiar with some 30-35 years ago. It is undeniable that Teton Glacier on the Grand Teton and Falling Ice and Skillet Glaciers on Mt. Moran have 

retreated in that relatively short time span. The grandeur of the Grand Teton range 

has become somewhat diminished. 

While Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, I observed numerous glaciers that 

have retreated throughout Alaska whether they were in the Brooks Range, the Chugach National Forest, or on the Bristol Bay Peninsula. While serving in this position 

and based on my discussions with resource professionals across the country, I recognized that the successful management of our nation’s natural resources, for the use 

and enjoyment of current and future citizens, would hinge on how state and federal 

natural resource managers adapt to global climate change, change that may impact 

every biome and habitat that we now recognize. 

The projected impacts of climate change have been well identified. Warmer and 

drier climates are expected to result in weather patterns that produce: changes in 

the amounts and patterns of precipitation; increased stream and river temperatures; 

frequency and intensity of severe weather events; longer and more intense droughts; 

levels of snowpack and the timing of their melt; more severe wildfires; expansion 

of the range and distribution of insects, parasites, diseases and invasive species; and 

changes in the timing of runoff and intensity of flooding. All of these changes would 

have impacts on the timing and process of plant and animal life cycles. Each of 

these factors alone and in combination, will undoubtedly affect plant growth, structure, and distribution. In turn, they may also directly impact a species’ ability to 

reproduce and survive. 

Scientists expect stream temperatures to increase and flow patterns to be dramatically altered. National Parks provide exceptional fishing opportunities in the 

Appalachian and Rocky Mountains. Unfortunately these streams may become uninhabitable for native trout which are sought after by millions of anglers. Altered 

stream flow patterns due to the timing and speed of snow pack melt will also threaten downstream watersheds and water supplies for human populations. Elk populations are expected to move to more northern or higher elevations in search of more 

palatable forage, escape from insects, and cooler temperatures. Overabundant elk 

populations like those in Rocky Mountain National Park will stress their food supply and neighboring properties as they change their distribution and migration patterns. Desert fishes and reptiles may die out as ground water becomes depleted and 

water sources dry up. Coastal parks will experience a rise in ocean levels, increased 

beach erosion, and salt water intrusion into coastal marshes and water supplies. 

Alaskan National Parks have already observed glacial retreat and erosion of coastal 

lands. Melting of the permafrost across the Alaskan tundra has resulted in impacts 

to Alaskan native villages, release of previously stored carbon reserves, and changes 

in plant habitat. As the term implies, global climate change will have far reaching 

impacts on our environment and those who inhabit it. 

Combine these climate changes impacts to our environment with those caused directly by humans and the future looks even more challenging. Increases in human 

population and our growing demand for energy, development, transportation and 

natural resources will further strain natural landscapes as they respond to climate 

change. These trends threaten to unravel relatively delicate, natural landscapes in 

an unprecedented manner. Although scientists report that climate cycles have occurred over the 100,000 years or more of human habitation on earth, during the last 

hundred or so years we have experienced a rapid rate of global warming. This time 

period also coincides with the most rapid increase in human population growth and 

industrial development the world has ever experienced. For most of history, human 

culture has evolved in concert with plant and animal species. The natural world we 

observe today has responded to and evolved with environmental change over thousands of generations. The rapid human growth and its impacts which we have recently experienced had a dominant influence on the environment in a period of 

about 100 years, not thousands of generations. The current and future ecological 

disturbances associated with climate change, habitat loss and fragmentation, energy 

and water development, transportation, and invasive species present a near term, 

natural selection process and evolutionary challenge which, arguably, has never occurred in a 100 to 200 year time period. 
23 

How do we study and understand the ecological and cultural ramifications of this 

change? The almost 84 million acres of National Park Service (NPS) units, many 

in relatively large land masses, offer venues to inventory ecological resources, monitor resource response to climate change, detect that response, conduct research on 

intact and disturbed ecosystems, and prescribe and conduct management adaptations to climate change. NPS and its sister organizations’ lands, the National Wildlife Refuges and National Forests provide some of the best laboratories to study ecological systems. 

NPS units occur in every major biome on the continent. From the Gates of the 

Arctic and Denali to the Florida Everglades, the Grand Canyon to the Great Smoky 

Mountains, Rocky Mountain National Park to the Caribbean coral reefs, and California’s Death Valley to the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve of Kansas; NPS units have 

preserved ecosystems in relatively unimpaired states. The Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, one of the largest, nearly intact ecosystem in the contiguous United States, 

incorporates National Parks, Forests, and Refuges but at the core is the NPS’ first 

National Park, Yellowstone. 

These examples or fragments of natural ecosystems should become laboratories 

within which scientists can examine and document climate change impacts. Mountainous park units would allow studies to measure altitudinal distributions of plant 

and animal species that could shed light on the response of organisms to increased 

temperatures. Consider the fact that the Missouri, Colorado, Snake, and Columbia 

Rivers have their origins in NPS units. Water quantity and quality monitoring in 

the headwaters of some of the nation’s most important rivers will provide critical 

information for downstream communities and industries. Forage production studies 

within NPS units would provide essential information for forest and range managers who wish to learn how climate change affects these ecosystems. Fish health 

studies on affected NPS stream and river systems would provide valuable information for fisheries biologists who rely on these stocks to supply and replenish fish 

populations. Migration and movement corridors for dispersing wildlife need to be 

studied and documented for the future. The studies which would provide valuable 

answers for ecologists and fish and wildlife managers are almost unlimited. 

From the National Park management perspective, climate change provides a 

daunting challenge. The organic act’s purpose, which established the NPS in 1916, 

was ‘‘to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life 

therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such 

means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ This 

ambitious goal, although admirable in 1916, poses a conundrum for current and future park managers. In the face of climate change that threatens to change the entire natural landscape, how does one manage for no change within portions of that 

natural landscape? Is the current management philosophy and culture of the NPS 

equipped to reconcile its congressionally mandated and static mission with the realities of climate-induced change? How does the NPS work in collaboration with its 

federal, state, and private partners and neighbors in achieving this static mission, 

in light of their partners’ dynamic future missions and goals? 

The Department of Interior (DOI), with Secretary Salazar’s leadership, has taken 

recent steps to address this management challenge across all bureaus in the department. The September 2009 secretarial order established a framework for agency collaboration and coordination in response to climate change. Climate Change Response Centers and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives have been created to better coordinate data sharing and management within Interior bureaus and to provide 

collaboration with DOI partners. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has published 

a draft Strategic Plan for Climate Change which is currently open for public comment. This plan focuses on: adaptation, mitigation, and engagement. I understand 

and applaud the fact that the NPS is working on a similar document that will contain these common elements. 

I believe that NPS leaders, regional, managerial, and field staff will face a cultural and organizational challenge as they confront the response to climate change. 

It will be vital that the NPS organization from top to bottom be coordinated as they 

plan and implement their activities. The size and apparent autonomy of many of 

the NPS units coupled with their close ties to local communities, could present management challenges in carrying out a common, landscape-scale strategic plan for climate change response. This strategic plan should be flexible and adaptive to changing inputs and impacts. Planning documents should incorporate uncertainty, adaptive management processes, and plans for an array of potential scenarios that may 

face the individual park unit depending on the form and manner that climate 

change shapes their park. This dynamic approach may be uncomfortable for an organization with a mandate and culture of maintaining the status quo—‘‘in such 
24 

manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ 

Given the predicted impacts of climate change on the nation’s landscapes, which 

include our National Parks, resource managers should be focused on mitigation and 

adaptation to enhance the resilience and recovery of these habitats. Response to environmental stressors such as fire, drought, insects, and floods will challenge on the 

ground management in ways never before experienced. I believe management plans 

should focus on maintaining landscape character and return to natural conditions 

rather than pre-determined, prescriptive management actions to achieve singular 

goals. Management should focus on adapting techniques and activities based on 

what has been learned about past performance of those activities. This adaptive 

management approach provides a dynamic process informed by success and failure, 

and responsive to the uncertainties associated with climate change impacts. 

Additional funding to assist in adaptation will be necessary to maintain the reputation of National Parks as the nation’s premier examples of our nation’s conservation treasures. Recent DOI budget priorities, including funding for the Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives, will be helpful to federal agencies and their partners. 

Additional funding to coordinate data collection, analysis, and exchange between 

federal agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration will be necessary to provide finer-scaled, climate predictive models than those currently available. Land management agencies will rely 

on these experts to help define the range of ecological conditions to be expected on 

individual management units. 

Adaptation funding will be necessary to update, repair, and maintain park infrastructure and visitor facilities. In addition, adaptation funding will be required in 

our National Parks, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, and state conservation lands to monitor impacts, survey plant and animal species and their distribution, conduct research on climate change effects, distribute water, battle invasive 

species, repair water control structures, restore and manage habitat, create and protect wetland habitat, and manage current and new threatened and endangered species. Without adequate adaptation funding, natural resource managers will not be 

able to respond to the obscure and obvious changes occurring across the landscapes 

for which they are responsible and held in trust for the public. 

Current funding for status quo management is inadequate to address major maintenance and capital improvement projects. Federal agency backlogs for these 

projects total hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be a travesty to further exacerbate these financial problems by ignoring climate change impacts and their expense on public lands. Fortunately, current climate change legislation includes significant financial investments in our nation’s environmental treasures. National 

conservation, protection, and preservation organizations strongly agree that Congress must address our natural resources and the need for adaptation funding in 

any climate legislation that passes Congress. This adaptation funding would enhance federal agency activities to prepare for and adapt to a changing climate. In 

addition, it would provide significant funding to state fish and wildlife agencies to 

address climate change impacts identified in Statewide Action Plans. A comprehensive and coordinated federal, state, and private response to climate change impacts 

is essential. Fish, wildlife, and their habitats are not constrained by government, 

political, or organizational boundaries. The National Park Service understands that 

this approach to conservation is essential. 

For more than one hundred years our nation has recognized the special importance of our nation’s natural resources. At the federal level we have established National Parks, National Monuments, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, and 

other protected public lands. Numerous laws and regulations have been passed, federal and state agencies have been created, and billions of dollars have been invested 

in the management of these national treasures. The American public and visitors 

from across the world have revealed in their awe inspiring beauty, more than 275 

million visitor-days annually in National Parks alone. The nation has benefited from 

the ecological services, such as clean water and air, which they provide. We have 

visited these national treasures to enhance our quality of life and educate our children and grandchildren about their natural wonders. 

As we face climate change impacts over the coming decades, our nation’s citizens 

deserve our continued investment in a uniquely American experiment in conservation, setting aside some of our most spectacular lands for protection and public use. 

This experiment has become so successful that it is the envy of the world. Our nation’s past political leaders have created a powerful conservation legacy for all of us 

to use and enjoy. How we treat our National Parks and our other public lands will 

speak volumes about our regard for their work, the value we place on current and 

future generations, and our own conservation legacy. 
25 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Dr. Williams. 

Next, we will turn to the Honorable Iliff McMahan, Jr., who is 

County Mayor from Newport, Tennessee. Mayor, welcome. I know 

Senator Burr and I appreciate those elected officials who make 

local government work, and we are really pleased you had an opportunity to come up here and join us. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ILIFF MCMAHAN, JR., MAYOR, COCKE 

COUNTY, NEWPORT, TN 

Mr. MCMAHAN. Chairman Udall and Senator Burr, thank you 

very much for inviting me to testify on the current and expected 

impacts of climate change on the National Park System. 

As you said, I am Iliff McMahan, Jr., and since elected in 2002, 

I have served as the County Mayor of Cocke County, Tennessee. 

Fourteen years ago, before becoming mayor, I served as the first 

tourism director for Cocke County where we focused on marketing 

our county has an ecotourism destination of choice. 

My appearance here today is to highlight the relationship between our national parks and Cocke County and how rural communities and economies are dependent upon the ecological stability of 

national parks. National parks face many challenges, but none as 

far-reaching as climate change. If not addressed, climate change 

threatens the economic well-being of Cocke County and similar national park gateway communities around the Nation. 

Cocke County is a rural community in east Tennessee with a 

population of 35,000 citizens and contains a portion of two units of 

the National Park System, a national forest, a State forest, and 

three major watersheds. Approximately 35 percent of the land in 

our county is publicly owned and produces very little tax income. 

However, we receive significant economic benefits from our public lands by serving as the northern gateway to the Nation’s most 

visited national park, the Great Smoky Mountains. This places 

upon us an awesome responsibility to work with our partners to 

protect these very special places. Cocke County has had to look beyond traditional economic development opportunities and toward 

marketing our natural resources to diversify our economy. This has 

helped to insulate our county from the very worst impacts of the 

economic downturn. 

In the Smokies, bad air quality, mercury pollution, decreased visibility, acid deposition, and invasive species are decimating our forests and our wildlife. But there is one issue we are failing to address at this time: climate change and our national parks. Congress 

needs to provide better policies and more funding to address the 

climate change and all of the challenges that face our national 

parks. Many tourists come to the Smokies to fish our cool streams 

but just an increase of 2 degrees or an extended drought like we 

experienced in 2007–2008 could weaken native fish populations forever. This would be a major loss to the regional biodiversity, and 

this would also be a major loss to our local economies. 

Cocke County depends upon our visitors to eat at our restaurants, buy fuel and groceries in our stores, stay in our lodging, 

and contribute to the tax base that keeps us prosperous. In Arkan-
26 

sas, Missouri, and Tennessee alone fishing created $2 billion in related expenditures in 2006. 

Like many rural counties around the country, my county depends 

upon the health and vitality of our State and Federal lands for our 

continued and future prosperity. National park lands where air and 

water and wildlife are protected means tourists will continue to 

come to Cocke County to see, to hear, and to experience our spectacular park lands. If these resources are diminished by allowing 

climate change to continue unaddressed, our county’s existing and 

financial future health will be impacted. 

Now, I am no expert on climate policy, but what I do know is 

that our parks are changing and we have a unique opportunity now 

to protect these special places and at the same time boost our local 

economies. As County Mayor, it is my responsibility to work with 

you in partnership to make sure that we are proactive park stewards. Fully funding a coordinated effort between our partners to 

conduct scientific research, natural resource adaptation, and management projects just makes good business sense for the future of 

our national parks and for our gateway communities. 

Now, in conclusion, sir, I feel that every day is another opportunity for Cocke County to strive to realize our full potential as a 

viable and sustainable rural community. We value our mountain 

traditions and our natural resources and we work daily to showcase them to the world. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to work 

together in partnership to protect our valuable national parks from 

our changing climate and assure that future generations will be 

able to enjoy the Smokies as we do today. 

I want to thank you for inviting me to testify, to share our story, 

and to join this conversation on the future health and well-being 

of our national parks. I want to say God bless you in your efforts. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Burr. Appreciate it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McMahan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ILIFF MCMAHAN, JR., MAYOR, COCKE COUNTY, 

NEWPORT, TN 

Chairman Udall and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 

testify on the current and expected impacts of climate change on units of the National Park System. I am Iliff McMahan, Jr. and since 2002 I have served as the 

County Mayor of Cocke County, Tennessee. Before becoming mayor I served as the 

first Tourism Director for Cocke County, as the first Tourism Director for the Morristown Area Chamber of Commerce, later as General Manager of the Chamber, and 

as Manager of Marketing and Public Relations for Newport, Tennessee Utilities. In 

2004, I was elected to a position on the national board of directors for the County 

Executives of America representing rural counties across the nation, and was appointed by Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen to a statewide position on the Tennessee Workforce Development Board, an advisory council to the Governor. In addition, I serve on the boards for several organizations: the East Tennessee Development District, East Tennessee Human Resources Agency, currently serve as Chairman for the East Tennessee Regional Agribusiness Marketing Authority, a member 

of the National Parks Conservation Association Southeast Regional Council, Smoky 

Mountains Workforce Development Board, East TN Quality Growth Council, Great 

Smoky Mountains Regional Greenways Council, and Boys & Girls Club of Newport/ 

Cocke County. My appearance here today, however is not on behalf of any organization, but rather to highlight the interconnectedness between the ecological stability 

of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Appalachian National Scenic 

Trail and the economy of Cocke County, Tennessee. I would also like to highlight 

how across the United States rural economies are dependent on the ecological stability of national parks. National parks face many threats, but none as far-reaching 

as climate change. If not addressed climate change threatens the economic well- 
27 

being of Cocke County and similar national park gateway communities around the 

United States. 

My testimony addresses the following topics: (1) the Cocke County economy and 

our dependence on our national park units, (2) the projected impact of climate 

change on the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and by extension to our gateway community economy, (3) the 

need for a coordinated local, state, and federal collaborative plan to address climate 

change in national parks to protect both our natural and cultural heritage and the 

economies of surrounding communities, and (4) the opportunity for economic growth 

that setting aside funds for scientific research and natural resource adaptation provides for national park gateway communities. 

THE COCKE COUNTY, TENNESSEE ECONOMY AND OUR NATIONAL PARKS

Cocke County is a small rural county in East Tennessee with a population of thirty-five thousand citizens and a land-base of four-hundred and thirty-four square 

miles. Of the ninety-five counties in Tennessee Cocke County is the only county 

which contains a portion of two units of the National Park Service (The Appalachian 

National Scenic Trail and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park), a national 

forest (the Cherokee National Forest), and a state forest (Martha Sundquist State 

Forest). We are also home to the Nolichucky, Upper French Broad, and Pigeon River 

Watersheds; three of the largest watersheds in the State of Tennessee. Approximately, thirty-five percent of the land in our county is publicly owned and does not 

produce tax income. However, in addition to payments in lieu of taxes, we receive 

significant economic and community benefit from our public lands. In particular, 

Cocke County serves as the northern gateway to our nation’s most visited national 

park, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Our county’s proximity to so 

many notable state and federal lands places upon us an awesome responsibility to 

work with state and federal government to protect these special places. 

As a small rural county with a large percentage of lands in public holding, Cocke 

County has had to look beyond traditional economic development opportunities to 

our natural resources to diversify our economy. Most relevant to today’s hearing 

topic, since 1995 Cocke County has seen a significant increase in the size and capacity of our county’s ecological-tourism based industry. Horseback riding, camping, 

hiking, backpacking, whitewater rafting, hunting, fishing, and a myriad of additional outdoor activities have increased and continue to grow in Cocke County. Despite the national economic downturn of the past year we have seen a significant 

increase in tax income from these and associated activities. Our work to expand and 

grow Cocke County’s thriving eco-tourism industry has insulated our county from 

the worst impacts of the economic downturn. 

Around the United States between 1970 and 2003 rural counties like Cocke County that neighbor national parks outperformed non-park rural counties by forty-three 

percent in job growth, thirty-seven percent in personal income growth, and an impressive eighty-six percent in population growth. National parks generate four dollars in value for every tax dollar invested, support over thirteen billion dollars in 

private sector activity, and over four billion dollars in wages in gateway communities like mine. Outdoor recreation nationally supports nearly six and a half million 

jobs and creates eighty-eight billion dollars in state and federal tax revenue nationally. My county depends on the health and vitality of our State and Federal lands 

for our continued and future prosperity. National park lands where air, water, and 

wildlife are protected means tourists will continue to come to Cocke County to see, 

hear, and hike in our spectacular park lands. If these resources are diminished in 

favor of development or by allowing climate change to continue unaddressed our 

county’s existing and future financial health could be impacted. 

THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON COCKE COUNTY AND OUR NATIONAL PARK UNITS

This year Tennesseans and the nation celebrated the seventy-fifth anniversary of 

the creation of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and in 2016 we will all 

celebrate the centennial of the creation of the national park service. There are many 

threats that face parks around the country. In the Smokies and Cocke County bad 

air quality frequently results in violations of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

air quality standards in the summer months. Significant concentrations of airborne 

mercury are deposited in the region, poisoning species from native trout to the 

iconic black bear. Decreased visibility results from haze pollution and degrades the 

scenic vistas that are an important attraction for visitors. Acid deposition weakens 

fragile ecosystems and poisons our streams. Invasive species are decimating forest 

and the wildlife that depend on their health. The human footprint around the Smokies, Cocke County included, is large and increasingly threatening traditional wildlife 
28 

corridors. These are all long-standing issues I have in my time worked with county, 

state, and national counterparts to address, but there is one issue we are failing 

in the policy realm to address at this time: climate change in our national parks. 

Congress needs to provide more funding and better policies to address climate 

change and all of the issues that face our national park units cumulatively rather 

than address one impact at a time. 

The Smokies provide an island of wilderness in one of the most populated parts 

of the country. Temperatures in Appalachia have been on the rise since the 1970’s 

and already these changes have taken a toll. Climate models have predicted increased drought, increased flooding, and temperature increases in the southern Appalachian region. Iconic species, such as the Frasier fir, already under pressure from 

air pollution and invasive species, could disappear without proactive effort on our 

part. Without a change of course conditions in the park could become unsuitable for 

flora and fauna found nowhere else in the world. 

Many tourists come to the Smokies to fish our cool streams, but an increase of 

just two degrees Celsius or an extended drought could alter or weaken native fish 

populations forever. This would be a major loss to regional bio-diversity, but this 

would also be a major loss to local economies. Cocke County depends on fisherman 

to eat at our restaurants, buy fuel and groceries in our stores, stay in our lodging, 

and to contribute to the tax base that keeps Cocke County running. In Arkansas, 

Missouri, and Tennessee alone fishing created two-billion dollars in related expenditures in 2006. Counties like mine around the United States have a lot to lose if we 

fail to address the most significant impacts of climate change. A United States Travel Association poll taken in 2009 showed that sixty-four percent of travelers are concerned about climate change. Travelers are the bread and butter of my gateway 

county economy, and if visitors are concerned, leaders in every national park gateway community should be too. 

THE NEED FOR A COLLABORATIVE ADAPTATION PLAN

Every year over ten million visitors come to the Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park, to hike the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and to visit our other state and 

federal lands. In fact, this year despite the economic downturn the Great Smoky 

Mountains and other units of the national park system have seen a five percent increase in visitation. Global climate change threatens our unique resource. The Great 

Smoky Mountains is the most diverse biosphere in the northern hemisphere, and 

given our dependence on the park for our economic well-being and our personal connection and history around this unique place, it is our job to make sure that we 

protect and create the opportunity for all our national parks to adapt to the most 

sever impacts of climate change. We must work nationally to develop an effective 

strategy to lower overall global concentrations of greenhouse gases to protect our 

parks, but there is much to be done on the ground to deal with the impacts that 

are at this point beyond our control. Coordinating and planning to mitigate impacts 

to natural and cultural resources as well as develop tools to adapt to the changing 

environment will help to assure that the Smokies remain intact so future generations of Cocke County residents and visitors will have an opportunity to connect to 

our beautiful and unique parks. 

It is widely accepted that our national parks can play an important role in understanding climate change and responding to it. First, the national parks provide a 

classroom for understanding and studying how climate change is impacting our entire environment. Second, the national parks offer a refuge for species that are— 

or might be—displaced by a changing climate. Third, as part of the mix of state and 

federal lands, the national parks will play an important role sustaining ecosystems 

and ecological processes that see no park boundary. The national parks, simply put, 

give us the ability to better understand, mitigate, and adapt to a changing climate. 

The natural resource adaptation provisions passed in the House of Representatives, ‘‘Clean Energy and American Security Act’’ set up a structure for resource adaptation that should be strongly considered by members of the Senate. It is my understanding that the Kerry-Boxer, ‘‘Clean Energy, Jobs, and American Power Act’’ 

and a climate change adaptation bill sponsored by Senator Jeff Bingaman also mirror the language regarding the establishment of a coordinated local, state, and federal effort to fund the required scientific research and on the ground projects that 

need to happen to protect our national parks from the worst impacts of climate 

change. I would like to applaud and thank all of you for your efforts. However, I 

would also like to urge you to consider fully funding these efforts to make sure that 

across the board natural resource adaptation projects adequately protect the parks 

in our backyard. 
29 

ECONOMIC GROWTH FROM NATURAL RESOURCE ADAPTATION

I’m no expert on climate policy, but what I do know is that our parks are changing and we have a unique opportunity to protect these special places and simultaneously boost local economies. In Cocke County we are lucky in these tough economic times to have outstanding pubic lands as a reliable source of economic prosperity. However, the national park lands that sustain our strong eco-tourism based 

economic growth prevent growth in traditional economic sectors such as manufacturing. For all of the added benefits our park units provide to our community we 

still have to deal with the challenge of being a rural community working to grow 

sustainably. Fully funding natural resource adaptation programs around national 

park units and other federal and state lands will create much needed jobs around 

the United States and Cocke County is no exception. 

By safeguarding wildlife populations, rivers, forests, and deserts in national parks 

around the United States a strong well-funded natural resource adaptation program 

will protect national park units that maintain seven-hundred and thirty billion dollars in economic activity and sustain nearly six and a half million jobs nationwide. 

It will also create new jobs in gateway communities around the country. A fully 

funded program would create jobs around the United States for scientists, engineers, construction crews, equipment operators, firefighters, educators, students, 

youth workers, and the host of support service providers in manufacturing and local 

business. The important work that needs to be done to restore wetlands, forests, and 

maintaining habitat for wildlife migration and corridors will create opportunity 

around the country and hopefully at my home in Cocke County. By protecting our 

natural resources in national parks and other state and federal lands we can sustain a critical economic engine for our communities that might otherwise sputter out 

in the face of growing impacts from climate change. 

It is my job as County Mayor, and my personal responsibility as a member of a 

family that gave up our land for the creation of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, to work with you in partnership to make sure that we are proactive 

park stewards. I am not an expert on climate policy, but as the owner of a working 

cattle farm, it is clear to me that if you do not maintain and manage your herd 

properly you are going to have a heck of a time keeping the farm open and an even 

more difficult time turning a profit. Like a working farm, we need to maintain our 

national parks with progressive stewardship and adjust to changes in the weather 

or else we might lose the farm. Fully funding a coordinated effort between local, 

state, and federal agencies to conduct the appropriate scientific research, natural resource adaptation and management projects makes good business sense for the future of our national parks. 

Every day that I see the sun rise over Mount Cammerer in the Smokies is another day to help Cocke County realize our full potential as a viable and sustainable 

rural community. Cocke County is a community where we value our mountain traditions and natural resources and we work daily to showcase them to the world. Global climate change is a major threat to our precious heritage, but through thoughtful, 

progressive policy initiatives and a little American ingenuity we can protect our valuable national park resources and assure that our future generations will be able 

to enjoy the Smokies and hike the Appalachian Trail as we can today. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Mayor. 

We turn to Dr. Reed Noss. He is the Davis-Shine Professor of 

Conservation Biology at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, Florida. Doctor, welcome. The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF REED F. NOSS, PH.D., DAVIS-SHINE PROFESSOR OF CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, ORLANDO, FL 

Mr. NOSS. Thanks very much, and good afternoon, Senator Udall, 

Senator Burr, and others present. 

As Senator Udall mentioned, I am at the University of Central 

Florida. I am also President of the Florida Institute for Conservation Science, which is a nonprofit science think tank, and an elected fellow with the American Association for the Advancement of 

Science. Relevant to this hearing, I recently served as Vice Chair 
30 

of a Federal advisory committee for the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program. 

I want to get right to the heart of the major topic of discussion 

here, which is the relationship between climate change and the integrity of our national parks. There are two basic points I want to 

make. 

One is that climate change will not be good for national parks. 

That is a no-brainer, but there is no getting around it. There are 

going to be problems. 

But the second point is also very important. There are things we 

can do now, and hopefully proactively, to reduce the impacts of climate change on national parks, and these things fall into the category of adaptation, which Director Jarvis and others have already 

referred to. They force us, as Director Jarvis pointed out, to start 

thinking at a landscape level, which will also help address a lot of 

other problems facing the national parks. 

So we might ask what kinds of parks are most at risk. 

I do not want to spend much time on this. Those in the far north, 

those in the continental interior are projected to experience the 

greatest increases in temperature and associated moisture stress. 

I believe the committee is well familiar with that. Also, of course, 

the high elevation alpine zones in our mountain parks, in the Rockies, the Cascades, the Sierra Nevada, but also the Appalachians. 

These areas will be at risk because, as temperature warms, vegetation moves up the slope. Those at the top more or less get pinched 

right off the top of the mountain. 

Now, one bit of good news, I think, a ray of hope, is that mountainous parks in some respects, especially for terrestrial species 

may have more resilience to climate change than other kinds of 

parks, and the reason is that except for these very high elevation 

areas, at least here there is an elevational gradient relatively intact along which species can move in response to climate change. 

So, for example, by moving up slope 1,000 feet, you get to a climate 

that is about 3 degrees cooler on average. You would have to go 

100 miles northward to get to that same temperature difference. So 

there is some advantage there. 

Also you have micro-climates such as north-facing slopes, sheltered coves, areas around seeps and springs where species can basically seek refuge during these periods of hotter climate. These 

have probably been very important in the past. 

In low-lying flat terrain, actually the options for adaptation are 

much more limited, and it is becoming clear to me that the national park units and other natural areas in low-lying coastal areas 

may be at the greatest risk both for their cultural and their biological resources, especially over the next few decades and beyond. It 

is important to bear in mind that in the eastern U.S. most of the 

acreage in the National Park System is very low-lying coastal area. 

Look at Everglades National Park and the contiguous Big Cypress 

National Preserve. We have got 2.2 million acres there, more than 

2.2 million acres, which is larger than Yellowstone, much of it very 

low elevation. Nine of the 10 national seashores are in the east, 

also very low elevation and therefore subject to storm surge, to general sea level rise, and other problems related to those factors. 
31 

So what will happen to those low-lying areas? It differs tremendously from area to area, and I think this is what Senator Burr 

was getting at in his question earlier. We can come back to that. 

But basically I included in the packet in my written testimony a 

projection for Florida and the boundaries of the national parks did 

not come out as well as I had hoped. But you can see the projection. This is for 1-meter, 3-meter, and 6-meter increments in sea 

level. Basically most of Everglades National Park would be inundated with just a 1-meter rise in sea level, and this is now considered a conservative estimate of sea level rise by the year 2100. It 

could be faster. It could be quicker. It is very improbable that it 

will be slower or less. 

So what do we do about this? The best we can do, I think, is assist the movement of these coastal species and habitats inland. 

Now, I cannot say, I cannot claim that I can tell you how to do this. 

No scientist right now can tell you exactly how to do this. We need 

more research. We need some experimentation with various options 

which will include, I think, some intensive engineering options. 

Basically there are two major ways that we can deal with it. One 

is to armor the shoreline with sea walls and levees and other structures, bring in tons of sand to replenish beaches that are eroding 

away. The second option is basically to implement some form of 

managed retreat where we systematically start to relocate human 

communities, some structures at least, species and habitats, if we 

can figure out how, inland as sea level rises. 

Neither of these options are going to be cheap. They are both 

going to be expensive. The first option, coastal armoring, is at best 

a short-term fix, and it will very soon become economically 

unsustainable except for some very special cases. It will be probably an ecological disaster in some areas because it will prevent 

species from moving inland. For our coastal national parks, really 

the only option again is to assist movement of species inland. 

Along with this, I think, for the short term we should protect as 

much coastal habitat as we can—and I am talking really as a society here, not just the National Park Service—look very carefully at 

development in flood-prone areas, for example, in these low-lying 

coastal areas, and try to establish broad movement corridors from 

the coastal national park units inland to link up with other conservation areas that are on higher ground. 

I urge this committee to think hard about these issues and initiate a process to determine precisely what needs to be done to 

minimize the impacts of sea level rise and other climatic phenomena on national parks and our natural heritage. I think it is 

especially important right now that funding and direction for adaptation to climate change, including sea level rise, be included in 

any climate change legislation. I am very encouraged to see movement in that direction. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before this 

esteemed subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Noss follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REED F. NOSS, PH.D., DAVIS-SHINE PROFESSOR OF

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, ORLANDO, FL 

I am Reed Noss, the Davis-Shine Professor of Conservation Biology at the University of Central Florida and President of the Florida Institute for Conservation 
32 

Science. I have an M.S. degree in Ecology from the University of Tennessee and a 

Ph.D. in Wildlife Ecology from the University of Florida. I am the author of more 

than 260 scientific and semi-technical articles and several books. I have served as 

Editor-in-Chief of the journal Conservation Biology and as President of the Society 

for Conservation Biology. I am an elected Fellow of the American Association for the 

Advancement of Science. I was recently the Vice-Chair of a Federal Advisory Committee for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. I am currently organizing a 

scientific workshop and book on adaptation to sea-level rise in Florida. At many 

times in the past I have served as an ad hoc advisor to the National Park Service 

and other federal agencies. 

Our national parks have long been valued as public playgrounds, places for spiritual enrichment, and as bastions of democracy. Especially over the last few decades, the national park system has also been viewed as a reservoir of wildlife and 

biological diversity. We all know that this value is sometimes compromised, both by 

over-development and other problems within the parks and by things going on beyond park boundaries. 

The best known examples of problems originating outside park boundaries, but affecting parks are clear-cutting, intensive agriculture, road-building, energy development, and urbanization, sometimes occurring right up to the boundaries of national 

parks. These activities turn some parks into ecological islands surrounded by highly 

altered land. Migrations of large mammals such as elk, bison, and pronghorn antelope in and out of some western national parks have been disrupted, to the extent 

that some populations face extinction. 

Less visible but just as dangerous to the ecological integrity of national parks are 

air and water pollution, acid precipitation, and water withdrawals for agriculture 

and urban uses. Recently, undeniable scientific evidence has become available showing that climate change and attendant impacts such as sea-level rise may be the 

greatest environmental threat our nation and the world have ever faced. National 

parks are not exempt from this threat—in fact, due their locations (very high elevations or very low coastal elevations) they are probably more vulnerable than most 

other lands. 

The two main things we know about climate change in relation to national parks 

are that: 

1) Climate change will not be good for national parks—but 

2) There are things we can do proactively to reduce the impacts of climate 

change on national parks—these things fall into the category of ‘‘adaptation.’’ 

Adaptation to climate change is very urgent because we are already seeing negative impacts of climate change on wildlife and ecosystems, and those impacts will 

continue to worsen for at least decades and probably centuries, even if we drastically reduce our combustion of fossil fuels and other inputs of greenhouse gases 

into the atmosphere. 

To reduce the impacts of climate change on national parks in a cost-effective way, 

we need to prioritize, which requires asking several key questions: 

1) What kinds of species are at greatest risk from climate change? 

2) What national parks are most at risk from climate change, in terms of losing species and ecosystem functions? 

3) Conversely, what kinds of parks are likely to be most resilient to climate 

change? 

4) What kinds of actions should we take to minimize losses of biological diversity and ecological integrity within national parks? 

All of these questions, but especially the last, require sound scientific research to 

answer with confidence and in detail. Nevertheless, we have sufficient knowledge 

now to make some generalizations and head in the right direction. 

First, what kinds of species are likely to be at greatest risk? We can assume they 

will be: 

• Species with narrow geographic distributions (i.e., endemics), in which case loss 

of only a small area of habitat could result in extinction. 

• Species closely associated with habitats likely to be eliminated or greatly reduced by climate change. These include arctic, alpine, low-lying coastal, and 

nearshore marine habitats. 

• Species that are not very mobile and cannot disperse quickly. 

• Species that show limited responsiveness to natural selection (from low genetic 

diversity, long generation times, etc.). 

• Species that are highly susceptible to emerging diseases and invasive non-native predators and competitors. 
33 

* Graphic has been retained in subcommittee files. 

What kinds of national parks are likely to experience intense impacts from climate change? We can predict that these include parks in the far north, for example 

Alaska, and in the continental interior, because these are the regions expected to 

show the greatest increases in temperature and associated water stress. Alpine 

areas within parks—for example in the Rocky Mountains, Sierra Nevada, and Cascades—are also at high risk. Alpine areas and their species stand to be pinched 

right of the top of mountains as vegetation zones move upwards in elevation with 

warming temperatures. 

But are mountain parks more at risk generally? Probably not. There are many 

reasons to suspect that parks with extensive elevation gradients and high topographic diversity will be more resilient to climate change than parks with limited 

topography. With adequate elevation range available, a terrestrial species can migrate upslope and reach a cooler climate with much less distance to travel than 

moving northward. In general, an average temperature 3° F cooler can be reached 

by moving upslope 1000 feet but would require moving northward 100 miles. 

In mountainous parks, species can also seek cooler microclimates such as sheltered coves, northfacing slopes, and areas around seeps and springs. Indeed, these 

cooler microhabitats probably serve an important role as refuges for species during 

times of hotter climate, from which they can move out and repopulate the surrounding landscape as the regional climate cools again. 

Therefore, perhaps the most compelling recommendations that scientists can 

make with respect to biological adaptation to climate change are to: 

• Maintain intact, connected habitats along environmental gradients, for example 

from the lowlands to the mountaintops. 

• Locate and protect local areas of cooler and wetter microclimate. 

Opportunities for adaptation are more restricted in flat terrain. National parks 

and other natural areas in low-lying coastal regions are the most vulnerable of all 

and will require the most immediate and probably the most costly intervention in 

order to prevent widespread losses of species. The culprit, of course, is sea-level rise. 

Eminent geologists Orrin Pilkey and Rob Young recently wrote in their book The 

Rising Sea (2009): ‘‘Of all the ongoing and expected changes from global warming. . .the increase in the volume of the oceans and accompanying rise in the level 

of the sea will be the most immediate, the most certain, the most widespread, and 

the most economically visible in its effects.’’ 

Most of the acreage of the national park system in the eastern United States is 

coastal. Everglades National Park and the contiguous Big Cypress National Preserve total more than 2.2 million acres, slightly larger than Yellowstone National 

Park. The nearby Biscayne National Park encompasses another 172,000 acres. All 

but one of our 10 national seashores are on the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts, and these 

eastern national seashores total nearly 525,000 acres. 

What will happen to these eastern national park units with rising sea level? Projections for Florida, as an example, do not look good (Fig. 1).* Most projections now 

show the sea rising at least 1 meter by the year 2100—this is the level currently 

estimated by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. However, many recent projections are higher (for example, the State of California is now assuming 1.4 meters 

by 2100 in its planning) and some studies suggest that the rise to 1 meter or more 

above current levels could happen significantly sooner than 2100, depending on 

what happens to the polar ice caps. 

Faced with projections such as these, a natural response would be despair. In 

Florida, we are currently in denial. I am not sure which is worse. A more intelligent 

approach is to examine the options for adaptation to the inevitable changes that will 

occur. 

These options fall into two classes: (1) armor the shoreline with seawalls, levees 

and other structures, and bring in large amounts of new sand to build artificial 

beaches; or (2) managed retreat, where we relocate people, valuable structures, species, and habitat further inland, above the expected level of sea-level rise. Because 

many structures can not be relocated economically, they will have to be abandoned. 

Pursuing either of these options will be difficult and expensive. The first option— 

coastal armoring and building artificial beaches—would be only a short-term fix, at 

best, and will soon prove economically unsustainable. It would be a disaster ecologically as well, by preventing the natural inland movement of habitats and species, which has occurred during previous periods of sea-level rise many times over 

the past millions of years. 
34 

For coastal national park units, assisting the movement of species inland to colonize new habitats is the only strategy with any hope of success. Yet we are still 

faced with many questions and much uncertainty about answers. In the Everglades, 

for example, can we really expect unique communities such as marl prairies (home 

of the federally Endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow) to ‘‘migrate’’ inland? We 

simply do not know. 

What about our national seashores? Most of these national park units are on barrier islands. Barrier islands naturally move around over time with changes in sea 

levels and currents. But before long there will be nowhere to move. The shorelines 

landward of the barrier islands, like much of the islands themselves, are often heavily developed. 

All we can do in these cases is protect as much coastal habitat as possible now 

and establish broad movement corridors from coastal parks and other natural areas 

to inland conservation areas. We probably will have to physically translocate some 

species to higher ground and take others into captivity indefinitely. We may have 

to create new beaches, well inland of their current location, to provide essential 

nesting and feeding habitat for sea turtles, shorebirds, and many other creatures. 

Sea-level rise and other challenges to national parks and our natural heritage 

posed by climate change do not have to be a catastrophe. As Orrin Pilkey and Rob 

Young put it, sea-level rise and its associated impacts ‘‘could all be seen as an opportunity for society to redesign with nature, to anticipate the changes that will 

occur in the future and to respond in such a fashion as to maintain a coast that 

future generations will find both useful and enjoyable. It provides a challenge to scientists, planners, environmentalists, politicians, and other citizens alike to stretch 

the limits of their imagination to respond with flexibility and with careful foresight 

to development challenges that our society has not faced before.’’ 

I urge this subcommittee to think hard about these questions and initiate a process to determine precisely what needs to be done to minimize the impacts of sealevel rise and other climatic phenomena on national parks and America’s natural 

heritage in general. The sooner we take action, the more of our natural heritage can 

be preserved for future generations. We still have a chance to make a difference. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee. 

Senator UDALL. Dr. Noss, thank you for that testimony. Thank 

you to the panel. All three of you added value and some important 

insights. 

Mayor McMahan, if I could turn to you. I have to make note that 

your enthusiasm is contagious. I am married to a North Carolinian. 

Of course, I am sitting next to a North Carolinian. I have to believe 

that your cousins in North Carolina match your enthusiasm for the 

Great Smokies and for the resources—— 

Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL [continuing]. That you are so fortunate to have 

in your back yard. 

I assume your Congressman is Congressman Wamp? 

Mr. MCMAHAN. No, sir. No. My Congressman is Congressman 

Phil Roe. 

Senator UDALL. Yes, all right. 

Mr. MCMAHAN. A brand new Congressman, first term. 

Senator UDALL. So Congressman Wamp, as Senator Burr I know, 

has great enthusiasm about all things Tennessean. Again, you remind me of his passion for your wonderful State. 

Mr. MCMAHAN. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. You made it very clear that the economic downturn has had very little effect on your visitation numbers, which 

is great news. I think it further points out that national parks 

bring in significant dollars, and gateway communities can thrive 

even in harsh economic times. 

I am curious how you see the potential effects of climate change, 

drought, worsening air quality, to name two, in your region on visitation of the Smokies and other national parks, if it were to con-
35 

tinue to develop in the way we hope it does not but looks like it 

may well. 

Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir. Senator, it would be devastating. I believe that if we continue to allow climate change to go unaddressed, 

I feel that—we are blessed. We live in the most diverse biosphere 

in the western hemisphere. I mean, there are more plant and animal species in the lower Appalachians, the Great Smoky Mountain 

National Park, than anywhere else. They are the third oldest 

mountain range in the world. When you have that kind of rich history sitting in your back yard where you have got more visitors 

than the top three other parks combined in visitation—we have 

about 10 million visitors a year to the Great Smoky Mountain National Park—that is a blessing. You get to share your precious natural resources and your cultural heritage traditions to the entire 

world. 

The down side of that is that the footprint is enormous, and 

when you are talking about—I know out West and these esteemed 

gentlemen up here have been out West a lot and been to some of 

those parks. You have millions and millions of acres and lots less 

visitation. But when you are talking 525,000 acres, just a half a 

million acres, and the footprint of 10 million visitors, it takes a toll, 

and on top of that with the kind of climate change that we have 

been seeing, especially with the drought a couple years ago—I have 

a working cattle farm. I had to buy hay for 2 years at exorbitant 

prices from surrounding States. It was devastating to the economy 

of the local farmers. 

Now, in saying that, I do not think we can afford not to look at 

climate change because in the future, if we do not, then what we 

have and what we know now and we have known for the first 100 

years, by 2016 at the centennial we are not going to know where 

to go in the next 100 years. So I feel that if we do fully fund research projects and adaptation projects, then I feel truly what is 

going to happen is that we are going to get in front—we are going 

to be proactive in getting in front of this problem and see what we 

can do. There will be an influx of capital investment, which in turn 

for us economically will turn around and create jobs and, in turn, 

increase our tax base. If we allow our parks to go unattended in 

this, then the decimation will be just absolutely—it will be brutal 

and then people will not come anymore. 

The Great Smoky Mountains National Park just celebrated its 

75th this year. My family comes from the park. We were kicked out 

of the park. We were kicked out. 

I know that Senator Burr probably has friends that have family 

that were kicked out of the park on the North Carolina side. When 

we left, we were not happy campers, truly. Literally we were 

kicked out and the Federal Government has taken over. 

We have gotten over it. We love what has happened with the 

parks. We love what the Federal Government has done with it now, 

but we also feel that it is incumbent upon the Federal Government 

to work with us in partnership to create new strategies, new policies to address what we have always wanted to do, which is to keep 

our cultural heritage traditions and our precious natural resources 

and that is all we are asking. 
36 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for sharing that understanding and 

your experiences with us. I marvel at your family’s history. 

Since I spent so much time encouraging you to talk about the 

Great Smokies, I hope Senator Burr will get somebody else on the 

panel to talk about Rocky Mountain National Park so I can make 

myself whole with my constituents back in Colorado because we 

are proud of our parks. 

Dr. Williams, in the time I have got remaining—and I think we 

may well do a second round—I wanted to follow up on your statement about streams becoming uninhabitable for native trout because the water temperatures are very important to trout health. 

Are you of the mind that sportsmen and sportswomen are aware 

of the impacts to trout streams in parks and how those changes 

could affect recreational opportunities? How do you see the Park 

Service engaging this constituency to help educate the general public? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. The first part of your question—I 

think the answer is there is a growing awareness from hunters and 

anglers across this country. The Wildlife Management Institute, in 

cooperation with about eight other major national conservation organizations, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, that type, edited 

and produced a book called Seasons’ End which deals with the 

challenges of climate change. That was an attempt to help inform 

and educate hunters and anglers across this country who, I would 

say, about 4 or 5 years ago probably really were not engaged in 

this issue. Not only that book, but those major conservation organizations produce—almost all of them produce monthly magazines 

and have covered this topic. So that awareness is growing. I do not 

think there is any question about it. 

We have been involved in some polling of hunters and anglers, 

national polls. It ranks up there as a concern. The other concerns 

are the economy, energy, and so on that supersede that. But I 

think those polls are very important. In the most recent one we 

did, if I could characterize, one of the responses was we know that 

climate change is an issue and we think that steps should be taken 

now to address it rather than wait because it will cost less to deal 

with it now than it will if we wait 10–15 years. So hunters and anglers are aware and that concern is growing. 

The Park Service provides—again, as I guess two of the panelists 

here talked about—tremendous fishing opportunities across the 

country, in particular—well, I will talk about Rocky Mountain National Park. There is tremendous fishing there. It is a place that 

all us easterners dream about and eventually hopefully get a 

chance to go fish some of those wonderful areas. 

But I have got to go back to the Great Smoky Mountains. In Seasons’ End, in that book, the chapter that dealt with cold water fisheries, trout fisheries, the experts, the fisheries biologists that work 

those areas and those Appalachian streams have made some pretty 

dire predictions about what might happen to the native trout species, particularly brook trout, in those streams because of warming 

temperatures in streams and the change in stream flow as a function of change in snowmelt and snowpack. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Senator Burr. 
37 

Senator BURR. Dr. Williams, let me assure you the brook trout 

are still alive and well. I caught one not long ago. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Very good. 

Senator BURR. Just outside the borders of the Great Smokies. 

Mayor, let me welcome you. 

Mr. MCMAHAN. Thank you. 

Senator BURR. I feel like I have a direct tie to you. If it had not 

been for North Carolina giving Tennessee that land, you would not 

have Tennessee. 

Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir. I appreciate that direct tie. 

Senator BURR. But we thank you for sharing the park with us, 

and it is my hope you will not have to buy hay this year based 

upon how much rain we have had. 

Mr. MCMAHAN. No, sir. I have had three cuttings already. I 

think we are fine. 

Senator BURR. A lot of things have changed. 

Let me ask you. 

Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator BURR. If, for some reason in an attempt to try to address 

human effects on climate, the Park Service came out tomorrow and 

said we are banning automobiles from the Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park, what would that do to the 10 million visitors we 

have? 

Mr. MCMAHAN. If they just out and banned it right now? It 

would be decimating to visitation. 

Senator BURR. There are some things that we might both look 

at and say this could have a marginal impact on climate change, 

but from a standpoint of what the parks are there for, this is not 

the right direction for us to go. Do you agree? 

Mr. MCMAHAN. Absolutely. Yes, sir. 

Senator BURR. Dr. Noss, I am going to give you an opportunity 

to give me the words to sell coastal residents in North Carolina 

who have lived when they saw most of the Outer Banks covered 

in water, only to now be pretty heavily developed in some areas 

and in other areas, a protected national park with some controversy on usage right now. But how can you lead me on how I 

convey to them that they are in jeopardy of those at some point 

being under water, the result of climate change versus their historical knowledge of cyclical changes? 

Mr. NOSS. I understand your question, and I would have a hard 

time explaining to them too except for to just point to the bigger 

picture. I think this is a classic example of the limitations, not the 

wrongness but simply the limitations, of taking a purely local view 

because if you take a little broader view, these barrier islands move 

around. They come and go, whereas some of yours have grown, 

there have been other barrier islands that have disappeared completely or moved considerably over the same span of time. 

Senator BURR. Not the result of climate change. 

Mr. NOSS. Yes, as a result of sea level rise just recently. I will 

point to increasing storm surge from hurricanes. I will point you 

to a book from a couple folks in your—— 

Senator BURR. Are hurricanes the result of climate change? 
38 

Mr. NOSS. Yes. The increasing sea surface temperature is now 

accepted as the major factor for the increasing intensity of hurricanes, which means storm surge. 

Senator BURR. If progressively this gets worse every year, progressively—I mean, this is not something that skips a year or skips 

a decade as far as the impact of climate change. 

Mr. NOSS. Oh, no. It can skip years and decades. 

Senator BURR. So this year’s low experience of hurricanes is a 

skip. It’s an aberration in the trend? 

Mr. NOSS. We are in an El Nino year and during El Nino years, 

the intensity and the frequency of Atlantic hurricanes is reduced. 

Next time we get into a La Nina, which is the opposite situation, 

we can expect that hurricanes will again come back with force. A 

lot of the hurricanes in 2003–2004 were both during relative La 

Nina periods. So that is a somewhat cyclic situation. But the general trend is toward increasing—— 

Senator BURR. So let me see if I understand this. If we knew we 

were in that cycle, why would the guy out in Colorado and the national weather forecast not have said, you know, this is going to be 

a year we are not going to have many hurricanes. They actually 

projected this year we were going to have more than we did last 

year. 

Mr. NOSS. Because very interestingly, the cycle is changing. We 

are getting to shorter periods of time between El Nino events, in 

particular, and increasing intensity—— 

Senator BURR. But, Dr. Noss, this is like me watching the news 

last night, because I had an honor flight of 100 veterans coming 

up today, and when I saw the forecast for today, I called 10 people 

in my office and made sure they were going to be at the World War 

II Memorial this morning with umbrellas based upon what they 

forecast last night, only to get to the World War II Memorial this 

morning and the sun was out. 

So I guess my point is if we are relying on science to drive this 

massive change in our policy at the parks and potentially the public investment and we cannot, 6 months out, look at say, well, you 

know, this is a La Nina year or—what was the other one? 

Mr. NOSS. El Nino and La Nina. 

Senator BURR. Whichever one produces less, why could we not 

project that 6 months ago when the hurricane forecasters looked at 

it and said, well, this is a La Nina year, so we are not going to 

have many? 

Mr. NOSS. As counter-intuitive as it seems, long-term trends in 

climate are actually more reliable and many times easier to predict 

than weather day to day, and the same thing with these El Nino 

and La Nina years. It was not predicted that the cycle would shorten and the intensity of both the El Nino and the La Nina would 

increase, but it is something that happened. Some people had predicted that, but it was not generally accepted until quite recently. 

Senator BURR. I read your testimony and I was just struck by 

one thing, if I could read it. 

Mr. NOSS. Sure. 

Senator BURR. ‘‘Most projections now show the sea rising by at 

least 1 meter by the year 2100. This is the level currently estimated by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. However, 
39 

many recent projections are higher. For example, the State of California has now assumed 1.4 meters by 2100 in its planning, and 

some studies suggest that a rise to 1 meter or more above current 

levels could happen significantly sooner than 2100.’’ Then you 

made the statement verbally: It is improbable it will be slower or 

less. 

So let me just ask you. Is there any scientific data that suggests 

it is going to be slower or less? 

Mr. NOSS. There are certainly some scientists that claim that, 

and we have had an odd situation globally over the last 10 years, 

what appears to be odd, in that climate has been relatively stable 

in terms of temperature for the last 10 years. But if you look at 

the bigger picture, this is not unexpected. You have climate, in 

terms of global temperature, for example, going up, stabilizing for 

a while, going up again, stabilizing for a while, and in the big 

scheme of things, it is going to drop over thousands of years. 

So the trend is definitely upwards, and there is a lag time. The 

sea surface temperature and sea temperatures generally have continued to increase markedly over this last 10 years even though air 

temperature has been stable. So last July was the highest sea surface temperature average worldwide ever recorded in the history of 

humans taking measurements of sea surface temperature. We do 

know that there is a strong connection now between the intensity 

of hurricanes and sea surface temperature. It is still controversial 

whether we are going to have more hurricanes as a result of this. 

Senator BURR. How long have we kept data on sea temperatures? 

Mr. NOSS. At least a couple centuries. 

Senator BURR. Globally? 

Mr. NOSS. I would have to look and see exactly how many points. 

We take measurements in many more points now, but there have 

been people measuring ocean temperatures for a long time. 

Senator BURR. You suggest that some of what we have been 

through is cyclical. We are going to go through this and then the 

temperature is going to come back down. 

Mr. NOSS. Over the big span of time, absolutely. We have been 

through this before. 

Senator BURR. It makes it even tougher for me then to understand the connection to carbon and some of the things that we are 

talking about doing if in fact this has happened before and those 

items did not contribute to it. 

Mr. NOSS. They did. There were other factors that led to fluctuations in carbon dioxide content on a global scale, factors including 

volcanism, volcano activity, and lots of other things. But I am talking about on the scale of tens of thousands to millions of years. So, 

for example, the last time we had significantly higher sea levels 

was during the last interglacial period, a period between glaciers 

of the Ice Age, which was around 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. There 

was a recent study done. It showed that at that time, sea levels 

rose very rapidly, maybe as rapid or more so than we are even seeing now. 

Senator BURR. Was the United States geographically even in the 

location that it is today then? 

Mr. NOSS. Yes, pretty much so actually. It is just that we 

were—— 
40 

Senator BURR. The tectonic plates had separated and we had all 

the—— 

Mr. NOSS. It has not changed much since then. It has not 

changed much for the last few million years. 

Now, the big difference between this episode of global warming 

and climate change in general and those of the past is that species 

could move in response to climate change in the past because there 

were not all these barriers in the way. There were not cities. There 

were not big agricultural fields. There were not highways. 

Senator BURR. I think Dr. Williams got into that very well, that 

this is as much a challenge about the growth of population. 

Mr. NOSS. Absolutely. 

Senator BURR. Listen, I want to thank all of you. I hope that the 

proposals that come out of the Park Service are reasonable and rational and achievable and effective. I hope if, in fact, we think that 

a policy like removal of automobiles or a cap on the population is 

something that ought to be policy, that we will sober up before we 

go out and publicly say that. But I am confident that from a standpoint of our Park Service, the investment in the policy, this is 

something we have to do in collaboration with the American people 

and, yes, with the mayors and the communities that surround 

those parks. If it is not beneficial, if it is not there for the purpose 

that we protected them—and that is for the public use—then I am 

not sure that the American people will buy into what the remediation might be. 

I thank all three of you. 

Senator UDALL. Let me thank also, as we bring the hearing to 

a conclusion, the three witnesses. Your testimony has been enlightening and enjoyable. 

I would add my thoughts, as we conclude, that I do believe we 

cannot afford to not respond. As Dr. Williams suggested, if we do 

not address it now, it will cost us a much greater price later on. 

The record will remain open for 2 weeks. 

Again, thank you for your testimony here today. 

The hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 
(41) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

[Responses to the following questions were not received at the 

time the hearing went to press:] 

QUESTIONS FOR JONATHAN B. JARVIS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

BUFFER ZONES/PARK SERVICE JURISDICTION

Question 1. Recently, there have been a number of National Park Service endorsed situations which sought to increase NPS land or had the effect of creating 

buffer zones around existing National Park Service Units. 

It is important to note that the Park Service only manages land within the boundaries of the National Park Units, and is not provided with the jurisdiction to manage lands outside of those Units. What role should the National Park Service play 

in creating and mandating policy for lands surrounding National Park Units? If the 

Park Service plays a role in overseeing surrounding lands or resources, the NPS 

would have extremely far reaching jurisdiction, wouldn’t you agree? 

OTHER LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES

Question 2. Each land management agency and bureau has their own statutory 

mission statements and manages lands differently than the National Park Service. 

All of these agencies’ missions apply within the borders of the land for which the 

difference agencies have jurisdiction, but not outside of those borders. 

Does the Park Service believe that its own Organic Act should allow it to pursue 

efforts that may be in contrast to efforts of other land management agencies? 

Question 3. The Secretary of the Interior has begun a Climate Change Initiative 

which, among other things established ‘‘cooperatives’’ through which ‘‘Interior bureaus and agencies must work together, and with other federal, state, tribal and 

local governments, and private landowner partners, to develop landscape-level strategies for understanding and responding to climate change impacts.’’ 

What is the Park Service’s role in these cooperatives, and the Climate Change Initiative in general? Are there, and will there continue to be, differences between different land management agencies on how Climate Change should be approached 

within their respective jurisdictions? To what extent will the Park Service influence 

activities outside of its jurisdiction? 

(43) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, 

CLEAN AIR & CLIMATE PROGRAMS, 

Washington, DC, October 28, 2009. 

Hon. MARK UDALL, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 304, 1st and C Streets, NE, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN UDALL, 

Please accept the following testimony and attached reports on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) in connection with the hearing by the 

Subcommittee on National Parks to receive testimony on the current and expected 

impacts of climate change on units of the National Park System. 

Founded in 1919, NPCA works to protect, preserve, and enhance America’s National Park System for present and future generations. Today, we have 24 regional 

and field offices across the country, from southern Florida to Alaska, and more than 

330,000 members, who care deeply about the wildlife and ecosystems our parks preserve, and want to see these unique American treasures passed on to our children 

and grandchildren undiminished. 

CLIMATE CHANGE WILL HAVE SERIOUS LONG-TERM IMPACTS ON OUR NATIONAL PARKS

The effects of climate change have been visible for years in our national parks. 

Glaciers are disappearing faster than scientists had predicted even a few years ago. 

Native trees and animals are losing ground because changing temperature and 

weather patterns are making the availability of food, water, and shelter less certain. 

Fish and wildlife are being driven from their national park homes by changes that 

are unfolding faster than the animals’ ability to adapt. 

America’s national parks are showing the signs of climate change. From Yosemite’s forests in California to the Gulf Stream waters of the Florida coast, from the 

top of the Rocky Mountains to the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, these lands and 

the incredible diversity of life they support are all feeling the heat. Climate change 

is here and now, affecting the coral reefs in Florida at Biscayne National Park, 

lodgepole pines in Rocky Mountain National Park and animals that rely on snow 

in Yellowstone National Park. 

NPCA is submitting for the record our 2009 report, Climate Change & National 

Park Wildlife: A Survival Guide for a Warming World, which details the climate 

change impacts on wildlife in dozens of national parks throughout the country. An 

electronic version is available at www.npca.org/survivalguide. We are also submitting for the record our 2007 report, Unnatural Disaster: Global Warming and Our 

National Parks, which details climate change impacts on national parks throughout 

the country. An electronic version is available at www.npca.org/globalwarming. 

As detailed in NPCA’s reports, national parks, including their roads and buildings 

as well as their natural, historical, and cultural resources, are highly vulnerable to 

climate change impacts already unfolding across their landscapes. Following are 

some of the key findings of our reports with regard to climate change impacts on 

the national parks: 
44 

GLOBAL WARMING IMPACTS ON OUR NATIONAL PARKS 

ALASKA 

AK Katmai Ocean warming may affect salmon 

fisheries and scientists are exploring possible links between warmer 

river temperatures and increased 

parasites in salmon. 

AK Wrangell-St. Elias Thawing permafrost will damage 

infrastructure and reduce the size 

and location of ponds on which 

waterfowl depend. 

PACIFIC COAST MOUNTAINS 

WA North Cascades Seventy to 90 percent of the snow 

pack could disappear by the end of 

this century, threatening winter 

sports and water supplies. 

WA Olympic Mount Rainier NP Warmer winters and more extreme precipitation events could 

increase winter flood risk; An increase in stream water temperature and shallower stream will 

cause the decline of suitable salmon habitat. 

OR Lewis and Clark Earlier snowmelts and spring 

flooding can decimate alreadystressed salmon populations. 

CA Yosemite National Park Sequoia 

National Park Kings Canyon National Park 

The yellow-legged frog is threatened by disappearing ponds 

caused by increased evaporation 

and by the lack of water replenishment from higher altitude 

sources; Warming and drought 

have made wildfire 3 season 

longer and more damaging, and 

increased insect damage; Warmer 

temperatures will worsen groundlevel ozone problems; Increasing 

wildfires will contribute more 

smoke and airborne particulates. 

ROCKY MOUNTAINS 

MT Glacier The sculpted peaks, magical hanging valleys, azure lakes are all 

here because of the glaciers. By 

2030, the glaciers will be gone and 

they will take a part of the Park 

with them; Wolverines could decline as snowfields they depend on 

for dens disappear and carrion 

from winter-killed animals becomes less available. 
45 

GLOBAL WARMING IMPACTS ON OUR NATIONAL PARKS—Continued 

WYMTID Yellowstone Recent warmer winters have led 

to burgeoning Whitebark pine insect infestations killing thousands 

of trees and dramatically decreasing the availability of the pine 

nut, a critical fall food source for 

grizzly bears. 

CO Rocky Mountain Rising temperatures and diminishing snow pack are allowing 

trees to take over high elevation 

alpine tundra putting animal species that have adapted to this ecosystem at great risk. 

SOUTHWEST 

UT Canyonlands Arches Capitol Reef Bighorn sheep are threatened by 

an increasing scarcity of its food 

caused by changes in precipitation 

patterns. 

AZ Saguaro Higher temperatures are allowing 

invasive grasses to displace native 

plants, and these grasses fuel 

wildfires, which used to be rare in 

this ecosystem. 

TX Big Bend The Rio Grande is forecasted to 

narrow and dry up in places, encouraging invasive plant growth 

and affecting wildlife. CA JOSHUA TREE More than 90% of Joshua trees in the park could be 

wiped out within a century. 

GREAT LAKES 

MI Isle Royale Wolf and Moose populations are 

declining at a rapid rate due to 

unusually warm summers, directly 

threatening their symbiotic relationship. 

WI Apostle Islands With the water level in Lake Superior decreasing, recreational infrastructure must be redesigned 

and replaced in order to maintain 

the visitors’ enjoyment of the park 

and safety. 

MI Sleeping Bear Dunes Climate change will exacerbate existing stresses on waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and migratory birds, 

such as water pollution and nonnative species. 

IN Indiana Dunes This park ranks third of all U.S. 

national parks in plant diversity, 

but the diversity of aquatic and 

land-based flora will decline significantly. 

NORTHEAST 
46 

GLOBAL WARMING IMPACTS ON OUR NATIONAL PARKS—Continued 

ME MA 

NY 

Acadia Cape Cod Fire Island Climate change is diminishing the 

availability of nesting habitats for 

red knots and other shorebirds 

that annually migrate along the 

Atlantic Flyway. 

ME Acadia Rising seas may permanently submerge the park’s islands, while 

warmer summers will result in increased evapotranspiration rates, 

which could destroy the park’s 

many wetland ecosystems. 

MA Cape Cod Much of the Cape’s rich mosaic of 

marine, estuarine, fresh water, 

and terrestrial ecosystems, already damaged by rapid sea level 

rise over the last decade, could be 

completely lost to future generations as submersion and erosion 

claims ever more of this low-lying 

park. 

NY Fire Island Sea-level rise will increase shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion 

into groundwater aquifers, and 

drown out endangered native species, while increased storms 

threaten historical and cultural 

treasures. 

NY Ellis Island Immigration records that connect 

over 40 percent of Americans to 

our collective past would have to 

be removed from the park or risk 

destruction from rising seas. 

ME-GA Appalachian National Scenic Trail More floods can lead to higher 

landslide risk, threatening portions of the high elevation trail, 

and communities that lie below. 

MID-ATLANTIC 

MD, 

VA 

Chesapeake Bay Warmer water is likely to increase 

outbreaks of two dangerous oyster 

diseases. 

VA Historic Jamestown Jamestown celebrated its 400th 

anniversary in 2007, but much of 

the park could be under water before its 500th anniversary. 

VA Shenandoah More droughts, floods, and warmer streams can diminish native 

trout populations. 

VA, NC Blue Ridge Parkway Warmer summers can produce 

more ozone 5 NC pollution and 

more ‘‘code red’’ air quality days, 

increasing health risks for visitors. 

SOUTHEAST 
47 

GLOBAL WARMING IMPACTS ON OUR NATIONAL PARKS—Continued 

TN, NC Great Smoky Mountains Rare and ancient forests may be 

threatened by increasing groundlevel ozone and insect pests unleashed by warming; the park is 

expected to lose most of its populations of red squirrel, northern 

flying squirrel, and southern redback vole. 

NC, 

SC, 

GA, 

FL, 

MS 

Wright Brothers National Monument Fort Sumter Fort Pulaski 

Gulf Islands National Seashore 

Sea level rise, increasing storm 

strength, and flooding threaten 

low-lying historic areas and historical structures that tell the story 

of our nation from its earliest 

days. 

FL Everglades More powerful hurricanes combined with sea level rise could destroy park buildings and roads, increasingly cutting-off visitor access. 

VI Virgin Islands NP Warming ocean temperatures and 

disease may be the primary contributing factors to the decline of 

coral reef habitats. 

FL Biscayne Bay Dry Tortugas Rising, warming and acidifying 

seas threaten coral reefs and sport 

fishing. Toxic or unusual algal 

blooms may threaten wildlife and 

tourism. 

These impacts degrade not only the parks and their wildlife, but also are beginning to have a significant impact on the National Park Service’s budget. Just one 

result of climate change—increased seasonal flooding in the pacific west—underscores the seriousness of the challenge. 

Because winter temperatures in coastal Pacific mountains hover close to freezing, 

the few degrees rise predicted for this region will cause more and more precipitation 

to fall as rain rather than snow. Predicted increases in extreme winter precipitation 

with expected shifts toward rain rather than snow could greatly increase the likelihood of flooding. In North Cascades National Park, the three worst floods in park 

history have occurred in the fall when rain fell on snow that already had accumulated in the mountains. In November 2006, Mount Rainier National Park suffered 

the most damaging flood in its 108-year history when nearly 18 inches of rain fell 

in just 36 hours. The flooding broke the main utility lines, destroyed large sections 

of roads, trails, and campgrounds, and filled reservoirs with mud and debris. The 

major year-round road through the park was closed for six months, and a major 

north-south road was closed for over a year. Rebuilding cost to date has exceeded 

$40 million. 

The National Park Service desperately needs a plan to protect America’s assets 

from climate change. Equally importantly, NPS needs the resources commensurate 

with the enormity of the challenge. 

NATIONAL PARKS CAN BE PART OF THE SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

What’s happening in the parks is symptomatic of changes unfolding across the 

larger landscapes to which they are inseparably connected, the same landscapes 

that contain our communities. Changes that harm wildlife—depriving them of food, 

water, or shelter—will ultimately harm us. Given the iconic importance of parks, 

and that they protect core ecoregions of this country, working to safeguard parks 

and their wildlife from climate change should be a central strategy in safeguarding 

our nation from climate change. 

Solutions are neither simple nor quick and easy. It will take decisive action on 

the part of our federal government and all of us to meet the challenge and keep 

our faith with future generations. To avoid the potentially catastrophic loss of ani-
48 

mal and plant life, it is imperative that we wean ourselves from energy sources like 

coal and oil that are accelerating rising temperatures and causing unnatural climate 

change. It is equally imperative that we pursue new strategies to preserve functioning ecosystems and the full diversity of life they support. 

National parks can play an important role in these strategies, preserving healthy 

ecosystems and their wildlife, in part by helping them to adapt to new climatic conditions. But some challenges must be addressed before the parks can fully step into 

this role. Right now, no national plan exists to manage wildlife throughout their 

habitat, which often is a patchwork of lands managed by multiple federal agencies, 

states, tribes, municipalities, and private landholders. Wildlife need corridors that 

enable them to migrate between protected lands as climate change renders their 

current homes inhospitable. We also need to work harder to reduce air and water 

pollution that compound climate change stresses on wildlife. All of these elements 

must be put in place as soon as possible to safeguard all living communities. 

We must act now to secure America’s natural legacy before it is lost to our children and grandchildren. The National Park System can play a central role in restoring and preserving the healthy ecosystems necessary for wildlife—and indeed ourselves—to thrive. 

FIVE KEY ACTIONS ARE NEEDED TO SAFEGUARD NATIONAL PARKS FROM CLIMATE

CHANGE

The choice is now ours to either chronicle the decline of our national parks or take 

actions to make our national parks part of the climate change solution. If we fail 

to act, many species of fish and wildlife could disappear from the parks—or even 

become extinct. 

That we must reduce global warming pollution to protect our natural world and 

human communities is now understood by many. But that is not all we must do. 

Unnatural climate change is already underway and will continue for decades even 

if we put a stop to all global warming pollution today. 

Additional steps must be taken now to safeguard wildlife. We must protect the 

places that will help wildlife survive as the climate changes, manage wildlife anticipating the changes ahead, and improve the ecological health of the national parks 

and their surrounding landscapes to give fish and wildlife a fighting chance to survive unnatural climate change. 

NPCA advocates five steps that, taken together, will help safeguard fish and wildlife, their homes, and our communities, from climate change. Here’s what needs to 

be done: 

1. Stop contributing to climate change.—Many wildlife species are struggling 

to cope with climate changes already underway. Some will not be able to endure 

much more change, and could disappear from national parks and even go extinct if climate change is unchecked. We must limit its effects by rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions and switching to less-polluting sources of energy. 

2. Reduce and eliminate existing harms that make wildlife more vulnerable 

to climate change.—The damaging effects of climate change are compounded by 

existing stresses on wildlife. Air and water pollution, development of adjacent 

wild lands, and other forces are harming national park wildlife now, and adding 

climate change to the mix could be disastrous. By reducing and eliminating 

these environmental harms we can significantly decrease the vulnerability of 

plants, fish, and wildlife to climate change as well as produce rapid and tangible benefits—such as clean air and water—that both people and wildlife need 

to thrive. 

3. Give wildlife freedom to roam.—Climate change will cause some wildlife to 

move outside the parks’ protected boundaries, while other species may move in. 

Because national parks, like all protected areas, are interconnected with surrounding landscapes, cooperation and coordination among all land owners—public and private—is essential to preserve functioning ecosystems and the wildlife 

they support. National parks can play a key role in conserving wildlife across 

the landscape. In some cases they provide natural corridors; in other cases new 

corridors will be needed to connect parks and other protected lands so that wildlife can move in response to climate change. 

4. Adopt ‘‘climate smart’’ management practices.—As one of the nation’s premiere land managing agencies the National Park Service needs working models 

and sufficient resources to preserve biological diversity and ecosystem functions 

threatened by climate change. Familiar and emerging concepts like habitat restoration, connective corridors, facilitated migration, elimination of compounding 

stressors, scenario modeling, mobile conservation areas, and genetic diversity, 

must be woven together into a coherent, workable, and replicable model. Amer-
49 

ica’s national parks are poised to assist in developing that model, but they currently lack sufficient funding and management capacity needed to formulate, 

implement, and market an ecosystem-wide ‘‘climate smart’’ adaptation model. 

Climate-smart management includes four key elements: 

(1) Training national park managers to build climate change into their 

work, 

(2) Establishing guidance and policies that enable park staff to work 

closely and equally with other federal, state, local and private landowners, 

(3) Providing sufficient funding and staffing for the challenge at hand, 

and 

(4) Creating a political and organizational setting that facilitates appropriate, timely, and collaborative action. 

While research and monitoring should be a part of any park’s approach to 

climate-smart management, real focus needs to be placed on implementing 

management changes now based on what we already know. 

National Parks are the ideal laboratories to develop and deploy new conservation strategies for combating the effects of climate change. They are the 

symbols of America, beloved by millions of our own citizens, and admired as a 

model throughout the world. They are home to some of the best science and innovative thinking on climate change and ecosystem management. And they 

enjoy strong support across the political spectrum, a dynamic that has helped 

parks achieve the highest level of ecosystem protection among public lands. 

With its strong political support and scientific information, the National 

Park System can be empowered to lead the way in preserving the maximum 

degree of biological diversity and ecosystem function in the coming changing climates. 

5. National parks lead by example.—With more than 270 million annual visitors, a core education mission, and a tradition of scientific leadership, national 

parks have an unparalleled ability to engage Americans in the fight against climate change. National parks can help visitors understand climate change is already occurring, the vulnerabilities of tomorrow, and how we can all reduce our 

contribution to global warming. 

National parks can also serve as natural laboratories for testing innovative 

ways to safeguard wildlife from the effects of climate change, and to reduce 

greenhouse gases that are causing climate change. 

CLIMATE LEGISLATION CURRENTLY BEFORE CONGRESS CAN HELP SAFEGUARD THE

NATIONAL PARKS

As the Subcommittee on National Parks continues to examine polices to safeguard 

national parks from climate change, there is an immediate opportunity to secure 

critical protections for parks and all natural resources through climate change legislation now under consideration in both the Environment and Public Works and Energy and Natural Resources Committees. NPCA supports the Clean Energy Jobs 

and American Power Act, co-sponsored by Senators Boxer and Kerry, as well as legislation recently introduced by Senators Bingaman, Baucus, Whitehouse, and T. 

Udall, the Natural Resources Climate Adaptation Act, which establishes a comprehensive system for safeguarding America’s vital natural resources from climate 

change. 

BY SAFEGUARDING NATIONAL PARKS WE HELP SECURE OUR OWN FUTURE

National parks are America’s national treasures. It is a uniquely American idea 

that each of us owns our national parks. They have been entrusted to us, and it 

is our responsibility to make sure that climate change does not rob the parks of 

their incredibly rich array of plants, fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals. 

Wildlife is threatened now as perhaps never before. The Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change warns that up to a quarter of assessed species could face extinction due to global warming by the end of this century. It’s difficult to imagine that 

the changes leading to mass wildlife extinctions would not also profoundly threaten 

human life. 

Decisive action now can help bring about a more hopeful future for wildlife and 

for ourselves. Taking the five steps recommended here will help safeguard national 

park wildlife by preserving and strengthening the ecosystems that support all wildlife. In turn our communities, which have always relied on healthy natural resources, will be better equipped to cope with the changes ahead. 
50 

Thank you for considering NPCA’s views on the important issue of safeguarding 

our national parks from climate change impacts. 

Sincerely, 

MARK WENZLER, 

Director. 

Æ