Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources
Published: 2007-08-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Climate change has implications for the vast land and water resources managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest Service (FS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and National Park Service (NPS). These resources generally occur within four ecosystem types: coasts and oceans, forests, fresh waters, and grasslands and shrublands. GAO obtained experts' views on (1) the effects of climate change on federal resources and (2) the challenges managers face in addressing climate change effects on these resources. GAO held a workshop with the National Academies in which 54 scientists, economists, and federal resource managers participated, and conducted 4 case studies.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: According to experts at the GAO workshop, federal land and water resources are vulnerable to a wide range of effects from climate change, some of which are already occurring. These effects include, among others, (1) physical effects, such as droughts, floods, glacial melting, and sea level rise; (2) biological effects, such as increases in insect and disease infestations, shifts in species distribution, and changes in the timing of natural events; and (3) economic and social effects, such as adverse impacts on tourism, infrastructure, fishing, and other resource uses. Experts at the GAO workshop also identified several challenges that resource managers face in addressing the observed and potential effects of climate change in their management and planning efforts. In particular, BLM, FS, FWS, NOAA, and NPS have not made climate change a priority, and the agencies' strategic plans do not specifically address climate change. Resource managers focus first on near-term, required activities, leaving less time for addressing longer-term issues such as climate change. In addition, resource managers have limited guidance about whether or how to address climate change and, therefore, are uncertain about what actions, if any, they should take. In general, resource managers lack specific guidance for incorporating climate change into their management actions and planning efforts. Without such guidance, their ability to address climate change and effectively manage resources is constrained. While a broad order developed in January 2001 directed BLM, FWS, and NPS to consider and analyze potential climate change effects in their management plans and activities, the agencies have not yet provided specific direction to managers on how they are to implement the order. A BLM official stated at an April 2007 hearing that BLM is establishing policy and technical committees to address necessary actions and develop guidance to address climate change in agency management practices. FWS and NPS officials said that their agencies have not developed specific guidance but believe that they are operating in a manner consistent with the 2001 order. While NOAA and FS have not provided specific guidance to their resource managers, NOAA officials said that the agency is establishing a working group to determine what actions to take to address climate change effects. FS officials said that FS planning processes are designed to identify and respond to emerging issues such as climate change. Finally, resource managers do not have sufficient site-specific information to plan for and manage the effects of climate change on the federal resources they manage. In particular, the managers lack computational models for local projections of expected changes and detailed inventories and monitoring systems for an adequate baseline understanding of existing local species. Without such information, managers are limited to reacting to already-observed climate change effects on their units, which makes it difficult to plan for future changes.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: A growing body of evidence shows that increasing concentrations of  greenhouse gases—primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous  oxide—in the Earth’s atmosphere have resulted in a warmer global climate  system, among other changes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate  Change (IPCC), a leading source for international climate expertise, noted  in April 2007 that “observational evidence from all continents and most  oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional  climate changes, particularly temperature increases.” The IPCC further  noted that climate change has, in some areas, led to rising sea levels,  declining snow cover, melting glacial and Arctic ice, coral bleaching, and  changes in the timing and amount of precipitation, among other things. The  stresses caused by climate change could be exacerbated by existing  stresses on ecosystems from such sources as pollution, human settlement,  land-use change, and invasion by nonnative species. Together, climate  change and ecosystem stresses may cause substantial damage to, or the  complete loss of, some ecosystems and the extinction of species.  Furthermore, scientists project that changes in temperature and  precipitation may result in more extreme weather events, such as more  frequent and severe droughts, storms, and floods as well as changes in local  climate conditions.
Federal agencies manage over 600 million acres of land—almost 30 percent  of the land area of the United States—and more than 150,000 square miles  of protected waters, including 13 national marine sanctuaries and 1 marine  national monument. These federal resources are managed primarily by the  U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (Agriculture) Forest Service (FS); the  Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and the Department of the Interior  (Interior), specifically the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National  Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
The resources managed by federal agencies generally occur within four  principal ecosystem types—coasts and oceans, forests, fresh waters, and  grasslands and shrublands—and support a rich diversity of plant and  animal communities, including endangered and threatened species, such as  the Florida panther, the desert tortoise, the whooping crane, and the Santa  Cruz cypress, among others. Federal resources also support a range of  economically and socially valuable activities, such as mineral extraction  and recreation. In fiscal year 2005, the public visited federal lands over   600 million times, according to estimates by Agriculture and Interior.
These agencies manage their resources for a variety of purposes related to  preservation; recreation; and, in some cases, resource use, yet each agency  has distinct responsibilities for the resources it administers. The statutes  governing these agencies’ resource management activities generally do not  require the agencies to manage for specific outcomes, such as a certain  number of visitors, or to provide a specific response to changes in  ecological conditions, such as insect outbreaks. Instead, these laws give  the agencies discretion to decide how best to carry out their  responsibilities in light of their respective statutory missions as well as the  need to comply with or implement specific substantive and procedural  laws, such as the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the National  Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or the Clean Air Act. The agencies are  generally authorized to plan and manage for changes in resource  conditions, regardless of the cause that brings about the change. As a  result, federal resource management agencies are generally authorized, but  are not specifically required, to address changes in resource conditions  resulting from climate change in their management activities.
In this context, we obtained (1) experts’ views on the observed and  potential effects of climate change on federal resources within the four  principal ecosystem types and (2) the views of federal resource managers  on the challenges they face in addressing the observed and potential future  effects of climate change in their management actions and planning efforts.  In addition, four case studies illustrate some of the effects of climate  change on federal resources as well as the challenges to addressing them.
To solicit experts’ views on the effects of climate change and federal  resource managers’ views on the challenges to addressing climate change  on federal resources within the four ecosystem types, we convened a 2-day  workshop in collaboration with the National Academies’ Board on  Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. Descriptions in this report of the  effects of climate change come from experts at the workshop; we did not  independently review articles from the scientific literature or verify  participants’ statements. To identify experts for the first day of the  workshop, which addressed science issues, the National Academies and  GAO agreed on selection criteria, which included recommendations from  other experts, a demonstrated record of publication in the field, and  experience contributing to climate change impact assessments or other  peer-reviewed scientific reports and articles relating to climate change.  Individuals’ availability on the date of the workshop was also a key factor.  The National Academies and GAO gave particular preference to individuals  recommended by more than one expert. In addition to ecosystem  expertise, we gave priority to those candidates whose expertise also  included an understanding of climate change (e.g., an understanding of  how climate change might affect coral reefs or forests). GAO identified  most of the federal resource managers for the second day of the workshop  because the National Academies does not interact extensively with the  federal resource management community. To select these managers, we  asked for recommendations from both agency headquarters officials and  managers in the field. We gave priority to senior federal resource managers  with management experience in the field. We also invited managers from  Washington, D.C., headquarters offices to ensure a balanced perspective.  We selected managers who had a general familiarity with relevant statutes,  regulations, agreements, executive orders, and other management  directives aimed at protecting the resources under their agencies’  jurisdictions. We also selected managers who had a general familiarity with  the issue of climate change and how it could affect one of the four relevant  ecosystem types—although this knowledge was not essential. We sought to  have representation from each major agency that manages resources  corresponding to each of the four ecosystem types. Fifty-four scientists,  economists, and federal resource managers from academia, government,  and nongovernmental organizations attended the workshop. Appendix I  contains a list of the workshop participants and moderators.
To illustrate the vulnerability of federal resources to the potential effects of  climate change as well as the various management challenges discussed at  the workshop, we conducted case studies of four federal resource units,  one case study for each ecosystem type, using a nonprobability approach.  The four units are the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in southern  Florida (coasts and oceans ecosystem); the Chugach National Forest in  south-central Alaska (forests ecosystem); Glacier National Park in  northwestern Montana (fresh waters ecosystem); and the BLM Kingman  Field Office in northwestern Arizona (grasslands and shrublands  ecosystem). We selected our specific case study units after soliciting  selected experts’ views on which federal resources may be most vulnerable  to climate change. We then visited each of the four units, interviewed a  number of experts and resource managers at the units, and viewed some of  the resources discussed at the meetings. More detailed information on our  objectives, scope, and methodology is presented in appendix II. A summary  of the workshop can be found in appendix III, and summaries of the  individual case studies can be found in appendix IV.
In this report, we use the term “federal resources” to refer to federal lands  managed by BLM, FS, FWS, and NPS and to national marine sanctuaries  and one marine national monument managed by NOAA; the term  “ecosystem” to refer to a system of interacting living organisms together  with their physical environment; the term “resource managers” to refer to  individuals who manage federal resources; the term “physical effects” to  refer to observable changes in the physical condition of some part of a  natural system, including, among others, extreme weather events—that is,  weather events that are rare at a particular place (this may vary from place  to place); the term “biological effects” to refer to changes in the interaction  among organisms living in a given ecosystem; and the phrase “economic  and social goods and services” to refer to economic resources, such as  revenue-producing industries, including forestry and fishing, among others,  and social or cultural resources, such as recreational activities, scenic  views, and historical artifacts, among others. We recognize that all of these  effects are interrelated, and that certain effects may belong to more than  one category. Although the workshop experts discussed a wide range of  possible climate-related effects, we describe only some of these effects in  our report because we could not cover the full range of effects on all  federal resources across the country. We also did not attempt to rank  effects according to severity, owing to a lack of criteria to make such  rankings. We conducted our work between May 2006 and July 2007 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Greenhouse gases—including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide,  among other gases—trap some of the sun’s heat in the Earth’s atmosphere  and prevent the heat from returning to space. This insulating effect, known  as the greenhouse effect, moderates atmospheric temperatures, keeping  the Earth warm enough to support life. However, according to the IPCC,  global atmospheric concentrations of these greenhouse gases have  increased markedly as a result of human activities over the past 200 years  and now far exceed preindustrial levels. The IPCC further reports that  these increases have contributed to a warming of the Earth’s climate.   Table 1 shows the shares of greenhouse gas emissions and their global  warming potentials from U.S. sources.
The IPCC attributes increases in average global air and ocean  temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising mean global  sea levels to a warming of the Earth’s climate system. The IPCC reports  that 11 of the 12 years between 1995 and 2006 rank among the 12 warmest  years since 1850 (the first year that global temperatures were recorded)  and are indicative of a strong upward warming trend over the last 50 years.  Furthermore, according to the IPCC, since 1961, average global ocean  temperatures have increased, because the oceans have absorbed more than  80 percent of the heat added to the Earth’s climate system. Such warming  causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise. The IPCC also  reports that mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined, on average,  in both hemispheres, and that widespread decreases in the sizes of glaciers  and polar ice caps, combined with losses in the ice sheets of Greenland and  Antarctica, have very likely contributed to a sea level rise of 0.17 meters  during the 20th century.
The federal government manages nearly 30 percent of the land in the  United States. Three federal agencies within Interior—BLM, FWS, and  NPS—and Agriculture’s FS administer over 90 percent of these lands.  NOAA, within Commerce, administers 14 Marine Protected Areas. These  agencies manage their resources for a variety of purposes related to  preservation; recreation; and in some cases, resource use, yet each agency  has distinct responsibilities for the resources it administers. The statutes  governing these agencies’ resource management activities generally do not  require the agencies to manage for specific outcomes, such as a certain  number of visitors, or to provide a specific response to changes in  ecological conditions, such as insect outbreaks. Instead, these laws give  the agencies discretion to decide how best to carry out their  responsibilities in light of their respective statutory missions as well as the  need to comply with or implement specific substantive and procedural  laws, such as the Clean Air Act, the ESA, or NEPA. The agencies are  generally authorized to plan and manage for changes in resource  conditions, regardless of the cause that brings about the change. As such,  federal resource management agencies are generally authorized, but are  not specifically required to address in their actions and planning efforts  changes in resource conditions resulting from climate change.
BLM, FS, FWS, NOAA, and NPS have unique management missions, as  follows:   BLM’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of  public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future  generations under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield as  provided in the Federal Land Policy Management Act. BLM manages  more than 260 million acres located primarily in 12 western states. The  agency manages and issues permits for activities such as recreation,  livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and mining.
FS’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the  nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future  generations under the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act and the  National Forest Policy Management Act. FS manages more than 190  million acres throughout the country. The agency manages and issues  permits for activities such as skiing, livestock grazing, recreation, timber  harvesting, and mining and for rights-of-way for road construction.
FWS’s mission is to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance  fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of  the American people. FWS also has a regulatory function, in that it  enforces laws, including the ESA and others. FWS manages 547 national  wildlife refuges and 37 large, multiple-unit Wetland Management  Districts on more than 96 million acres of land throughout the nation;  69 national fish hatcheries; and 46 administrative sites. The National  Wildlife Refuge System, which performs FWS’s land management  functions, administers a national network of lands and waters for the  conservation; management; and, where appropriate, restoration of the  fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United  States.
In addition to these 4 agencies, NOAA seeks to preserve the biological  and ecological integrity of U.S. marine systems, which include its  National Marine Sanctuary System, consisting of 14 Marine Protected  Areas that encompass more than 150,000 square miles of marine and  Great Lakes waters. (See fig. 1.) NOAA also manages the waters of the  Exclusive Economic Zone, the outer boundary of which is 200 nautical  miles from the U.S. coastline.
NPS’s mission is to conserve the scenery, the natural and historic  objects, and the wildlife of the national park system so that they will  remain unimpaired for the enjoyment of current and future generations.  NPS manages 391 national park units covering more than 84 million  acres throughout the United States and its territories. The agency  manages many of the nation’s most precious natural and cultural  resources.
Other federal entities that manage various federal land and water resources  include the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the  Department of Defense, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, among others.  Figure 2 shows federal resources according to the entity responsible for  their management.
The resource units managed by the federal government encompass four  principal ecosystem types, as shown in table 2.
section_title: Experts Stated That Federal Resources Are Vulnerable to a Wide Range of Observed and Potential Climate Change Effects, and That the Nature and Extent of These Effects Will Vary
paragraphs: Experts at our workshop told us that climate change is likely to affect  federal resources in a number of ways. For example, the experts said that  climate change has already caused—and will likely continue to cause— physical changes, including drought, floods, glacial melting, sea level rise,  and ocean acidification. Climate change will also cause biological changes,  such as increases in insect and disease infestations, shifts in species  distribution and abundance, and changes in the timing of natural events  (referred to as phenological changes), among others. The experts further  said that climate change is likely to adversely affect economic and social  goods and services supported by federal resources, including recreation,  tourism, infrastructure, water supplies, fishing, ranching, and other  resource uses. Officials at our four case study sites provided us with  additional examples of some of these climate-related effects already  occurring on federal resources. As we have previously mentioned, these  four sites are the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in southern  Florida (coasts and oceans ecosystem); the Chugach National Forest in  south-central Alaska (forests ecosystem); Glacier National Park in  northwestern Montana (fresh waters ecosystem); and the BLM Kingman  Field Office in northwestern Arizona (grasslands and shrublands  ecosystem).
subsections: section_title: Physical Effects of Climate Change on Federal Resources Are Already Apparent and Will Likely Increase
paragraphs: Experts at our workshop and officials at our four case study sites stated  that climate change can result in physical changes, and that many such  changes have already occurred and are likely to continue in the future.  Physical effects of climate change include warmer temperatures, drought,  glacial melting, floods, sea level rise, and ocean acidification, among  others.
Experts from the workshop identified increased temperatures as one of the  key physical effects of climate change. According to these experts, effects  of increasing temperatures that have already been observed include the  declining duration of lake and river ice cover throughout the northern  hemisphere and increased temperatures of 7 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit in  eastern water bodies after storm events.
A scientist at Glacier National Park told us that, while the estimated global  average temperature has risen 0.6 degree Celsius (about 1 degree  Fahrenheit) since about 1897, the estimated average temperatures of the  highest elevations in the park have risen 1.6 degrees Celsius (about   3 degrees Fahrenheit) over the same period. This scientist expects this  trend to continue. Winter and summer temperatures within the park also  are increasing. The data suggest that the number of frost days below   0 degree Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit) in Montana from 1900 to 2005  declined by 3 weeks. Furthermore, in 1900, the estimated number of  extreme heat days—defined as days with temperatures above 90 degrees  Fahrenheit—was about 5 days per year in Glacier National Park (and  western Montana); in 2005, this estimated number was about 20 days per  year. A record was set in 2003, with 31 days above 90 degrees Fahrenheit.  Experts consider 90 degrees to be a major threshold beyond which there  are negative impacts on human health and plants in the region. Increased  moisture stress due to increased temperatures makes plants more  vulnerable to fire, and fire activity in the region has increased in recent  years. In 2003, 74,000 hectares in Glacier National Park—about 13 percent  of the park’s total area—burned, in what was the largest fire year since  1910, when the park was founded. Other major fires occurred in 1988 and  2001, according to NPS and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) officials.
According to experts at the workshop, warmer spring seasons—due at  least partly to climate change—have already resulted in earlier snowmelt,  longer summer dry periods, and increased wildland fire activity in western  U.S. forest ecosystems, where the experts stated that fires are linked more  to climatic conditions than to land management techniques. Both the  frequency of large fires (greater than 400 hectares) and the area burned  increased significantly in the western United States during the period of  1987 through 2003 compared with 1970 through 1986, and wildland fire size  and severity are likely to further increase with climate change, according to  these experts. Furthermore, workshop participants noted that, in general,  climate change will likely increase droughts in the future.
Drought conditions that are potentially caused by climate change are  already affecting trees, shrubs, and water resources in some areas. For  example, according to officials from the BLM Kingman Field Office, about  30 percent of old growth pinyon pine trees in the Cerbat Mountains of  Arizona; extensive stands of black brush near Dolan Springs in Arizona;  and shrubs, such as cliffrose and juniper on shallow soils on the Colorado  Plateau, have died due to severe drought conditions. Similarly, officials  from the Chugach National Forest told us that closed-basin lake levels in  the Kenai Lowlands in south-central Alaska have declined by as much as 1  meter as a result of drought, and many ponds that appeared on 1950 maps  and aerial photographs are now grassy basins with spruce and hardwood  trees.
Experts participating in all of our workshop discussions also identified ice  and glacial melting as physical effects resulting from climate change.  Experts said that there is evidence that sea ice retreat, accelerating glacier  melt, and measurable coastal erosion in the Arctic—due, at least in part, to  climate change—are now greater than they were just 5 years ago. These  experts noted that there also has been a major loss of glaciers in the  western United States, such as in Montana and Alaska. According to a  scientist at Glacier National Park, the estimated number of glaciers in the  park has dropped from 150 to 26 since 1850, and some projections suggest  that if current trends in the rate of melting continue, the remaining glaciers  will be gone in the next 25 to 30 years. Figure 3 shows the melting of  Grinnell Glacier between 1938 and 2005. Furthermore, according to  officials at the Chugach, many Kenai Peninsula glaciers in south-central  Alaska began retreating in the 1850s. For example, the Harding Icefield lost  70 vertical feet and 5 percent in surface area in the last 50 years, according  to these officials. In addition, an official at the Chugach said that glaciers in  the forest have generally been declining very quickly in surface area and  volume, with a few exceptions due to local topography. Furthermore,  according to our workshop participants, increasing air, ocean, and coastal  water temperatures will likely lead to a continuing loss of sea ice, a  reduction in permafrost, decreased snowpack, and increased glacial  melting.
According to experts discussing the fresh waters ecosystem at our  workshop, flooding is another physical effect potentially caused by climate  change. For example, they noted that rain-on-snow events (i.e., rain  following snow) increase the potential for flooding, because rainwater and  melted snow cause very high runoff rates in winter and early spring.  Officials at Glacier National Park who have observed such changes told us  that regional precipitation patterns are changing, such that more  precipitation falls as rain and less as snow. (They said that snowpack has  declined by up to 30 percent since the mid-20th century.) With less snow and  warmer winters, the timing of spring runoff can be up to 20 days earlier  than normal. This is causing winter streamflow to increase and summer  streamflow to decrease. Scientists expect to continue to receive less snow  in winter with more rain, rain-on-snow conditions, and midwinter melting  of snowpack. These warmer winters may lead to more winter flooding in  the park—as well as more avalanches. The experts further noted that high  runoff in winter and early spring is likely to increase soil erosion, enlarge  stream channels, increase sediment loads in streams, and increase stream  turbidity. Because of the higher volume of runoff in the spring, combined  with less snowpack, streams could shrink or dry up completely every  summer. Not only would this affect riparian vegetation growth and aquatic  animals, the associated drying of adjacent soils and vegetation would also  increase the risk of forest fires.
Experts discussing the coasts and oceans ecosystem at our workshop also  identified sea level rise as one of the key physical effects of climate change.  Global ocean and coastal trend analyses that are based on satellite  measurements of sea level change suggest that sea levels are rising faster to  higher levels at different rates in different places. According to these  experts, sea level rise may lead to flooding and the permanent loss of  coastal wetlands and barrier shorelines; degradation of fresh waters,  brackish coastal waters, and low-lying ecosystems, which could impact the  drinking water supply; the loss of storm buffers for low-lying areas;  increased vulnerability to storm surge and flooding; and increased erosion  and retreat of shorelines around barrier islands and estuaries. For example,  these experts said that the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in North  Carolina, the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in Maryland, as well as  various southeast and southwest Louisiana national wildlife refuges, are  among the federal resources particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. Also,  according to experts discussing the grasslands and shrublands ecosystem,  as sea levels rise, saltwater will encroach on coastal prairies, turning them  into coastal wetlands.
Rising sea levels that are attributable to climate change already have  affected low-lying areas, such as Big Pine Key in the Florida Keys.  According to an FWS official in this area, saltwater intrusion on land,  amplified by increased hurricane activity, has overwhelmed sources of  fresh waters and habitat that support resident plants and animals, such as  the Key deer and the Lower Key marsh rabbit that live on the Keys  refuges. This official further stated that these effects will pose a threat in  the future, not only to wildlife, but also to humans who live on the islands.
Finally, experts discussing the coasts and oceans ecosystem at our  workshop also identified ocean acidification as one of the physical effects  of climate change. Acidification occurs when increased carbon dioxide  levels decrease the concentration of carbonate ion in seawater. Because  carbonate ion is a substance that coral reefs need to build their skeletons,  ocean acidification may reduce the calcification rate in corals (and other  calcium carbonate-based species) and cause other changes in the oceanic  food chain, plankton communities, and the distribution of certain species.  This could affect the coral reefs comprising the Florida Keys National  Marine Sanctuary and corals in any other marine protected area, state, or  territory. A University of Miami scientist who has been studying coral reefs  and climate change for a number of years, and with whom we spoke while  conducting our Florida Keys case study, told us that by 2050, carbonate ion  could be 34 percent less abundant than today.
section_title: Biological Effects of Climate Change on Federal Resources Are Already Apparent and Are Likely to Increase
paragraphs: Experts participating in our workshop and officials at our four case study  sites stated that climate change can result in biological changes, and that  many such changes have already occurred and are likely to continue in the  future. The biological effects of climate change include increases in insect  and disease infestations, shifts in species distribution, and changes in the  timing of natural events (referred to as phenological changes), among  others.
Experts discussing the forests and the grasslands and shrublands  ecosystems noted that the infestation of pests—especially those that  emerge under warmer or drier conditions—is a key biological effect  attributable, at least in part, to climate change. Examples of such pests  include bark beetles, grasshoppers, and various fungi as well as diseases  caused by bacteria, parasites, and viruses. According to experts at the  workshop plenary session, the spruce bark beetle, the mountain pine  beetle, and the southern pine beetle have already infested some U.S.  forests, thriving in areas where the cold winters would have previously  prevented them from colonizing. These experts noted, for example, that the  southern pine beetle has migrated into red spruce areas in the southeastern  United States, and that pests have also damaged New England sugar  maples. The experts further noted that increased temperatures will  increase the range and effects of insects and disease infestation. In  particular, experts stated that there have been shifts in the intensity and  extent of the spruce bark beetle in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska  caused by an acceleration of the beetle’s life cycle due to warmer and drier  climatic conditions.
A spruce bark beetle infestation has already occurred at the Chugach  National Forest, according to an FS official at the forest. Warmer  temperatures and reduced precipitation associated with climate change  have contributed to a spruce bark beetle outbreak that has led to high  mortality rates for certain types of spruce trees on over 400,000 acres of the  forest (see fig. 4). About 20 percent of the forest’s land and the adjacent  Kenai National Wildlife Refuge are located on the Kenai Peninsula.  According to FS experts, about 1 million acres of the peninsula have been  affected by the beetles, including 400,000 acres within the forest itself.  Officials at the Chugach indicated that continued increases in temperature  and decreases in precipitation could further change vegetation  composition and structure and increase the incidence and severity of  future insect outbreaks. The officials stated that spruce bark beetle  populations increase greatly when warm weather climate events combine  with forest stresses. (Officials at the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge noted,  however, that not all spruce bark beetle damage is attributable to climate  change. Another scientist explained that the key link to climate change is  that outbreaks are now persistent and not episodic.)
Experts discussing the fresh waters ecosystem said that increased water  body temperatures may increase the risk of toxic algal blooms as well as  the severity of fish diseases. They said that there have been recent  observations of severe pathogen problems in the Yukon River in Alaska.  (The Yukon River flows through the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge.)  Experts in the coasts and oceans ecosystem likewise noted that increasing  air and water temperatures could increase the incidence of toxic algal  blooms in ocean environments. They observed that increased microbial  activity could affect fish, shellfish, corals, sea turtles, and some sea grasses.
Another biological effect of climate change that was identified by the  workshop experts is anticipated shifts in the distribution, abundance, and  ranges of both plant and animal species. As an example of one observed  change that is due at least in part to climate change, fresh waters  ecosystem experts noted that the nonnative zebra mussel has extended its  range in the Great Lakes as lake temperatures have warmed. Experts  discussing other ecosystem types similarly agreed that changes in species  distribution are likely to occur in the future, and that nonnative species  might eventually dominate or replace native species in some areas. For  example, experts discussing the coasts and oceans ecosystem noted that  marine and nonnative species may invade estuaries where they have  typically not lived. Oyster predators from the ocean may move into the  Chesapeake Bay, for example. Likewise, experts on the forests ecosystem  said that forest species composition—both the trees and the species that  depend on the trees and forest vegetation—may change. They indicated  that sugar maple, white bark pine at high elevations, and subalpine spruce  fir forests in the Rocky Mountains have already experienced such changes.  Experts discussing the grasslands and shrublands ecosystem, moreover,  stated that tree die-offs triggered by drought and exacerbated by higher  temperatures may lead to a shift from woodland to shrubland or grassland.  They said that midwestern savannas and the southwestern pinyon and  juniper woodlands are particularly vulnerable to such changes. They  further noted that some rare ecosystems, such as alpine tundra, California  chaparral, and blue oak woodlands in California may become extinct  altogether. These experts said that native biodiversity will decrease in  many areas, and that new assemblages of species will be living together,  with unknown consequences.
Evidence of changes in species distribution is already apparent on some  federal resources. For example, according to officials at the BLM Kingman  Field Office, drought conditions are causing native Mojave Desert scrub  plant communities in the region to convert into nonnative annual grassland  communities, which are more vulnerable to fire. This phenomenon has  contributed to problems related to fire management. Prolonged drought  acts as a source of stress to native plant communities. Then, in periods of  wetness, invasive species (typically, invasive annual grasses) fill in the gaps  between native vegetation. Invasive species can spread and grow faster  than native species. As a result, the thicker and less evenly spaced  vegetation leads to fire danger. If a fire starts, it burns much longer and  hotter due to the invasive grasses. Native plant communities, such as  saguaro cacti and Joshua trees, are not fire resistant, so fire damages these  communities and provides further environment for invasive species and  increased fire danger. In some instances, repeated fires of this nature have  destroyed native plant communities, such that only invasive grasslands  remain. A severe drought occurred in 2002 that resulted in the loss of  perennial grasses, shrubs, and trees. Drought, coupled with increased  annual growth in wet years, accelerates the conversion of hot desert plant  communities into annual grasslands. Should continued severe drought  become the norm, this conversion can be expected to continue.
Furthermore, according to BLM Kingman officials, pinyon-juniper  woodlands (which include pinyon pine trees and various types of junipers)  near the BLM site have died off, as have some ponderosa pines and  chaparral. These officials said these changes are likely due to the severe  drought the region has experienced since about 1996. According to these  officials, even pinyon pines hundreds of years old that have survived  drought events in the past are dying, which the officials said was unusual  and unique. Ponderosa bark beetles and mistletoe infestations have also  stressed the trees, contributing to the die-off of the ponderosa pines. BLM  officials said that changes to forested plant communities would be  significant, since these communities already are small and disjunct. The  resource managers said that these communities probably would either be  greatly reduced in size or eliminated from many areas.
Experts discussing fresh waters told us that temperature increases are  most likely to threaten cold-water species, such as trout, salmon, and  amphibians. An FWS fish biologist who studies and provides expertise on  certain resources in Glacier National Park told us about a park species, the  bull trout, that is at particular risk from climate change. The bull trout,  listed as a threatened species under the ESA, is native to the western  United States. It migrates in the spring from lakes and streams, such as  Flathead Lake up the Flathead River system near the park, where it spawns  in the fall in tributaries as far as 150 miles upstream. This fish is very  sensitive to water temperature and clarity. Its spawning temperature range  is 6 to 10 degrees Celsius (43 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit), and its young- rearing temperature range is below 16 degrees Celsius (61 degrees  Fahrenheit). It is found in only the coldest streams. If temperatures  increase, streams may become intolerable for the bull trout. In addition, if  isolated glaciers disappear due to temperature increase, the mountain  streams the glaciers feed may dry up late in the season, further reducing  habitat. Therefore, the bull trout can only survive in a very limited area, and  many of its migration corridors have been cut off as a result of ecosystem  fragmentation.
Scientists at Glacier National Park further noted that warming trends are  expected to cause an upward migration of vegetation, changing the ground  cover in many areas of the park and affecting wildlife species that depend  on those habitats. As alpine habitats warm, the tree line is expected to  move upslope, with forests beginning to invade alpine and subalpine  meadows. Some of these changes are already occurring. Animals that may  be harmed by the loss of alpine and subalpine habitat include bighorn  sheep, pikas (relatives of the rabbit), mountain goats, wolverines, and  grizzly bears. Many rare plants and animals in Glacier are near extinction,  and the experts said that climate change may increase the likelihood that  these species will cease to exist in the park.
Experts on several ecosystem types also stated that climate change will  affect phenology, that is, plant and animal life-cycle events that are  influenced by environmental changes, especially seasonal variations in  temperature and precipitation. Experts discussing the forests ecosystem,  for example, said that changes will affect critical species interactions, such  as pollination and seed dispersal. Experts discussing the grasslands and  shrublands ecosystem observed that the distribution of plants that undergo  photosynthesis during the cool season and plants that undergo  photosynthesis during the warm season may change, with implications for  the animals—both vertebrates and invertebrates—that are associated with  them. They further noted that pollination could become out-of-sync with  flowering. Likewise, one expert on the fresh waters ecosystem also stated  that the phenology of fish migration and reproduction may be disrupted by  changing patterns of water flow or availability.
Officials at the Chugach National Forest indicated that the recent spruce  bark beetle outbreaks on the Kenai Peninsula may be attributed, to some  extent, to phenological changes. For example, the spruce bark beetle’s life  cycle has accelerated from 2 years to 1 year. These officials explained that  populations of many insects are regulated by low winter temperatures and  many outbreaks end by episodes of cold temperature. However, as the  climate warms, infestations by insects whose populations are controlled by  cold will likely increase. Furthermore, an FWS biologist in the Florida Keys  pointed out that, on the basis of some limited data sets, it appears that  green turtles in the Keys region may be nesting earlier, possibly as a result  of climate change. The biologist also noted that a larger study of  loggerhead turtles conducted in another part of Florida between 1989 and  2003 found that the median date of loggerhead turtle nesting occurred  approximately 10 days sooner. During this same 15-year period, according  to the study, average sea surface temperatures increased by 0.8 degree  Celsius during May, when loggerheads typically begin to nest on these  beaches. This study suggests that the turtles may be responding to recent  climate trends.
section_title: Climate Change Is Likely to Affect the Economic and Social Goods and Services Supported by Federal Resources
paragraphs: Experts participating in our workshop noted that climate change is likely to  have adverse effects on a range of economic and social goods and services  supported by federal resources, including recreation and tourism,  infrastructure, water supplies, fishing, ranching, and other resource-use  activities.
According to experts on the grasslands and shrublands ecosystem, if FWS- managed wetlands—called prairie potholes—in the upper midwest dry up,  waterfowl populations would decline, since these wetlands serve as  resting, feeding, and nesting habitat for migratory waterfowl. The loss of  the prairie potholes would hurt midcontinent waterfowl populations and  the many resources that interact with them. This loss would further result  in wide-ranging economic impacts on a variety of industries, such as  hunting, and on communities in that part of the country.
The experts also pointed out that the increasing frequency of extreme  events, such as fire or drought, could limit recreational activities on federal  lands. For example, experts on the coasts and oceans ecosystem observed  that accelerated sea level rise could result in a loss of beaches and  associated recreational activities. They further stated that increasing air  and water temperatures could affect such recreational activities as fishing  and bird-watching, and that ocean acidification could negatively affect  tourism and sport fishing in coastal areas. Similarly, managers at the BLM  Kingman Field Office told us that climate change could cause declines in  the recreational use of the land by hunters (owing to less game to hunt) and  by the visiting public.
NOAA officials at the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary told us that  the continued bleaching of coral reefs in the Florida Keys—caused, at least  in part, by climate change—may adversely affect the tourism and fishing  industries, which are important sources of revenue for communities in the  area. Coral reefs play a key role in these industries because they are  important habitats for fish and other marine species and are popular with  snorkelers and scuba divers. Bleaching occurs when corals eject the  microscopic algae that live within their tissues in response to stressful  conditions, such as warmer water. (Corals can recover from bleaching  events if the stress is not too severe or long-lasting, but the stress caused by  bleaching can lead to secondary problems, such as coral diseases.) If water  temperatures in the Florida Keys continue to increase as a result of climate  change, more coral bleaching may occur, adversely affecting the area’s  tourism and fishing industries. Figure 5 shows two brain coral colonies in  the Upper Keys area of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in July  2005. The smaller colony (bottom of the figure) shows healthy coloration,  while the larger colony (top of the figure) is nearly completely bleached.
Experts from three workshop groups noted that climate change could  affect infrastructure and operational costs on federal lands. For example,  experts in the grasslands and shrublands ecosystem noted that, as wildland  fires become more frequent and severe as the climate changes, the costs of  fire-fighting and rehabilitating land increases. Experts stated that rising sea  levels will affect resource use on federal lands, and that changes in  precipitation will affect dams, canals, flood protection, and reservoirs.  Experts discussing the fresh waters ecosystem said that some park  visitation levels, particularly in colder climates, have been restricted by  weather conditions. Climate change, they noted, is expected to result in a  change of visitor patterns and may result in a wider use of the land’s  resources and infrastructure. Managers at Glacier National Park agreed  with this perspective, saying that climate change may lengthen the primary  visitation period for the park as spring comes earlier and winter comes  later. According to these officials, June through August used to be the peak  visitation time frame, but already companies affiliated with the park   (e.g., concession owners) are getting more requests to conduct activities in  May and September. Roads and facilities may need to stay open longer,  which will require more staff and resources, and the potential for weather- related infrastructure damage will require more maintenance and  improvements. These officials further noted that if the park is open longer,  there will be more crime, more bear-human interactions, and a greater need  for search-and-rescue operations, all of which will require more resources  to manage.
Climate change has already affected the infrastructure on some federal  lands. For example, officials from the Chugach National Forest indicated  that, to the extent that large storm events are related to climate change,  there have been significant impacts on bridges and infrastructure in Alaska,  and that the frequency of severe storm events appears to be increasing.  (Forest officials noted that in the last 10 years, the Chugach National  Forest region has experienced two 100-year storm events.) Similar effects  and other impacts on infrastructure are illustrated at Glacier National Park.  Officials at the park told us that, in 2003, the most popular and scenic road  in the park, the Going-to-the-Sun Road, was shut down for 23 days due to  fire. To the extent that climate change is linked to more frequent and severe  forest fires, western Montana could face more fires. Glacier National Park  staff noted that fires distract FS and NPS staff from their regular duties,  and that if more fires occur, the visitor experience could be diminished by  poor air quality and limited access to fire-ravaged areas of the park. As a  result, the park and local communities could face lost revenues associated  with declines in visitation.
Experts in the fresh waters ecosystem indicated that climate change may  also adversely affect water supplies and quality. Snow and ice serve as  natural reservoirs in mountainous areas and northern regions of the United  States, gradually supplying water into the summer months. Much of the  west relies on spring snowmelt to provide a steady stream of water into  summer months, when demand is highest. However, warmer temperatures  and changes in winter precipitation patterns from snow to rain are  expected to continue causing reduced snowpack and early snowmelt.  Water supply shortages will likely increase the cost of water. In addition,  the experts said that water quality is likely to decline if harmful algal  blooms, bacteria, or botulism occur as a result of increased temperature;  such occurrences would likely result in increased water treatment costs.  Moreover, coastal areas that rely on groundwater supplies will have to be  careful not to overdraw from the aquifer to avoid saltwater intrusion and  contamination, particularly in water-stressed areas of the southwest.  Experts on the coasts and oceans ecosystem stated that accelerated sea  level rise could increase saltwater intrusion, affecting drinking water  supplies in some regions.
Water issues are particularly significant in the southwestern United States.  For example, BLM Kingman Field Office managers told us that climate  change-related economic costs resulting from declines in the availability of  water in the region could be extremely high. According to experts  discussing the fresh waters ecosystem, less surface water availability  means lower groundwater recharge rates and further demand on the  existing groundwater resources. The BLM managers further said that  reductions in groundwater could affect communities within the field office  boundary by causing wells to dry up, thereby forcing people to abandon  homes or greatly increasing the cost of living in the area.
Experts on various ecosystem types noted that the use of certain resources  on public lands could be affected by climate change. For example, experts  discussing the fresh waters ecosystem noted that Alaska may be affected  economically by climate change. They said that many fish species are  adapted to cold-water conditions, and that temperature increases and  seasonal shifts may adversely impact fisheries upon which commercial,  sport, and subsistence fishers depend. Also, experts discussing the  grasslands and shrublands ecosystem stated that changing climate  conditions might reduce Native Americans’ use of federal lands and reduce  revenue from natural resources on their lands. They also noted that  changes in the water supply might lead to greater competition for water,  which could have a negative economic impact on ranchers and some  communities situated near federal lands. Officials at the BLM Kingman  Field Office agreed that if the climate becomes hotter and drier, there could  be a decline in the ranching industry in the Kingman area. In addition,  officials at the Chugach National Forest told us that large storms can be  harmful for the fishing industry; they said that the last major storm  destroyed salmon spawning areas in the Chugach for 1 year.
Scientific experts at the workshop noted that the nature and extent of  climate change effects will depend on the rate and magnitude of this  change. They also stated that some changes will occur quickly and will be  readily apparent, while other changes will occur gradually and be less  apparent in the near term.
section_title: Resource Managers Identified Several Challenges in Addressing the Observed and Potential Effects of Climate Change on Federal Resources
paragraphs: Resource managers from the five key resource management agencies— BLM, FS, FWS, NOAA, and NPS—who participated in our workshop  identified several challenges to addressing the observed and potential  effects of climate change. These challenges include (1) the lack of priority  given to addressing the effects of climate change within their agencies,   (2) limited guidance from headquarters about whether or how to address  the effects of climate change in management actions and planning efforts,  and (3) insufficient site-specific information to plan for and manage the  effects of climate change on the federal resources they oversee. Resource  managers further stated that climate change is a complex, global issue that  is difficult for one resource unit or agency to address on its own. In  addition, resource managers interviewed for our case studies described  similar challenges and provided illustrative examples.
subsections: section_title: Addressing the Effects of Climate Change Is Not a Priority Within Resource Managers’ Agencies
paragraphs: According to resource managers from our workshop and case studies,  addressing the effects of climate change is currently not a priority within  the federal resource management agencies. These resource managers said  that they can use their existing management practices to respond to  changing conditions at their units—some of which could be caused, at least  in part, by climate change. However, they said that specifically addressing  the current and potential future effects of climate change is not a priority.  For example, in discussing the grasslands and shrublands ecosystem at the  workshop, resource managers agreed that climate change is not on their  agencies’ agendas as a policy issue. Furthermore, resource managers from  the BLM Kingman Field Office and the Chugach National Forest stated  explicitly that climate change is not a priority for them.
Resource managers in all of the workshop groups agreed that they have a  wide range of responsibilities and that, because none of the agencies have  designated climate change as a priority, the managers focus first on near- term activities that they are specifically required to undertake, leaving less  time and resources for longer-term issues such as climate change. For  example, resource managers discussing the fresh waters ecosystem told us  that they are typically accountable for things on a short-term time frame,  and current planning horizons may be too short for incorporating long-term  factors such as climate change into management practices. In addition,  managers at the BLM Kingman Field Office said that, due to resource  constraints, they can only address the most immediate, highest-priority  issues, and that backlogs of required actions, such as permits, are  continually growing, leaving other issues unaddressed, including the  effects of climate change. Furthermore, NOAA resource managers at the  Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary said that, due to limited staffing  and fiscal resources, NOAA expects sanctuary managers to place a priority  on meeting the many daily challenges they face, such as implementing the  management plan for the 2,900 square nautical mile sanctuary and,  specifically, managing no-boating or no-fishing zones to protect sensitive  areas. Climate change has not been identified as a priority in the National  Marine Sanctuaries. Resource managers discussing all four ecosystem  types at the workshop stated that, to address the long-term issue of climate  change, agencies would have to change how they approach their missions.  In this regard, they said that resource managers are currently bound to  using historical data to react to observed changes, while addressing the  effects of climate change would require managers to anticipate potential  future changes in their planning processes.
In our workshop, resource managers told us that climate change effects are  typically not addressed in agency planning activities. Specifically, resource  managers discussing the coasts and oceans ecosystem at the workshop  said that climate change has not been considered in management plans.  BLM, FWS, and NPS resource managers discussing the grasslands and  shrublands ecosystem also said that current management plans do not  specifically account for climate change. Similarly, resource managers  discussing the fresh waters ecosystem agreed that climate change effects  are not explicitly addressed in agency strategic plans. Furthermore,  resource managers interviewed for the Chugach National Forest case study  stated that they do not consider addressing the effects of climate change in  the forest to be a priority because it is not included in the most recent list  of priority threats developed by the FS Chief and is not considered a  strategic issue by the agency. However, some resource managers from the  workshop and case studies said that climate change effects are beginning  to be addressed in resource unit planning processes, but on an  inconsistent, case-by-case basis. For example, resource managers  discussing the coasts and oceans ecosystem said that planning for  individual units is bottom up, not top down, and is driven by local  constituents. They said that climate change vulnerability issues have begun  to get consideration in some planning efforts.
Resource managers at our workshop also said that climate change is not a  priority, in part, because of limited support from agency leaders.  Specifically, resource managers discussing the coasts and oceans  ecosystem said that there has been little support from agency leaders to  comprehensively address climate change issues. In addition, resource  managers discussing the fresh waters ecosystem at our workshop told us  that there are political hazards associated with discussing climate change,  and that it is not politically profitable to talk about the issue. Resource  managers interviewed for our case studies made similar points. For  example, NOAA resource managers at the Florida Keys National Marine  Sanctuary said that they have difficulty using terms like “global warming”  in presentations and in publications due to concerns raised within NOAA.  Similarly, an official at Glacier National Park said that top NPS  management monitored public statements on climate change more closely  than any other issue, and that park managers are reluctant to talk about  climate change. However, another official stated that this reluctance may  be changing, although he noted that no funding or resources have been  allocated directly to the issue.
section_title: Limited Guidance Constrains Resource Managers’ Efforts to Plan for and Manage Potential Climate Change Effects
paragraphs: Resource managers have limited guidance from their agencies about  whether or how to address the effects of climate change in management  actions and planning efforts, according to agency headquarters officials  and resource managers from our workshop and case studies. Under these  circumstances, resource managers are uncertain about what actions, if any,  they should take with regard to addressing or preparing for the effects of  climate change.
Agency headquarters officials agreed that they have provided limited  climate change guidance to their resource managers. Interior issued an  order in 2001 directing its agencies, including BLM, FWS, and NPS, to  consider and analyze, among other things, potential climate change effects  in management plans and activities developed for public lands. However,  headquarters officials from these agencies told us that they have not yet  provided specific direction to resource managers about how to implement  this order. Officials at BLM headquarters stated that the order was signed  during the prior administration, and that the order has not been  emphasized because it was not consistent with the current administration’s  previous position on climate change. These BLM headquarters officials  added that the lack of specific authority, guidance, and direction may have  limited the agency’s efforts to address the effects of climate change, and  that an authoritative statute, a regulation, or guidance would provide a  greater impetus to address climate change effects. In testimony before the  House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior,  Environment, and Related Agencies, on April 26, 2007, BLM’s National  Science Coordinator acknowledged that there is little current guidance at  BLM dealing with climate change. He said that BLM is establishing policy  and technical committees to address necessary actions and develop  guidance to address climate change in agency management practices.  Headquarters officials at FWS and NPS said that, although they have not  developed specific guidance, they operate in a manner consistent with  Interior’s 2001 order in their general planning activities.
NOAA, under Commerce, and FS, under Agriculture, are not subject to  Interior’s order. However, National Marine Sanctuary Program  headquarters officials said that the agency is establishing a working group  to determine what actions it should and can afford to take to address the  effects of climate change. FS headquarters officials said that, although  they have not provided specific guidance on addressing the effects of  climate change, the agency’s planning process is designed to identify  emerging issues, such as climate change, and respond in ways to promote  the sustainability of the nation’s land and water resources. FS  headquarters officials further stated that they have been concerned that  they would encounter litigation if they initiated activities specifically  designed to address the effects of climate change within FS’s current broad  authority.
Resource managers who participated in our workshop said that they are  not aware of any agency guidance to address the effects of climate change,  and that they have received no direction on how to incorporate climate  change into their planning activities. For example, resource managers  discussing the coasts and oceans ecosystem said that they are not aware of  any formal climate change guidance from their respective agencies—FWS,  NOAA, NPS, and USGS. Resource managers discussing the forests  ecosystem said that agency policies are, in some cases, geared toward  responding to events as they occur, constraining the ability of managers to  incorporate anticipated events in their planning efforts. These individuals  added that managers are unclear about the nature of their agencies’—FS,  FWS, and NPS—mandates with respect to climate change and, accordingly,  differences in interpretation and implementation take place at the  management level. In addition, resource managers from the Bureau of  Reclamation, FWS, and NPS discussing the fresh waters ecosystem told us  that most managers do not know how to build climate change into the  management process but believed that there is a need to do so. These  managers identified a need for direction or guidance on how to incorporate  climate change into management plans. Furthermore, resource managers  discussing the grasslands and shrublands ecosystem agreed that their  agencies—BLM, FS, FWS, and NPS—have no explicit guidance on climate  change. They further noted that there are differing views in their agencies  about how to interpret broad resource management authorities with  respect to climate change, and that, as a result, efforts to address the  effects of climate change are ad hoc and piecemeal. These managers also  stated that they need better guidance at all levels on the effects of climate  change and the appropriate agency responses to those effects. They also  said that their agencies need an overall mandate and a coordinated  approach to address the issue, and that it will take very strong direction  from high-level officials to get agencies to address the effects of climate  change. Moreover, resource managers at the workshop generally agreed  that they need direction on how to account for climate change when  making land management decisions, and that high-level planning should  recognize the potential effects of climate change and promote integrated,  cross-agency approaches to addressing these effects.
Resource managers we interviewed for our case studies also said that they  are not aware of any guidance or requirement to address the effects of  climate change, and that they have not received direction regarding how to  incorporate climate change into their planning activities. Resource  managers from the BLM Kingman Field Office, the Chugach National  Forest, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and Glacier National  Park all explicitly stated that they do not have guidance for how or whether  they should account for climate change in planning and management  decisions. Resource managers from the Kingman Field Office said that they  need a national directive from headquarters to implement climate change- related activities, and that such a directive could give some imperative to  take action. In addition, Chugach resource managers stated that they need  a clear policy about how to address the effects of climate change, including  clear and focused goals. They added that they are not sure whom to contact  if climate change becomes an issue because there is no agencywide  facilitator or contact point regarding climate change. Furthermore,  resource managers at the Everglades National Park, which is ecologically  linked to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, told us that limited  guidance makes deciding what, if anything, to do about climate change  difficult. Moreover, resource managers at Glacier said that a formal written  position on climate change would be useful to further clarify the exact  official stance on the science, impacts, and communication strategy.
Some resource managers identified potential complications with issuing  guidance related to climate change. In our workshop, resource managers  discussing the grasslands and shrublands ecosystem said that policy  development can take years; therefore, in their view, the agencies may not  be able to respond to climate change in an appropriate time frame. In  addition, BLM Kingman Field Office resource managers said that social,  political, and legal obstacles would likely present challenges to addressing  the effects of climate change, even if guidance were issued. Furthermore,  they told us that if they received a directive to address the effects of climate  change, the field office would adjust its work priorities for the year and  would have to shift or delay other activities. Moreover, resource managers  at the Chugach National Forest thought that a general requirement for each  forest to address the effects of climate change in its land management  plans may be counterproductive because each forest would be forced to  “reinvent the wheel” on its own. These managers thought that any guidance  should be accompanied by an agencywide structure, which would allow  land management plans across the National Forest system to be  consistent.
section_title: Resource Managers Need Site-Specific Information to Plan for and Manage the Effects of Climate Change
paragraphs: Resource managers told us that they do not have sufficient site-specific  information to plan for and manage the effects of climate change on the  federal resources they oversee. Specifically, resource managers said that  they need local- and regional-scale models to predict change on a small  scale as well as improved inventory and monitoring.
Resource managers at our workshop said that they lack computational  models capable of providing local projections of expected changes.  Without these models, they said that most of their options for dealing with  climate change are limited to reacting to already-observed effects on their  units, making it difficult to plan for future changes. In discussing the  coasts and oceans ecosystem at the workshop, for example, resource  managers stated that they need local- and regional-scale modeling of  specific ecosystems and predictive modeling tools for fisheries  management and coastal erosion management to plan appropriately.  Similarly, resource managers discussing the forests ecosystem said that  developing high-resolution models should be a research goal because  current models are not specific enough. Likewise, resource managers  discussing the fresh waters ecosystem stated that they often do not know  how to plan for the effects of climate change because they lack information  on temperature and precipitation changes expected in their management  areas and, therefore, do not know what management actions will help the  resource unit adapt to the effects of climate change. They agreed that  climate projection methods must be improved, and that regional climate  projections with accurate temperature and precipitation projections, rather  than global-scale projections, would be helpful in more accurately  identifying and planning for the likely effects of climate change. These  managers also said that they need climate predictions on an ecoregion or  site-specific scale. Moreover, resource managers discussing the grasslands  and shrublands ecosystem told us that they need better regional models to  help in the decision-making process. These managers said that information  needs to be packaged to help local land managers better understand what  climate change means at the local level.
Resource managers interviewed for our case studies also said that they  need models capable of providing local projections of expected changes.  For example, BLM Kingman Field Office resource managers said that, to  make proactive management decisions, they need to know what climate  changes to expect. These managers said that if they could accurately and  confidently predict what changes would occur in the future, they could  adjust their management practices accordingly. Likewise, Chugach  National Forest resource managers stated that they need projections and  models of a high enough resolution to generate decisions. They said that  they currently do not have the necessary information to make projections,  and that it is desirable to anticipate changes and identify means for  effective mitigation or adaptation. Similarly, resource managers at the  Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary said that they currently lack  adequate modeling and scientific information to enable managers to  predict change on a small scale, such as change occurring within the  sanctuary.
Resource managers at the workshop said that they generally lack detailed  inventories and monitoring systems to provide an adequate baseline  understanding of the plant and animal species that currently exist on the  resources they manage. Resource managers discussing coasts and oceans  said that they need to develop baseline information and long-term  monitoring systems to detect habitat changes over time. They said that they  need to target inventory and monitoring systems on particularly sensitive  ecosystems and species, and focus on indicators unambiguously related to  climate change. In addition, resource managers discussing the forests  ecosystem stated that they need a monitoring strategy that reflects the key  vital signs of forests to inform management decisions. Similarly, resource  managers discussing the fresh waters ecosystem said that there must be  increased investment in monitoring efforts, particularly in sites identified  as likely to be adversely affected by climate change. These managers also  recommended an evaluation of the current monitoring system for its ability  to detect and predict climate change. They also said that there is often a  lack of a clearly defined purpose for monitoring, and that the link between  data collection and when to take action is not always clear. They  recommended that there be a clearly defined purpose for monitoring  efforts, with clear linkages between data collection and habitat protection.  Resource managers discussing the grasslands and shrublands ecosystem  stated that the lack of baseline information is a key issue because without  it, managers do not know what is changing and how fast it is changing.  They recommended conducting baseline inventories of species on federal  lands and periodically repeating monitoring on a scale that could provide  feedback on changes. Finally, resource managers at the workshop plenary  session emphasized the need to link environmental information with  decision making.
Resource managers interviewed for our case studies also stated that they  need better resource inventories and monitoring systems. For example,  managers at the Chugach National Forest told us that, without accurate  baseline inventory data of the plants and animals in the forest, it is difficult  to determine whether changes to species populations are within the normal  range of variability. Furthermore, an official at Glacier National Park told  us that staff could make various predictions about how different climate  change scenarios might affect different species, communities, and  processes, but without better status information and some degree of  monitoring, they probably would not be able to detect predicted changes  until they are catastrophic and obvious to everyone. Resource managers  interviewed for the other case studies made similar points.
section_title: Climate Change Is a Global Issue, and It Is Difficult to Address Its Effects at a Local Level
paragraphs: Resource managers at our workshop pointed out that climate change is  inherently a complex, global issue. These managers added that greenhouse  gas emissions generally originate outside the boundaries of federal  resource units, yet these units are affected by the cumulative effects of the  emissions. They said that local managers cannot control the drivers of  climate change, such as the burning of fossil fuels, but local action is  needed to manage its effects. Furthermore, resource managers said that  federal land units are fixed on the landscape, while climate change has no  boundaries, posing challenges for managing an administrative unit that  does not move as the climate changes. They said that cooperative  arrangements are necessary because climate change will require managers  to work beyond administrative borders. For example, panelists discussing  the fresh waters and grasslands and shrublands ecosystems stated that  interagency coordination and collaboration are necessary to address the  effects of climate change. Furthermore, panelists discussing the forests  ecosystem noted the value of developing a shared vision of key climate  change issues and solutions to these issues.
Officials with whom we spoke in our case studies further emphasized this  point. For example, officials at the Chugach National Forest said that  climate change is a larger issue than one federal land management unit can  address. They further said that climate change is a global issue that  transcends forests and agencies, and that any strategy to address the  effects of climate change should be integrated across broad landscapes,  not individual forests. Similarly, managers at the BLM Kingman Field Office  noted that climate change is a national issue that is difficult to address  locally. Resource managers further noted that climate change-related  effects can interact with and amplify the effects of other, preexisting  environmental problems on a given resource unit, such as nonnative  species and fire, making resource managers’ jobs more difficult. Despite  these challenges, some resource managers said they have taken steps to  reduce greenhouse gas emissions at their units. For example, resource  managers at Glacier National Park and Everglades National Park told us  that they participate in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate  Friendly Parks Program, which focuses on reducing parks’ greenhouse gas  emissions. Glacier also has an Environmental Management Plan that  includes a number of energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives. In  addition, Glacier requires the concessioners that run businesses in the park  to abide by certain environmental requirements, some of which affect  greenhouse gas emissions.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Climate change has already begun to adversely affect federal resources in a  variety of ways. Most experts with whom we spoke believe that these  effects will continue—and likely intensify—over the coming decades.  Some federal resources, depending on a variety of factors, may be more  vulnerable than others. Because this issue is long term, global, and may  affect federal resources in a number of ways, it will require foresight on the  part of federal agencies to prepare for and minimize the adverse effects of  climate change. However, federal resource management agencies have not  yet made climate change a high priority. BLM, FS, FWS, NOAA, and NPS  are generally authorized, but not specifically required, to address changes  in resource conditions resulting from climate change in either their  resource management actions or planning efforts. However, none of these  agencies have specific guidance in place advising their managers how to  address the effects of climate change in either their resource management  actions or planning efforts. The resource managers with whom we spoke  stated that in the absence of such guidance, they are unsure whether or  how to take the effects of climate change into account when carrying out  their responsibilities. Such uncertainty may, as unanticipated  circumstances arise, force resource managers to set their own priorities,  which may be inconsistent with those of the agencies’ management and  may result in misdirected efforts and wasted resources. Because there is  growing evidence that climate change is likely to have wide-ranging  consequences for the nation’s land and water resources, elevating the  importance of the issue in their respective strategies and plans would  enable BLM, FS, FWS, NOAA, and NPS to provide effective long-term  stewardship of the resources under their purview.
At least one resource management agency—BLM—has acknowledged if  not the need for, at least the value of, guidance on climate change. In April  2007, BLM’s National Science Coordinator testified in a congressional  hearing that BLM is establishing committees to, among other actions,  develop guidance to address the effects of climate change in agency  management practices. BLM officials told us that the lack of specific  guidance, among other factors, may have limited that agency’s efforts to  address the effects of climate change, and that having such guidance would  help to provide a greater impetus to address climate change effects. In this  light, at a minimum, guidance on addressing the effects of climate change  would allow resource managers to better take into account one of the key  factors that is likely to affect all aspects of the resources they manage.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To better enable federal resource management agencies to take into  account the existing and potential future effects of climate change on  federal resources, we recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture,  Commerce, and the Interior—in consultation with the Director of FS; the  Administrator of NOAA; and the Directors of BLM, FWS, and NPS,  respectively—develop clear, written communication to resource managers  that explains how managers are expected to address the effects of climate  change, identifies how managers are to obtain any site-specific information  that may be necessary, and reflects best practices shared among the  relevant agencies, while also recognizing the unique missions, objectives,  and responsibilities of each agency.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Agriculture (FS), Commerce (NOAA),  and Interior (BLM, FWS, and NPS) for review and comment. We received  written comments from all three departments. These comments are  included in this report as appendixes V, VI, and VII, respectively. In addition  to the comments addressed in the following text, each department also  provided technical comments, which we have incorporated into this report  as appropriate. While we have acknowledged many of the departments’  comments regarding efforts they are undertaking to address climate  change, we did not have sufficient time to verify the accuracy of the  information presented in either their letters or technical comments prior to  issuing this report.
In its written comments, Agriculture’s FS agreed with our recommendation,  acknowledging the need to develop clear, written communication for  resource managers that explains how they should address the effects of  climate change, and the need to coordinate with other departments and  agencies on resource management practices in preparing this guidance. FS  said that the agency will work to address clarity in communicating climate  change mitigation and adaptation strategies to field units.
With regard to the draft report’s contents, FS stated that the report did not  adequately capture the scope and urgency of the agency’s commitment to  climate change adaptation, mitigation, and research. FS listed a number of  initiatives that were omitted, including research measuring forest-based  carbon, participation in the California Climate Action Registry, efforts to  reduce the agency’s own carbon emissions, and other efforts. Although we  commend FS for undertaking these useful activities, an examination of  mitigation and research activities was beyond the scope of this report,  which focused primarily on management actions.
FS also stated that our examination of one national forest (the Chugach  National Forest) is inadequate as a proxy for the 193 million acres of  diverse ecosystems managed by FS, and that 12 national forest plans do, in  fact, consider the effects of climate change on existing programs and local  resource values. The agency further noted that forest plans are revised  every 10 to 15 years to incorporate new scientific information and  management strategies. Although we used only one forest as an illustrative  example in our report, FS resource managers participating in several  workshop sessions and the case study said that they had limited guidance  from their agencies about whether or how to address the effects of climate  change in management actions and planning efforts. Furthermore, these  officials said that efforts to address climate change were lacking, due to a  general absence of guidance and differences in interpretation and  implementation of broad resource management authority. FS headquarters  officials also confirmed that they have not provided specific guidance on  addressing the effects of climate change. We also believe that, out of 155  national forests and 20 national grasslands, 12 forests with plans that  consider the effects of climate change is not a high percentage; we  encourage all 175 units managed by FS to incorporate climate change into  their plans when they next update them. FS also pointed out that we  neglected to mention efforts under way at the Chugach to treat thousands  of acres in the forests to mitigate the threat posed by spruce bark beetles.  In the second objective of our report, we sought to identify challenges that  resource managers face in addressing the observed and potential effects of  climate change. These challenges include the priority of the climate change  issue, the lack of agency guidance, and the lack of site-specific data.  Although we believe it is important to react to individual changes observed  at the site level, such as treating forests to mitigate spruce bark beetle  outbreaks, the larger issue—that is, the absence of a coordinated response  to climate change in agency guidance—remains.
Finally, FS stated that we did not give adequate recognition to FS’s Four  Threats to the Health of the Nation’s Forests and Grasslands, a messaging  tool that disseminates the strategic view of the agency. (The Four Threats  identified by FS are fuels and fires, invasive species, unmanaged  recreation, and habitat fragmentation.) FS commented that the Four  Threats include two aspects of climate change discussed in this report:  forest fire and invasive species. Although we agree that at least some of the  Four Threats may be related to climate change, we believe that climate  change is a larger, overarching issue that should be addressed in a more  comprehensive manner.
In commenting on a draft of this report, Commerce’s NOAA agreed with  our recommendation. In this regard, NOAA stated that the agency will work  toward clarifying written communication to resource managers to explain  how they are to address the effects of climate change on federal resources  and identify how they are to obtain site-specific information that may be  needed to implement these efforts. Furthermore, NOAA stated that the  agency will continue to work with relevant federal resource management  agencies on a range of climate change and land management issues and, as  applicable, strive to share best practices.
With regard to the information presented in the draft report, NOAA noted  that we did not present information on several cross-government initiatives  and NOAA management actions to address climate change. For example,  NOAA stated that we did not examine the current state of modeling and  observation systems, such as the Global Earth Observation System of  Systems and the National Integrated Drought Information System, or the  agency’s contribution to the collaborative efforts with federal, state, and  local partners, including the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.  Although we recognize that NOAA has a well-developed research and  monitoring program, a detailed review of NOAA’s many research programs  was beyond the scope of our work: the focus of the second objective of our  report was to obtain the views of federal resource managers on the  challenges they face in addressing the observed and potential future effects  of climate change in their management actions and planning efforts. In this  regard, a number of NOAA managers at our November workshop, at our  site visit, and at NOAA headquarters told us that resource managers need  more localized, site-specific information, and that there is often a  disconnect between physical science research and implementation  activities at the site level. Thus, while NOAA may be undertaking a number  of initiatives, these initiatives do not appear to address the site-specific  information needs of the on-site resource managers.
NOAA also said that the Reef Manager’s Guide, prepared by NOAA with  Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, details strategies to  help local and regional reef managers reduce threats to coral reefs, and that  NOAA staff implement some of these ideas. Although we agree that the  Reef Manager’s Guide contains many useful suggestions for managers in  their efforts to respond to coral bleaching, we do not believe that it is a  substitute for official agency headquarters guidance. Similarly, we applaud  NOAA’s involvement with the Nature Conservancy’s Florida Reef Resiliency  Program, aimed at measuring the extent of coral bleaching and improving  the ability of reefs to survive bleaching events. However, we continue to  believe that NOAA needs a more comprehensive approach to managing for  the effects of climate change throughout the entire sanctuary system.
In its comments, Interior agreed with our recommendation, and said that  the department will be using the information in the report to ensure that  the department is addressing concerns it shares with GAO regarding  climate change. Interior also pointed out that it had already taken steps to  assess the effects of climate change on public lands by convening a task  force involving nearly 100 people, including the department’s assistant  secretaries and other top leaders as well as career scientists,  superintendents, refuge managers, and others. According to Interior, the  task force is examining how possible climate changes would affect disaster  management, water resource management, and habitat management and is  evaluating, among other things, new responses to manage changing  landscapes. Furthermore, according to Interior, the task force is currently  reviewing the development of accurate modeling and the weight to put on  modeling relative to the use of historic data and agrees with our  recommendation that the department will need to provide direction on how  to implement these new tools as they are developed and validated. The task  force is also evaluating how Interior might set priorities for generating  essential information to create baseline assessments of plants and animals  to appropriately manage the species the department oversees.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional  committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior;  and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others  upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the  GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix VIII.
section_title: List of National Academies Workshop Participants
subsections: section_title: November 2, 2006 – Science Issues
section_title: November 3, 2006 – Management Issues
paragraphs: Coasts and Oceans Ecosystem  Virginia Burkett, U.S. Geological Survey, Moderator  Mike Bryant, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Carolina  Billy Causey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Florida   Brian Czech, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.  Andrew Gude, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.  Margaret Davidson, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,    South Carolina  Randall Kosaki, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hawaii  Cliff McCreedy, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.  Anne Morkill, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Forests Ecosystem  Tony Janetos, University of Maryland, Moderator  Al Abee, Forest Service, Washington, D.C.  John Dennis, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.  Kathy Jope, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.  Linda Joyce, Forest Service, Colorado  John Morton, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska  Al Sample, Pinchot Institute for Conservation, Washington, D.C.  Jim Sanders, Forest Service, Minnesota  Bill Sommers, George Mason University, Virginia Fresh Waters Ecosystem  Don Scavia, University of Michigan, Co-Moderator  John Healey, Government Accountability Office, Co-Moderator  Dan Ashe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.  Levy Brekke, Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado   Jeffrey Bromaghin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska  Mike Estey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Dakota  Sharon Kliwinski, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.  Robert Krumenaker, National Park Service, Wisconsin Grasslands and Shrublands Ecosystem  Anne Johnson, Government Accountability Office, Moderator   Bob Adamcik, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia  Barbara Allen-Diaz, University of California, Berkeley   Bud Cribley, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.   Pauline Drobney, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Iowa   Misty Hays, Forest Service, Wyoming  Julie Thomas, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report examines (1) experts’ views on the observed and potential  effects of climate change on federal resources within the four principal  ecosystem types and (2) the views of federal resource managers on the  challenges they face in addressing the observed and potential future effects  of climate change in their management actions and planning efforts. In  addition, four case studies illustrate some of the effects of climate change  on federal resources as well as the challenges to addressing them.
To select the four ecosystem types, we used a classification system used by  the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment  (the Heinz Center) in its 2002 report entitled The State of the Nation’s  Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the  United States. This classification system is generally accepted by the  scientific community and uses a limited number of distinct divisions to  identify ecosystem types (in contrast to certain other classification  systems). The Heinz Center’s classification is also based on a “land cover”  approach. That is, it is based on dominant vegetation or other physical  characteristics, as opposed to a geographic approach. We found this  classification useful because many natural resource management decisions  are differentiated by land type. The Heinz Center classification system  identifies six ecosystem types: (1) coasts and oceans, (2) farmlands  (primarily croplands), (3) forests, (4) fresh waters, (5) grasslands and  shrublands, and (6) urban and suburban areas. Our work excluded  farmlands and urban and suburban areas because resources within these  ecosystem types are generally not managed by federal agencies.
To solicit experts’ views on the potential effects of climate change on the  four ecosystem types, we convened an expert workshop on November 2  and 3, 2006, in collaboration with the National Academies’ Board on  Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. The workshop consisted of concurrent  breakout sessions for experts in each ecosystem type, and plenary sessions  in which all participants contributed. The National Academies, under  contract to GAO, helped identify appropriate workshop moderators and  participants, organized logistics, and issued the workshop invitations. The  National Academies and GAO worked together to prepare the agenda and  to identify scientific experts and economists for the first day of the  workshop, using specific selection criteria (described in greater detail in  the following text). GAO identified most of the federal resource managers  for the second day of the workshop because the National Academies does  not interact extensively with the federal resource management community.
We asked National Academies staff to help us identify four individuals with  the following attributes to serve as breakout session moderators:   (1) experience in leading climate change assessments; (2) a strong  professional reputation that might attract other highly regarded experts;  (3) knowledge of one of the four ecosystem types; (4) a balanced  perspective on climate change (i.e., politically neutral, with no strong  ideological views on climate change expressed in past work); and (5) a  willingness to assist in planning the workshop’s substance.
To identify experts for the first day of the workshop on science issues, the  National Academies and GAO agreed on selection criteria, which included  recommendations from other experts, a demonstrated record of  publication in the field, and experience contributing to climate change  impact assessments or other peer-reviewed scientific reports and articles  relating to climate change. Other factors were also considered, such as the  individuals’ availability on the date of the workshop. The National  Academies and GAO gave particular preference to individuals  recommended by more than one expert. In addition to ecosystem  expertise, we gave priority to those candidates whose expertise also  included an understanding of climate change (e.g., an understanding of  how climate change might affect coral reefs or forests). We also sought to  have an economist in each session. The National Academies reviewed  names in its database of experts and solicited recommendations from  various National Academies officials and scientists with whom National  Academies’ staff regularly collaborate. In addition, GAO identified  scientists on the basis of interviews with climate change experts that we  conducted in the early phases of our work; we had asked these individuals  to name others with ecosystem expertise who might be good candidates for  the workshop. Workshop moderators also suggested participant names.  Once a consolidated list of potential invitees was finalized, it was reviewed  by the Chairman of the Executive Office of the National Research Council,  the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences  and the National Academy of Engineering.
GAO and the National Academies focused the search for experts primarily  on individuals from government, academia, and nongovernmental  organizations (NGO) because most climate impact-related work is either  funded by these types of institutions or carried out by experts from these  types of bodies. However, since many NGOs have taken strong positions on  climate change, we drew upon this community to only a limited extent.
To select experts for the second day of the workshop on management  issues, we asked for recommendations from both federal resource  management agency headquarters officials and managers in the field as  well as our workshop moderators. We gave priority to senior federal  resource managers with “on-the-ground” management experience in the  field. We also invited managers from Washington, D.C., headquarters  offices to ensure a balanced perspective. We selected managers who had a  general familiarity with relevant statutes, regulations, agreements,  executive orders, and other management directives aimed at protecting the  resources under their agencies’ jurisdictions. We also selected managers  who had a general familiarity with the issue of climate change and how it  could affect one of the four relevant ecosystem types—although this  knowledge was not essential. We sought to have representation from each  major agency that manages resources corresponding to each of the four  ecosystem types. For example, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),  Forest Service (FS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National  Park Service (NPS) all manage grasslands, and each of these agencies was  represented in the grasslands and shrublands breakout session. To keep the  scope of the project manageable, we did not include all federal agencies  that oversee federal resources, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the  Department of Defense, the Tennessee Valley Authority, or others  (although we did have one representative from the Bureau of Reclamation,  which manages water resources in the west). We also did not include  Exclusive Economic Zone waters managed by the National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Fifty-four scientists, economists, and federal resource managers from  academia, government, and NGOs, attended the workshop. Appendix I  contains a list of the workshop participants and moderators.
Prior to the workshop, we sent all participants an information packet  containing, among other things, graphs showing the range and average of  model projections for the change in monthly temperature (degrees Celsius)  and precipitation (millimeters per day) in the years 2020 and 2090 for   11 U.S. regions under a medium impact Intergovernmental Panel on  Climate Change (IPCC) scenario. The graphs were based on publicly  available results from the full suite of models used in the IPCC’s Fourth  Assessment report. The graphs, prepared for GAO by the National Center  for Atmospheric Research, were intended to provide a framework for the  workshop discussions by bounding the range of possible future  temperature and precipitation outcomes. We provided this material to  participants for background information purposes only; participants were  given the option of referring to these graphs when responding to the  questions posed at the workshop. We also sent participants, as background  reading, copies of the IPCC Third Assessment Report Working Group II’s  first chapter, entitled “Overview of Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability  to Climate Change.” Each participant was further sent the IPCC Third  Assessment chapter that corresponded to the ecosystem type (e.g., forests  or coasts and oceans) on which the participant was expected to speak.
On the first day of the workshop, 27 scientific experts and economists,  each having particular expertise on 1 of the 4 ecosystem types, discussed  scientific questions related to the potential effects of climate change on  federal resources. (These questions can be found in app. III.) On the second  day of the workshop, also organized according to ecosystem type, 28  resource managers discussed the challenges, constraints, and limitations  they faced in managing federal resources, given the potential effects of  climate change identified on the previous day. The workshop was designed  to give the scientists the leading role on the first day and managers the  leading role on the second day. However, in most cases, both sets of  individuals participated in discussions both days because some managers  had scientific backgrounds, and some scientists had experience in resource  management. There were also two plenary sessions addressing questions  of science and management that applied to all four ecosystem types.  Summaries of the ecosystem breakout sessions and the plenary sessions  are presented in appendix III. After the workshop, we sent drafts of the  findings from each of the breakout sessions to participants, giving them an  opportunity to comment on the accuracy of the information.
It is important to note that the expert views represented at the workshop  are the views of scientists and managers, not those of GAO. We did not  independently review articles from the scientific literature or verify  participants’ statements. In addition, although the workshop experts  discussed a wide range of possible climate-related effects, we describe only  some of these effects in our report. We also did not attempt to rank effects  according to severity, owing to a lack of criteria to make such rankings.
To illustrate some of the effects of climate change on federal resources and  possible options for addressing them at federal resource units, we  conducted four case studies, one case study for each ecosystem type, using  a nonprobability approach. We selected our specific case study sites after  soliciting selected experts’ views on which federal resources may be most  vulnerable to climate change. The experts we consulted included many of  those whom we invited to the first day of the workshop (including some  unable to attend), as well as others recommended by other experts or  individuals whose names appeared frequently in the peer-reviewed  literature for the relevant ecosystem type. We e-mailed these individuals,  soliciting their views on which specific federal land units they considered  to be most vulnerable to climate change impacts and the nature of any  adverse impacts. In making our final land unit selections, we also  considered responses obtained at the workshop; one of our workshop  questions asked participants which areas of the United States may be most  vulnerable to climate change. Furthermore, we took into consideration  land unit visitation levels, size, location, geographical diversity, ecological  and geological variation, and land unit management agency in making our  selections. For example, we gave priority to larger land units and to units  with high levels of visitation and a range of geographic features. We also  gave priority to units where more than one agency is involved in  management decisions. We further considered accessibility, since it was  important to visit each site. The four units we selected on the basis of these  criteria are the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in southern Florida  (coasts and oceans ecosystem); the Chugach National Forest in south- central Alaska (forests ecosystem); Glacier National Park in northwestern  Montana (fresh waters ecosystem); and the BLM Kingman Field Office in  northwestern Arizona (grasslands and shrublands ecosystem). All of these  units encompass multiple ecosystem types. For example, Glacier consists  of glaciers, lakes, forests, and alpine meadows, among other features, while  the Chugach contains a mix of forests, coasts and oceans, and fresh waters  ecosystems.
Management agencies for these four sites include BLM (Kingman, Arizona);  FWS (four national wildlife refuges near the Florida Keys National Marine  Sanctuary, the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge adjacent to the Chugach, and  certain resources within Glacier); and NPS (Glacier), all under the  jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; FS, which falls under the  jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (the Chugach and the  Flathead National Forest near Glacier); and NOAA, which falls under the  jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce (Florida Keys National Marine  Sanctuary). In addition to the managers and experts at each case study  location, we also spoke with officials from adjacent federal lands. We  spoke with these officials because resource units in our specific case study  land units coordinate with adjacent land units, and the ecosystems  supported by the case studies generally overlap with surrounding federal  resource units. For example, for the Chugach case study, we spoke with  FWS experts and managers from the adjacent Kenai National Wildlife  Refuge as well as staff from FS’s Alaska Regional Office in Juneau. For the  Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary case study, we spoke with experts  and managers from the Everglades and Dry Tortugas National Parks as well  as FWS experts and staff who oversee four Keys national wildlife refuges  located near the sanctuary. For the Glacier case study, we spoke with  experts and managers from FS’s Flathead National Forest as well as an  FWS fish biologist based in the park. At a number of sites, we viewed  firsthand some of the resources discussed at the meetings.
We also spoke to representatives of some private sector organizations. For  example, for the Glacier National Park case study, we also spoke with  representatives of firms that do business in the park and with staff from a  private foundation. We also spoke with local academic researchers, state  government offices, and representatives of NGOs with expertise on the  respective sites, as appropriate. It is important to note that the four case  studies are illustrative only and not projectable. That is, physical and  management conditions that apply to a given federal resource may not  apply to all federal land or water units of a similar ecosystem type or  managed by the same agency. Detailed summaries of the individual case  studies can be found in appendix IV.
To assess the reliability of data related to changes in Glacier National Park,  spruce bark beetle infestations in Alaska, and loggerhead turtle nesting  patterns in Florida, we spoke with park officials, Kenai National Wildlife  Refuge officials, and University of Central Florida researchers,  respectively, about data quality control procedures and reviewed relevant  studies. We determined that the data and expert views obtained were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
Finally, in concluding our work, we contacted legal counsel at each of the  five resource management agencies as well as the White House Council on  Environmental Quality, to ascertain the scope and nature of federal  authority and requirements to address the impacts of climate change in  resource management and planning.
In this report, we use the term “federal resources” to refer to federal lands  managed by BLM, FS, FWS, and NPS, and to national marine sanctuaries  and one marine national monument managed by NOAA; the term  “ecosystem” to refer to a system of interacting living organisms together  with their physical environment; the term “resource managers” to refer to  individuals who manage federal resources; the term “physical effects” to  refer to observable changes in the physical condition of some part of a  natural system, including, among others, extreme weather events—that is,  weather events that are rare at a particular place (this may vary from place  to place); the term “biological effects” to refer to changes in the interaction  among organisms living in a given ecosystem; and the phrase “economic  and social goods and services” to refer to economic resources, such as  revenue-producing industries, including forestry and fishing, among others,  and social or cultural resources, such as recreational activities, scenic  views, and historical artifacts, among others. We recognize that the various  effects of climate change are interrelated, and that certain effects may  belong to more than one category.
We conducted our work between May 2006 and July 2007 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Climate Change and Federal Lands Workshop Proceedings, November 2 and 3, 2006
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: This appendix summarizes the results of an expert workshop convened by  GAO, in collaboration with the National Academies’ Board on Atmospheric  Sciences and Climate, on November 2 and 3, 2006, to solicit experts’ views  on (1) the potential vulnerabilities of four ecosystem types—coasts and  oceans, forests, fresh waters, and grasslands and shrublands—to climate  change and (2) the challenges to and approaches for addressing climate  change on federally managed lands and waters associated with these four  ecosystem types. The workshop consisted of moderated breakout sessions  for experts in each ecosystem type, and plenary sessions, in which all  participants contributed. Specifically, this appendix summarizes the  responses of experts and selected federal resource managers to questions  developed by GAO for each session. These summaries are based on  professionally transcribed notes and information documented by GAO  observers. After the workshop, we sent draft summaries of each of the four  breakout groups to participants, giving them an opportunity to comment on  the accuracy of the information. The summaries below reflect the  comments we received from participants. The length and format of  responses may vary by ecosystem type because each breakout session was  moderated independently. A list of workshop participants and moderators  can be found in appendix I, and a detailed description of the objectives,  scope, and methodology describing the selection of experts and other  topics is available in appendix II.
section_title: Questions for Workshop Participants
subsections: section_title: November 2, 2006: Breakout Session Questions
paragraphs: Question 1: Based on your understanding of potential climate change in  the United States, how might this ecosystem type be affected over the near  term (~25 years) and over the longer term (50-100 years)? What might  be some of the key ecological effects, economic effects, and social/cultural  effects?
Question 2: Which of these effects are most significant and adverse?
Question 3: Are there certain thresholds beyond which the ecosystem in  the identified areas cannot recover? Please describe the nature and scope  of these thresholds and provide examples.
Question 4: Which areas of the United States may be most vulnerable to  climate change and why?
Question 5: What types of information (e.g., research,  monitoring/measurement) are needed to better understand and prepare  for potential changes on these ecosystems?
section_title: November 2, 2006: Afternoon Plenary Session Questions
paragraphs: Question 1: What key new findings related to the effects of climate change  on ecosystems have emerged in the past 5 or 6 years?
Question 2: What are the gaps in scientists’ understanding of how  climate change might affect these four U.S. ecosystem types?
section_title: November 3, 2006: Breakout Session Questions
paragraphs: Question 1: Given some of the potential climate-related effects on this  ecosystem described at yesterday’s session, what might be the  implications for your unit, including how it is currently used and  managed?
Question 2: What are the challenges, constraints, and limitations  associated with adapting to the effects of climate change on federal lands  and waters?
Question 3: What land management practices or approaches to planning  may be considered when responding to the effects of climate change?
Question 4: What is the most important type of information (research,  monitoring/measurement) needed to better understand, prepare for, and  address the effects of climate change on federal lands? What resources  will be required to achieve this?
section_title: November 3, 2006: Afternoon Plenary Session
paragraphs: Workshop participants provided suggestions for matters of congressional  consideration related to challenges land managers face with regard to the  effects of climate change on their lands and waters.
section_title: Day 1: Breakout Session Questions and Responses
subsections: section_title: Question 1
paragraphs: Based on your understanding of potential climate change in the  United States, how might this ecosystem type be affected over the  near term (~25 years) and over the longer term (50-100 years)?  What might be some of the key ecological effects, economic effects,  and social/cultural effects?
subsections: section_title: Coasts and Oceans Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Below is a summary of participants’ responses to Question 1, with  particular focus on coasts and oceans. Panel members noted that the  primary (direct) and corresponding secondary (indirect) effects and  impacts of a changing climate were likely to be the following:  Inundation and permanent loss of coastal wetlands and barrier  shorelines, including loss of island communities (other U.S.  possessions, low-lying atolls, etc.)
Increased saltwater intrusion, degradation of fresh and brackish  coastal waters, and low-lying ecosystems; this could impact the  drinking water supply  Drowning/Migration of submerged aquatic vegetation and vegetated   Interaction of climate impacts with shoreline development via impact  on infrastructure and development on federal land; increased coastal  erosion, necessitating retreat or armoring of coastal communities  with impacts on ecological systems, historic lands, and cultural sites  Loss of storm buffer for low-lying areas  Increasing wave power/energy and increased vulnerability to storm  surge and flooding  Increased erosion and retreat of shorelines around bar areas and   Increased sediment transport into nearshore habitats  Invasion of marine and exotic species into estuaries (e.g., oyster  predators in the Chesapeake Bay)
Impact on tourism, recreation, and leisure (e.g., loss of beaches)
Migration of mobile species could create conflicts on private lands  Federal and state legal relationships/conflicts—impacts on legal  regimes?
Effects on protected species, such as loss of turtle and shorebird   Increased storm intensity and frequency  Exacerbate all effects identified above  Physical disturbance - storm surge, shore erosion, wave run-up, and  wind (e.g., shore erosion, vegetation inundation, and damage to coral  and other reefs)
Damage to infrastructure and cultural resources  Altered timing and volume of fresh waters delivery to estuaries  resulting in changes in salinity (impacts change in precipitation  regime), flushing rates of nutrients, turbidity, flow regime, and many  other variables  Shifts or loss in the extent of barrier islands (e.g., creating more  inlets, reducing dune systems, and declining aerial extent)
Interaction with coastal developments (e.g., interference of barrier  island migration)
Increased runoff and land-based pollution (e.g., nutrients, sediments,  turbidity, and debris)
Changes in regional storm patterns  Increasing air, ocean, and coastal water temperatures  Loss of sea ice and coastal permafrost in Alaska; loss of ice  platforms used by marine mammals and seabirds; and loss of  subsistence for Alaskan natives  Mass coral bleaching events and disease events  Pest systems—increase in incidences of harmful algal blooms;  increased outbreak of pests, disease, and pathogens (e.g., increased  microbial activity could affect shellfish, fish, corals, sea turtles, and  some sea grasses)
Migration or loss of species in combination with ocean acidification  (e.g., corals or other calcifying organisms)
Changes in stratification regime (layers of habitats)—could affect   Changes in hydrologic and salinity regimes of coastal systems due to   Changes in timing of snowmelt/accumulation  Loss of ecological functions along shoreline  Economic impact on marine, coastal, and recreational (tourism— fishing, bird-watching, etc.) industry in all areas  Indirect effects on eutrophication via increase in rate of phosphorus  release from sediment to water  Increase in invasive species and loss of native species due to changes  in temperature  Possible reduction in calcification rate of corals and other calcium   Environmental ecological niche shifts (impacts of changing  ecosystems on the oceanic food chain)—changes in plankton  communities  Change in distribution of species  Erosion (physical and chemical) of carbonate reef structures; this  has economic impacts and reduces coastal protection from storms  Feedback on global biogeochemical cycles  Above will impact tourism and commercial and recreational fishing.
Will change resource extraction environments  Changes in ocean currents and thermohaline circulation Affects upwelling, nutrient dynamics; change in biogeochemical  cycling (e.g., increase in dead zones), phytoplankton productivity,  and productivity of fish-based ecosystems; loss of marine mammals,  fish, and birds  Changes in thermohaline circulation—could provide large-scale  feedback on global climate systems (there is higher uncertainty  about this effect, but the consequences would be extreme)
Impact on land temperature regimes, precipitation, and wind  Changes in the distribution of species, including changes in larval  stages  Changes distribution of marine debris and pollution  The group agreed that the effects of “Changes in wave climate” would  be the same as those listed under “Accelerated sea level rise” and  “Increased storm intensity and frequency.”
Changes in salinity regime in estuaries and coastal waters  Changes in quality, quantity, timing, and rate of fresh waters delivery  In general, wet areas will get wetter, while dry areas will get drier,  affecting groundwater, fresh waters availability, surface water, and  drinking water supplies.
Changes in water-quality-related incidents, such as harmful algal  blooms, anoxic (oxygen deficient) zones, pathogens, diseases, and  habitat quality  Changes in hydrologic regimes interact with water quality and water  management (e.g., dams, canals, flood protection, and reservoirs)
Changes in coastal runoff, sedimentation, and erosion  Ability of ecosystems to flush pollutants and nutrients Panel members also identified the following two “high-order” primary and  corresponding secondary effects. The group noted that the timing and  magnitude of these effects is less certain than other effects previously  listed.
Natural variability in storms, currents, and other climate factors have  important ecological impacts.
Natural variability interacts with long-term climate change in all of  these impacts.
Long-term climate change influences climate variability.
Climate variability can be an indicator of the consequences of climate  change (e.g., El Niño simulates warmer climates for much of the  globe).
Creates uncertainty for economic decision making and resource   Makes it difficult to understand if goals are achieved if climate  variability is considered—management is more difficult  Interaction of climate variability and change has impacts on long- term economic investment and infrastructure development.
The group agreed that the results of “Changes in biogeochemical  cycles” were similar to some changes already listed, especially those  referring to currents and upwelling, stratification, runoff, and  precipitation regimes.
section_title: Forests Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: See Question 2 (Day 1).
section_title: Fresh Waters Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Workshop participants discussed the pervasive nature of climate change  events and their belief that no single event is attributable to a climate- related cause, but the composite of several events points toward climate- related causes. Therefore, over time, one would expect to see a higher  number of incident-based phenomena, including forest fires, storms, and  chronic phenomena, such as species migration. Many believed that it was  important for people to understand the nature of the timing problem—that  different types of resource management decisions must be made across  different time horizons. Some decisions will have to be made in terms of  variables that land managers do not fully understand.
Reduced snowpack and early snowmelt  Snow and ice serve as natural reservoirs in mountainous areas and  northern regions of the United States, gradually supplying water into  the summer months. Much of the west relies on spring snowmelt to  provide a steady stream of water into summer months, when demand  is highest; however, warmer temperatures and a shift of the winter  precipitation regime from snow to rain are expected to cause  reduced snowpack and early snowmelt. “Rain-on-snow” events  increase the potential for flooding, as rainwater and melted snow  cause very high runoff rates in winter and early spring. Because of  this temperature-driven shift of precipitation (from snow to rain),  there is an increased variance in annual streamflow volumes, with  greater flow in winter months and decreased streamflows in summer  months, and increased reliance on groundwater stores (which are  themselves affected by precipitation changes).
High runoff in winter and early spring is likely to increase soil  erosion, enlarge stream channels and increase channel instability,  increase sediment load, and increase turbidity in rivers and streams.  If a high runoff event follows dry periods, high nutrient flux is  expected, as nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural fertilizers  and decayed organic matter will be washed into streams. The extra  nutrient load may stimulate plant growth (eutrophication), resulting  in oxygen depletion in the water body, and the increased turbidity  will likely reduce ecosystem productivity. Furthermore, disturbance  events, such as peak streamflow events, are likely to occur and are  expected to adversely affect the biodiversity of aquatic species,  particularly insects.
The reduction of summer streamflows will limit the amount of  habitat available for every species dependent on the stream, since  reduced streamflow and reduced stream connectivity inhibits an  aquatic species’ ability to move through an area. Low summer  streamflows will limit hydropower generation capacity, and it will be  necessary to balance human and ecological demands for water  resources. The phenology of critical biological functions, such as  fish migration and reproduction, may be disrupted by changing  patterns of water flow or availability, according to one expert  commenting after completion of the workshop. Reduced summer  flows can limit habitat directly by decreasing available habitat area,  in addition to reducing connectivity, according to another expert  commenting after the workshop. Furthermore, according to one  expert commenting after the workshop, reduced summer  streamflows will result in a contraction of the stream network and a  reduction in the density of headwater streams. Since most of the total  length of the stream network is in these headwater streams, there is  likely to be a fairly dramatic decrease in the amount of flowing  surface water late in the summer, meaning that streams will dry up  sooner, according to this expert.
Increased temperature of lakes, reservoirs, and rivers  Higher land surface temperatures will increase temperatures of  surface water bodies and will cause warmer runoff to enter streams,  raising the temperature of receiving waters. For example, increased  temperatures of 7 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit have been observed in  water bodies in the east after storm events. Increased water body  temperatures may include the following adverse effects: increased  risk of toxic algal blooms; reduction in summer habitat or increased  juvenile mortality of cold water and headwater obligate aquatic  species (this may have  significant economic consequences). For example, the nonnative  zebra mussel has extended its range in the Great Lakes as lake water  temperatures have warmed. Furthermore, temperature changes may  result in the introduction of disease or extirpation (elimination of a  species or subspecies from a particular area, but not from its entire  range), particularly if the species cannot migrate to other areas.
Headwater obligate aquatic species are species that must live at the headwaters, or source  waters of a stream. may lead to increased rates of hypoxia (conditions of low oxygen in  water), reducing ecosystem health.
Lake mixing cycles and stratification of lake water are temperature- driven processes, which are necessary for nutrient cycling (turnover)  and ecosystem health. If temperatures do not drop low enough in  winter months, lake mixing may be reduced or stopped altogether.
Reduced winter ice cover on large lakes, such as the Great Lakes,  may alter “lake effect” snow patterns, resulting in more rain and less  snow in areas down wind or down weather. Reduced ice cover also  allows for a great deal of evaporation from the lakes through winter  months, reducing the springtime water levels in the lake. This is  likely to affect the shipping industry by opening routes in the winter,  but restricting routes in the summer if lake levels are too shallow. If  water levels of the Great Lakes are shallow during summer months  and require smaller ships or dredging in lake inlets, substantial costs  may ensue.
Cold temperatures and lack of biological activity also help to  preserve submerged cultural resources, such as shipwrecks (e.g.,  Lake Huron). Similarly, the United Nations has been looking at  preservation challenges at archeological sites around the world, due  to increased decay and erosion resulting from climate change.
An FWS representative said that the fisheries in Alaska may be  conditions in western North America. Salmon also play an important  role in the energy and nutrient cycle in many northern streams, and if  salmon abundance declines substantially, the availability of energy  and nutrients to numerous aquatic and terrestrial species, such as  insects, birds, and bears, will be reduced accordingly. In general,  most climate forcing ecosystem impacts are occurring in higher  latitudes, where ecosystems are simpler and potentially more  vulnerable to both change and disturbance.
Coastal areas that rely on groundwater supplies will have to be  careful not to overdraw from the aquifer to avoid saltwater intrusion  and contamination. This is particularly important in water-stressed  areas of the southwest. Also, coastal wetlands may become  contaminated with salt, killing off grasses that would normally assist  in the water purification process.
Increased storm surges or flow volumes may damage infrastructure,  including roads, offices, and housing built in floodplains. Experts  acknowledged the importance of maintaining public access to public  lands, but they questioned societal decisions made to construct  facilities on sites that may be vulnerable. According to one expert  commenting after completion of the workshop, it is important to  identify high hazard zones and then determine what to do with  infrastructure that is currently sited there and to build this kind of  thinking into future planning and development decisions.
Reduced nutritional quality of leaves  Increase of atmospheric CO results in recalcitrant leaves, which  can be less nutritional or palatable for herbivores.
Wetlands also purify water and provide spawning ground for  amphibians (e.g., vernal pools). However, they depend on high-flow  events associated with heavy rainstorms or high runoff events to  disperse seeds. Changing surface water-flow regimes will result in  unanticipated changes in wetland conditions, threatening some.
Rising snow lines at high elevation are expected to result in a longer  growing season with increased forest growth at these elevations. Water  will likely be stored in the increased biomass and transpired back into  the atmosphere, rather than running off into streams. Ephemeral  streams are expected in these areas. According to one expert  commenting after completion of the workshop, rising snow lines will  result in increased forest growth with an associated increase in  evapotranspiration, resulting in less water available in the soil, further  reducing streamflows and the density of streams on the land.
Resiliency of a system may be compromised.
Regime shift—it is possible to have a fundamental change in the way an  ecosystem is put together, such that it is very difficult to return to a prior  state.
section_title: Grasslands and Shrublands Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: The grasslands and shrublands breakout group collaboratively developed  the following summary statement that describes the potential effects of  climate change on this ecosystem type:  Grasslands, shrublands, and tundra are all at risk of having a  fundamental shift in dominant vegetation type and/or loss of that  system, and these changes are likely to be sufficiently large to have  effects that cascade through many ecological, economic, and social  systems. These effects are most likely to occur in the long term (50 to  100 years), but there is risk that they can also occur in the near term. In  addition, existing ecological problems, such as wildfires, invasive  species, and nitrogen deposition, would be exacerbated by climate  change.
The group also noted the following:  Tundra systems are temperature-sensitive (i.e., temperature is the  fundamental driver for change).
Shrublands are relatively more water-sensitive than grasslands and  tundra.
Grasslands are both temperature- and water-sensitive.
Climate models are weakest in predicting precipitation.
Breakout group participants further agreed that:  Climate change will have impacts on all of the lands throughout the  country, and some of these impacts will have implications for the  integrity of grasslands. There will be increasing pressure on public lands  for different uses for reasons related to climate change. Such potential  uses include water storage and development of renewable energy  sources. All of the effects described below are effects that will be  observed in the next 25 years but will be intensified in the longer term.
The group noted that the primary (direct) effects of a changing climate  were likely to be the following, listed in the general order in which they  were discussed:  Increased CO An increase in extreme events (i.e., weather events that occur  infrequently, such as drought, heat waves, heavy rainfall, and tornadoes)
Altered seasonality of precipitation (i.e., more or less precipitation in  the summer or winter)
Increased wildfire frequency and severity  The melting of mountain glaciers, which will affect systems downstream Next, participants identified a number of existing problems that will be  exacerbated by climate change (referred to as secondary effects). These  problems are also listed in the general order in which they were discussed:  Increased nitrogen deposition from atmospheric pollution (especially in  Southern California)
Ecosystem fragmentation: migration corridors for flora and fauna could   Loss of coastal prairies due to increase in mean sea level (i.e., as sea  levels rise, saltwater will encroach on coastal prairies, turning them into  coastal wetlands)
Greater desertification in certain areas, such as the shortgrass steppe of  eastern Colorado and farmed portions of the Nebraska sandhills Earlier snowmelt, altering the amount of water available to plants at  critical times; earlier snowmelt will also affect the amount and timing of  water available to rivers  Phenological changes, such as plant flowering or bird migration; the  growing season will lengthen in the north and shorten in the south;  pollination could be out-of-sync with flowering  Changes in distribution of plants that photosynthesize during the cool  season (referred to as C3 plants) and plants that photosynthesize during  the warm season (referred to as C4 plants)
Increases in the number and intensity of wildfires (although in some  shortgrass systems, wildfires might actually be less frequent, because  there is less fuel)
Increased competition between people and natural systems for water;  stress on property rights as people and agriculture migrate in response  to a changing climate; increased pressure to use land for different  purposes, such as human settlement, water storage, or energy  development  Increases in pest outbreaks, especially pests that emerge under warmer  or drier conditions (e.g., bark beetles in woodland systems,  grasshoppers that thrive under drought conditions, various fungi, as  well as diseases caused by bacteria, parasites, and viruses)
Loss of or decline in certain ecological communities, in some cases  leading to extinctions (e.g., alpine tundra, prairie pothole  communities, vernal pools)
Decrease in native biodiversity in many areas and new assemblages of  species living together (i.e., new communities will emerge with  unknown dynamics)
Changes in the quantity and quality of forage (plants available for  livestock or wildlife grazing)
Changes in soil moisture dynamics  Changes in soil organic matter dynamics  Loss of tundra and of Arctic permafrost  Shift from nonvascular to vascular plants in parts of the Arctic  Increase in airborne dust (particulate matter) as a result of drought  Increase in tropospheric ozone formation, which may harm vegetation  Change in dominant vegetation types, providing opportunities for   Increase shift to dominance or replacement by invasive species (both  plants and animals)
Changes in issues associated with wildland/urban interface (fire, pests,  human/wildlife interactions—e.g., when coyotes or bears migrate from  the natural to the urban environment)
section_title: Question 2
paragraphs: Which of these effects are most significant and adverse?
subsections: section_title: Coasts and Oceans Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Panel members identified the impacts they believed to be most significant  and adverse. The group did not categorize such impacts according to their  separate ecological, economic, or social effects because it believed that the  impacts affect all three categories of effects.
Inundation and permanent loss of coastal wetlands and barrier  shorelines, including loss of island communities (other U.S.  possessions, low-lying atolls, etc.)
Loss of sea ice and coastal cryosphere (coastal permafrost) in Alaska;  loss of ice platforms used by marine mammals and seabirds; and loss of  subsistence for Alaskan natives  Mass coral bleaching events and disease events  Changes in biochemical cycling (e.g., increase in dead zones);  phytoplankton productivity; productivity of fishery ecosystems; and loss  of marine mammals, fish, and birds  Changes in salinity regime in estuaries and coastal waters  Economic impacts: recreational and commercial fishing, quality of life,  cultural/maritime heritage, shorebirds, marine recreational coastal  fishing, migratory water fowl, hunting, tourism, and coastal  development and infrastructure (docks, housing, etc.)
section_title: Forests Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Before addressing the posed questions, forests ecosystem workshop  participants suggested a list of items commonly viewed as valuable forest  services. Participants suggested this as a first step toward answering  Question 2, Question 1, and Question 3 (below). Valuable services forests  provide include the following:  Water (quality, quantity)
Living area Forests ecosystem workshop participants generally agreed that the  scientific community has reached consensus that climate change will do  the following:  Cause forest fires to grow in size and severity. Fires already have  increased in size in areas such as Alaska, Northern Rocky Mountains,  high elevations, and the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Climate variability  and other fire management approaches, such as suppression, also have  affected the southwest. It is likely that other areas in the west, such as  the Pacific Northwest and the Colorado Rockies, could see temperature- driven fire activity in the future. One expert added, after completion of  the workshop, that climate and demographic changes are likely to  increase fire risk to communities in the east.
Affect air quality. For example, increased ozone pollution and increased  smoke from forest fires will impact air quality.
Affect species composition—tree species, species that depend on trees,  and vegetation. For example, sugar maple, white bark pine at high  elevations, and subalpine spruce fir forests in the Rockies have already  experienced changes.
Affect phenology, disconnecting some critical species interactions, such  as pollination and seed dispersal, and creating the opportunity for other,  unpredictable changes  Cause a reduction in permafrost, decreased snowpack, and increased   Affect water regimes, which are critically important to the ecosystem.
Changes in precipitation, storm intensity, temperature increase,  evaporative demand, timing of snowmelt, groundwater level, and/or  flashing may occur.
Impact wind disturbance activity, an important ecosystem trigger.
However, exactly how wind patterns will change is uncertain. Impacts  of hurricane-caused timber blowdowns and subsequent buildup of down  and dead fuel is a concern in the southeast.
Produce more surprises in terms of unanticipated consequences and  interactions with other environmental stressors. For example, increased  nitrogen in conjunction with insects and climate can result in significant  forest diebacks.
Result in increased temperatures, which will increase insect and disease  infestation range and extent. Three recent examples are the recent  spruce beetle, the mountain pine beetle, and the southern pine beetle  infestations.
In addition, one workshop participant added the following:  There are positive effects of climate change. For example, changes in  precipitation (increases), or distribution (to dry areas), or increases in  temperature in cold areas where such are limiting, or a combination of  such, will enhance forest growth and development. Thus, some deserts  and/or marginal forest areas could become highly productive forests. In  general, there is an ebb and flow of ecosystem types over time.
section_title: Fresh Waters Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Participants identified the following effects as among the most significant  and adverse:   Droughts will have the greatest impact with the least ability to  mitigate. Floods can be problematic for river areas and the people  living within those areas (e.g., due to increased channel changes,  such as widening streambeds and floodplains, and instability),  although some potential mitigation is possible, through construction  of dams, etc. An NPS representative believed that an increase in  extreme runoff (and drought) events would lead to more human  emergencies, greater costs, and disruptions to operations.
Rate of climate change vs. rate of (invasive) species shift  Although the relative rate of climate change versus the rate of species  migration is not always known, experts expect invasive species to  have a relative advantage in a changing climate because they tend to  be more adaptive. Some experts have said that invasive species may  compromise the resiliency of a system or may impact economic  resources of an area, etc.
General temperature increase  Temperature increases are most likely to threaten cold-water species,  such as trout and salmon, and amphibians.
General reduction of water supply  Reduced supply and increased demand due to population growth is  likely to result in competition between human and ecological uses.
section_title: Grasslands and Shrublands Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: The group identified the effects that they believed to be most significant  and adverse. They defined “most significant” as the effects that are  relatively certain to happen. They categorized such impacts according to  ecological and economic/social effects.
Most Critical in Terms of Ecological Effects: Extinction of rare ecosystems, such as alpine tundra, California  chaparral, and blue oak woodlands in California Changes in soil content, organic matter, and moisture  Shift in biomes from one type to another or from one location to  another. For example, there will likely be a change from a shrub  grassland system to a tree-dominated system in upper elevations at  some locations and a change to an annual grassland system in lower  elevations.
Large-scale, transregional effects that extend beyond the region where  they occur and feed back into climate change. (That is, things that  happen in a local context have larger impacts on the Earth’s climate  system.) Examples of transregional effects with feedbacks include dust  storms, wildfire, and methane release from the tundra. (Methane is a  greenhouse gas.)
Simplification of certain ecosystems through loss of species diversity  (e.g., replacement of native species by invasive species that become  monocultures) or loss of endangered species. Examples include the  shift from a shrub grassland to an annual grassland system in the  sagebrush biome and the loss of forbs (wildflowers) in the California  native grasslands.
Most Critical in Terms of Economic and Social Effects:  Changes in wildfire frequency and severity, with associated costs of fire- fighting and rehabilitation after fires  Potential loss of national parks and forests with named features/species:  for example, Glacier National Park (with no glaciers), Saguaro National  Monument (with no saguaro cacti), Joshua Tree National Park (with no  Joshua trees), and Tallgrass Prairie Reserve (with no tallgrasses)
Loss of refuge function/purpose and the economic impact associated  with the refuge. For example, if certain FWS wetlands dry up, the  waterfowl hunting industry may be hurt in those areas, with economic  implications for local communities. Waterfowl reproduction may be  reduced. The refuge may thus no longer be relevant for the original  purpose for which it was established.
Increased frequency of extreme events, such as drought and fire, and  the associated cost of the loss in productivity, wildlife, livestock,  recreation, or other land-use activities  Exacerbated urban/wildland interface (i.e., increased costs of fighting  fires and rehabilitating land, and property loss)
Reduced Native American use of lands and revenue from natural  resources on their lands (e.g., livestock, and reindeer and caribou herds  in Alaska)
section_title: Question 3
paragraphs: Are there certain thresholds beyond which the ecosystem in the  identified areas cannot recover? Please describe the nature and  scope of these thresholds and provide examples.
subsections: section_title: Coasts and Oceans Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Panel members provided the following examples and descriptions of  various thresholds within the coasts and oceans ecosystem that, if  breached, will be difficult to recover from:  Corals: Clear temperature threshold above which bleaching and  mortality occur. For tropical corals, the bleaching threshold is generally  more than 1 degree Celsius over the average temperature of the  warmest summer month at that location. Mortality results from  accumulated thermal stress influencing various factors, such as  bleaching and disease.
Arctic/Subarctic coastal ecosystems: A 1- to 2-degree-Celsius increase in  temperature would result in a change in ice formation dynamics, sea ice,  permafrost, and glacial melt. For example, if sea ice retreats to the point  where the diving depth of the seals is exceeded, the seals will die.  Another example is fragmentation of ice packs for walruses and polar  bears, which increases the energy needed for foraging. This impacts  juvenile survival in walruses and polar bears.
Coastal wetlands: Coastal wetlands have both salinity and sea level rise  thresholds. In coastal fresh waters wetlands, salinity of 5 parts per  thousand would result in a loss or shift of ecosystem type and a die-off  of vegetation. The coastal fresh waters marsh would cease to exist in  some areas. For brackish coastal wetlands, shifts in salinity will lead to  shifts in species composition. If salinity levels rise above approximately  20 parts per thousand, there will be significantly less diversity. For a sea  level rise threshold for coastal wetlands, tidal inundation could be high  enough to transform the system to open water. When the sea level rise  exceeds the ability of plant communities to grow vertically through  accretion, then the community can turn to open water.
Climate regime shifts: Several shifts have already been observed where  complete shifts in ecosystem structure and services have changed  relatively rapidly over a few years. This is an ecosystem dependent and a  nonlinear response. Examples include the Northern Pacific and some  fisheries.
Ocean acidification: When oceanic carbonate ions drop below 200  micromoles per kilogram (approximately 425 parts per million  atmospheric CO), corals will no longer be able to build reefs faster than  they naturally erode. Elimination of coral reef ecosystems, many types  of plankton, and fundamental shifts in food chains could result. Entire  ocean food chains could change, influencing important fishing  industries.
Invasive species and pests: Many have their own thresholds. Loss of  certain events, such as low salinity or low temperature, would wipe out  certain species and introduce invasive species. For example, marine  oyster predators invade oyster-growing waters when the oyster bars do  not have periodic low salinity events. There is also a threshold for the  capacity to control invasive species. If biological thresholds are  exceeded, invasive species will persist. For example, some invasive  species are freeze-intolerant.
Islands and flood-prone coastal areas: There are some critical sea level  rise and storm thresholds above which the islands and flood-prone  coastal areas would be inundated. Some examples include insular areas,  including Freely Associated States in the South Pacific, Louisiana, and  Florida, and Alaskan communities. Some island territories have a  maximum elevation of a few meters or less.
Loss of fresh groundwater and low-lying islands: A threshold at which  water supplies are contaminated by saltwater intrusion. The threshold  for this depends on the island.
Change in fishery productivity: Due to differential temperature  preferences of predators and prey, there are different threshold  temperatures for different animals. For example, in the mid-Atlantic  region, the upper geographic limit is 18 degrees and moving northward  for some types of clams, limiting the distribution range in the southern  geographic region.
section_title: Forests Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Forests ecosystem workshop participants identified the following  regarding climate-related ecosystem thresholds:  Habitat specialists, such as the spotted owl, are more at risk.
Climate extremes, such as drought and temperature, threaten certain  species, such as the pinyon pine.
High-elevation red spruce forests and whitebark pine are at severe risk  of extinction.
section_title: Fresh Waters Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: The fresh waters group of experts described thresholds as very context- specific, often complexly nonlinear, and difficult to identify in prospect  (i.e., easier to identify in retrospect, after exceeding the threshold).  Although thresholds are valuable conceptual frameworks, they may not  turn out to be accurate because there are often synergistic effects between  two or more variables. The group tried to identify thresholds that are  sensitive to physical parameters (e.g., freezing points, etc.), but it did not  identify many clear-cut examples of thresholds. One participant noted that  ecologists use the word, “threshold” to describe physical parameters that  stray from the traditional path of an ecosystem.
Some experts questioned the importance of identifying thresholds,  although they acknowledged the value of understanding the issues  surrounding thresholds and identifying the types of thresholds that could  be crossed, and the factors that could contribute to approaching a  threshold. Land managers believed that it may be useful to set aside lands  to serve as buffers to mitigate potential damages associated with reaching a  threshold.
Whereas land managers are accountable for protecting endangered species  and upholding agency mission, they believed that they may be driven more  and more to managing toward the protection of “niche” species, or  managing against invasive, “opportunistic” species. They expressed  concern that the threshold question may be species-specific, rather than a  biodiversity issue. They also believed that there may be a false security in  “managing to thresholds” (versus “managing at levels beneath thresholds”).  The fresh waters scientists and managers agreed that an understanding of  thresholds is important so that early-warning signals that a threshold is  approaching may be developed.
The fresh waters group of experts identified the following thresholds:  Temperature threshold (stratified lakes)
Lakes will not thermally stratify and “turnover” in the spring if winter  temperatures do not drop below 4 degrees Celsius. Lake turnover is  an important temperature-driven process that helps to oxygenate  waters and cycle organic matter and nutrients through the water  column. This threshold is presumably more significant in large lakes  and has to do with the depth of the lake and latitude.
Temperature threshold (cold-water species)
According to an expert commenting after completion of the  workshop, the mortality rate of some cold-water species, such as  salmon, increases dramatically above certain temperatures.
If streams dry up earlier within the annual hydrologic cycle, the  threshold itself may shift as a result of changing precipitation  patterns and/or warmer temperatures associated with climate  change. Year-round streams may become ephemeral streams, small  ponds may become vernal pools, etc. We may see a dramatic  reduction of nitrogen removal from microbes in streams and  wetlands, and a possible loss of species (e.g., salamanders). Areas  with greater precipitation will likely result in increased connectivity  (which opens migration corridors for invasive and endemic species).  An expert commenting after completion of the workshop said that  there is not a clear threshold for stream network connectivity. The  expert said that the area necessary to sustain certain streams will be  larger if more water falls as rain in the winter with less snowpack.
Topographically driven and elevation-controlled incremental change  in the rain-to-snow ratio affects the position of the snowline (the  dynamic position where snow typically accumulates on the  landscape) for areas with snow-dominated precipitation in the west.  If the climate forces the snowline to move up in elevation, there will  be a radically nonlinear decline in snow area, likely to cause huge  changes in fresh waters systems in those areas. Migration corridors  may open (for warm-water species), or species habitat may become  fragmented (especially true for cold-water species). Even if  migration corridors exist, they would have to be temperature- appropriate for species migration and interaction. Land use/Land  management systems, such as dams, canals, and construction  projects, increase this effect of habitat fragmentation. With added  terrestrial connectivity (due to less winter snow cover), there is  possibility of a bark beetle invasion across the United States (i.e.,  achieve continental connectivity). One expert commenting after  completion of the workshop said that bark beetle invasions would be  triggered by warmer temperatures that allow the beetles to reach  existing forests to the north that are connected across Canada to  eastern forests. The expert said that beetle invasions have nothing  specifically to do with less winter snow cover because the  connectivity is already there. According to the expert, it has been too  cold for the beetles to survive until recently.
Land managers may want to manage to protect the habitat of these  species, which have a disproportionate positive impact on ecosystem  processes (e.g., beaver, Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs). An NPS  representative asked, “Under what conditions will species migrate  out of particular national parks?” A species shift could have social  ramifications, since park visitors value the experience of seeing  species within the park. In some cases, federal land acquisition has  been motivated by the presence of particular species, which may  migrate to unprotected areas, according to an expert commenting  after completion of the workshop.
Temperature- or climate-sensitive species may be indicators of  impending thresholds; enormous regional shifts are possible in  systems with a high degree of connectivity, but this is not necessarily  true for species that cannot easily migrate to other areas (i.e., insects  can fly, fish cannot easily migrate).
Wildfires are strongly dependent on the degree of spring “wet-up”  conditions and the sequence of wet and dry years, since presence of  an adequate amount of moisture can protect against burning. Fire is a  huge driver of ecological change, so anything that changes the fire  regime is likely to have ramifications and ripple effects through  feedbacks into hydrological, geomorphic, and temperature response.  This threshold is expressed in terms of years (i.e., years between fire  events).
Humans have installed a great deal of infrastructure in the west to  manage water resources, including dams. Increased storminess will  adversely affect aging infrastructure. With thousands of small dams  in the United States, climate change may exacerbate existing stresses  of aging infrastructure and inadequate water supplies in growing  areas. Rain-on-snow events, characteristic of “warm” snowpacks, are  a recipe for big floods and may result in damage to docks, roads, or  other infrastructure on or adjacent to streams, lakes, and coasts. One  expert commenting after completion of the workshop said that rain- on-snow induced floods generally result in increased damage to river- related infrastructure, not coastal infrastructure.
Panelists expressed concern that society may become less tolerant  for taking action to mitigate climate change, such as spending money  or reconstructing infrastructure (levees) to address climate change  issues.
Minimum flow rate in rivers  As metropolitan areas grow, water demand increases, resulting in a  decrease in water levels. If we do not keep minimum flows available  for aquatic species, there will be more problems for species survival;  natural storage facilities (lakes, reservoirs, and streams) may not be  sufficient if water demand increases.
Water quality degradation  Water quality is likely to decline if harmful algal blooms, bacteria,  botulism, etc., occur as a result of increased temperature. This will  likely result in the increased cost of water treatment.
Increased temperatures are associated with an increased rate of  disease outbreaks. The temperature effect may be compounded by a  low-flow effect—thresholds may not be based on a simple change of  a single variable, but a complex interaction of several changing  variables (e.g., gypsy moths and acid rain—acidification of the  system weakened the vegetation in the system, making it vulnerable  to invasion by gypsy moths). This point is characteristic of the  (aquatic) system’s behavior.
Climate change impact on ecosystem services  For example, wetlands absorb nutrient load—we can allow a certain  amount of nitrogen runoff, if passing wetlands before reaching lake,  but if we lose the wetlands, the system no longer has as much  capacity to absorb nitrogen; if the water availability is intermittent,  the wetland may not be as efficient at removing nitrogen—terrestrial  systems may be more nitrogen-burdened.
Snow avalanches bring nutrients and debris down to streams with  direct effect on stream chemistry. The regular disturbance of snow  avalanches is ecologically important at high elevations, allowing  herbaceous plants to grow in tree-laden forests. A reduction in  herbaceous plants results in reduced grizzly bear habitat (a culturally  valued animal). Greater variability of winter runoff volumes, from  high snow followed by rain, is likely to result in more snow  avalanches and increased frequency of landslides and debris flows.  This is a threshold-driven phenomenon sensitive to small changes in  precipitation with the potential to result in extreme events in soil  erosion.
Salinity level of aquatic systems  fresh waters inundation to saltwaters—for example, through  increased runoff volumes in early spring—rapidly decreases salinity.  This may be detrimental to some species, such as sea grass.
Development threshold at low elevations  Older federal lands tend to be high elevation, lower elevation areas  (run-out zone where debris flows end up) are often outside of federal  jurisdiction. However, lower elevation areas may be vulnerable to  adverse effects of climate change, and it may be necessary to  consider development thresholds in lower elevation areas,  floodplains, etc.
Experts believed that stream systems in the west are managed in  ways that might “trump” climate change effects that we anticipate.  For example, many man-made dams currently create a wider range of  flow than anticipated with climate change. Land managers identified  examples of a dam’s role in isolating populations versus opening  migration corridors, and they asked whether dam operators should  change practices in light of climate change. If dams are removed  from an area, or if they can no longer function, a migration corridor is  opened for nonnative species to move beyond the dam area. In the  Great Lakes, dam removal has opened corridors for species  migration from the lakes into river systems.
section_title: Grasslands and Shrublands Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: The grasslands and shrublands group of experts defined a threshold as “the  point at which an ecosystem cannot recover without substantial input in  time and energy.” The group agreed that the causes of the threshold  changes will be complex, and that some changes will occur quickly and  obviously, but others will occur gradually and insidiously and may be  overlooked until it is too late to address them. Among the key thresholds  identified by the group were the following:  A shift from tundra to shrubs in the Arctic, resulting in less snow to  reflect sunlight, which will lead to other warming-related effects, such  as the release of methane  Permafrost melting will also affect the biological chemistry and the  integrity of the tundra systems.
Increase in the rate of invasion of annual grasses, changing shrublands  to grasslands and changing the fire regime. Example: BLM lands in the  western United States, from the Canadian to the Mexican borders.
Tree die-offs triggered by drought and exacerbated by temperature,  leading to a shift from woodland to shrubland or to grassland.  Examples: midwestern savannas or the southwestern pinyon juniper  woodlands.
Transition to high-erosion conditions could occur through the drought- induced loss of grasslands. Example: entire United States.
Disruptions in biological interactions as a result of changes in  temperature and growing seasons. (That is, the life cycles of some  mutually dependent organisms may change, affecting the ecosystem  food web.) Example: entire United States.
Seawater intrusion on coastal prairies. Examples: southern Louisiana  and Texas.
section_title: Question 4
paragraphs: Which areas of the United States may be most vulnerable to climate  change and why?
subsections: section_title: Coasts and Oceans Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Examples (locations)
Florida Keys Protected Areas - Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Dry Tortugas  National Park, Everglades National Park (for temperature); U.S. Virgin Islands National Park  (bleaching); the Caribbean; Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine Monument  (inundation—already lost islands—and ocean acidification); Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife  Refuge (undisturbed, 2 meter elevation); Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary;  and Biscayne National Park Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; BLM National Petroleum Reserve; Kenai Fjords National  Park; Gulf of Alaska/Bering Sea/Aleutians (regime shift, ocean circulation, biogeochemical  cycling, and acidification); Pribilof Islands (sea ice); and 20 other coastal parks and refuges  on the coast in Alaska Delta National Wildlife Refuge; Jean Lafitte National Park and Historic Preserve; Southeast  and Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge complexes; Blackwater National Wildlife  Refuge; Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (sea level rise, storm vulnerability, and  salinity regimes); National Estuarine Research Reserves (Texas, coastal North Carolina,  Florida, etc.); Everglades National Park; San Francisco Bay Delta; and the Chesapeake Bay Fire Island National Seashore; Gulf Islands National Sea Shore; Cape Hatteras protected  lands (shoreline management); and other National Seashores—Assateague Island, Texas  Coast, Corpus Christi, etc.
section_title: Forests Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
section_title: Fresh Waters Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Prior to identifying areas considered to be most vulnerable to climate  change, the workshop participants briefly discussed a definition of  vulnerability. The group based its responses on vulnerabilities likely to  have an impact on important ecological processes and on human quality of  life, and areas for which there are viable management response options or  proactive responses.
Examples (locations)
Klamath River/Upper Klamath, Oregon; McKenzie River, Oregon; Willamette River; Rio  Grande; Tennessee River; Chattooga River; Trinity River Ecosystem; Flathead River;  Salmon River; Columbia and Snake Rivers; Colorado River; Sacramento and San  Joaquin Rivers; and streams in urban areas (heat island effects)
section_title: Grasslands and Shrublands Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Examples (locations)
Alaskan Arctic and alpine (Rocky Mountains and Sierra Nevada)
Saguaro cactus ecosystem (Arizona)
Remnant prairie biome and sedge meadows  (small parcels)
Great Plains (Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge, Iowa) and various FWS and NPS  lands “California complex” (large regions of the state)
section_title: Question 5
paragraphs: What types of information (e.g., research,  monitoring/measurement) are needed to better understand and  prepare for potential changes on these ecosystems?
subsections: section_title: Coasts and Oceans Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Panel members provided the following list of various types of information  and activities that are needed to understand, prepare for, and address the  potential changes to the coasts and oceans ecosystem:  Develop basic baseline environmental characterizations  In situ physical monitoring, monitoring the carbon system  Integrated risk assessments, including ecological, sociological, and   Long-term assessment of responses of ecosystems to variable climate   Comprehensive suite of ecosystem indicators (“red flags”) to develop  time series data. Need to be linkable to describe causality. Target  observations on particularly sensitive ecosystems and species for which  changes are already occurring. Focus on indicators that are  unambiguously related to climate change.
Long-term record, focus on historical and paleoclimatic records to   Integrate ecological modeling with economic/behavioral modeling  Habitat characterization to detect changes over time. Interface with  land-margin, land-ocean margin habitat data.
More accurate hydrographic and topographic/bathymetric (water  depth) data. Water depth data are often of poor resolution.
Assessments of how climate change is likely to impact lands and   Characterization from genetic/microbial to landscape-scale conditions  There are four components of research needed on climate change:   (1) physical changes (this has been the bulk of the effort so far),  (2) ecological impacts, (3) social/economic impacts, and  (4) adaptation/mitigation. The focus should now be shifted to  ecological, social/economic, and adaptation/mitigation research. We  need to focus on vulnerabilities and mitigation/adaptation. How have  systems changed in the past and how can we expect them to change in  the future? The U.S. Climate Change Science Program should focus  more on the ecological and societal impacts of climate change than it  currently does. Need to focus research on regional and local scales.
Need for risk communication—illustrate how climate change affects  individuals, better communication with the public  Adapting today’s management strategy to account for applied science—  Research and development programs to develop mitigation techniques  and strategies that are cost-effective  Supply the science needed to allow local management decisions to  account for climate change in the background, both short-term and long- term considerations  National database of the timing of biological phenomena  Vulnerability and risk assessment of the value of historic sites and other  assets and recreational or commercially valuable species on federal  lands  Better analytical management tools for ecosystem management – these  need to be dynamic so they can evolve over time. For example,  predictive modeling tools for fisheries management or coastal erosion  management that show impacts on property values, etc.
There is currently an emphasis on reducing uncertainty. The desired  level of uncertainty appears lower than the level of uncertainty applied  in everyday decision making. There are tools in place to allow decision  making under ambiguous risks. Develop robust policies that perform  well in the worst case and better than alternatives in the best case.
Tools for management, such as sea level rise estimates and projected  land/sea boundary across the United States. For local management –  need topography and bathymetric data. Where are shorelines in relation  to commercial structures, etc? Storm surge projections, etc. Look at  synergistic effects.
section_title: Forests Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Panelists ran out of time before they could answer Question 5.
section_title: Fresh Waters Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: In answering this question, the group considered the types of information  needed to monitor or detect current manifestations of climate change and  to predict future climate conditions. The following statements represent  broad categories of needed information identified during the group  discussion and some overarching recommendations for further research  and development:  Develop early-warning signals, or “red flags”
Although many monitoring programs exist, and much scientific data  are generated, there is often a lack of a clearly defined purpose for  monitoring, and the link between data collection and action points is  not always clear. There is a lack of contextual sophistication for the  collected data, and data are not analyzed to indicate when managers  should begin to be concerned about changes or take action to  mitigate changes. Therefore, managers recommended that there be a  clearly defined purpose for monitoring efforts, and clear linkages  between data collection and habitat protection. A panelist opined  that the national parks and federal lands are good environments for  detecting the effects of climate change, since they are relatively  isolated from other effects.
Assess and build on the current monitoring system  Many monitoring systems in place today, such as systems to monitor  stream flow, precipitation, soil, etc., were not designed specifically  with climate change in mind. The panelists recommended that a “gap  analysis” be performed to evaluate the current monitoring system for  its ability to detect and predict climate change. They believed that  current monitoring networks do not collaborate, and they  recommended that a list of parameters (e.g., gas fluxes, soil moisture,  and basic water chemistry) be established, and that these parameters  be monitored at various sites throughout the country.
Panelists believed that it was important to manage aquatic systems  so that they can “withstand the unexpected” with respect to climate  change. They suggested that managers consider ways of providing  buffers for systems to restore characteristics of unimpacted systems,  despite the stresses of climate change. For example, if an area is  likely to experience increased flooding, management options might  include building a dam or moving houses or businesses from the  flood zone. When deciding between management responses, it is  important to consider how the particular adaptation action may  affect other ecosystem processes.
Managers identified the need to know when to try to prevent changing  conditions versus when to adapt to them. To make such management  decisions, it is important to develop technical modeling and detective  capacity to know which management decisions will maximize benefits.  Participants identified the need to build institutional capacity, improve  record-keeping, deploy scientists and researchers on-site, and improve  modeling capacity to summarize broad-scale changes.
Regional scale climate predictions are needed  Managers need climate predictions on an ecoregion or site-specific  scale. Managers said that they often do not know how to plan for the  effects of climate change because they lack information on the types  of physical changes (i.e., temperature and precipitation changes) that  are expected in their management areas. Therefore, they do not  know what management actions will help the system adapt to the  effects of climate change. The scientists suggested using the current  monitoring networks or developing well-distributed monitoring  networks to create a series of nested monitoring stations to monitor  snow-water equivalent extent and groundwater stocks. Panelists  believed that interagency coordination and collaboration are  necessary, and that there must be an increased investment in  monitoring efforts, particularly in sites identified as likely to be  adversely affected by climate change.
If changes in temperature and precipitation were detected and understood  at a regional scale, managers could compare projections of climate models  with observed changes. Managers need to consider what the response of  waterfowl and wetland extent is likely to be with respect to a range of  climate projections, and they will need to make decisions based on how  much land must be set aside to support wildlife through added stresses of  weather extremes.
Collaboration between scientists and land managers  Workshop participants believed that it was important that scientists  and land managers work together at early stages of the planning  process, and that federal lands would benefit from having scientific  expertise on-site, (i.e., to serve as park interpreters, naturalists, and  data analysts). FWS land managers said that it is difficult to detect  changes in wetlands, because the technology to determine and  monitor wetland extent is expensive and requires specialized skills,  including flyover photography and geographic information system  analysis.
Crosswalk between land-use change and water quality  If hydrologic aspects, such as streamflow variability, are better  understood and linked to ecological responses, models can be used  to project ecological responses to physical changes in runoff  volumes, whether as a result of climate change or land-use changes.
Panelists agreed that land management and planning are not just related to  the question of future climate conditions, but also about land-use changes,  and they believed that there is a general lack of understanding in the  relationship between land-use change, land management, and erosion and  deposition processes. Some suggested that managers should view  anticipated change in the context of anthropogenic stressors that are  already present and likely to be exacerbated by future anthropogenic and  climate stressors. One scientist from FS suggested that the Congress  should look at the projected changes in temperature and precipitation  overlaid with projected population growth. By developing “vulnerability  maps” that incorporate societal impacts, managers might be able to view  areas under stress and consider the added stress of climate change when  making management decisions.
Study synergistic effects of extreme weather events and multidecadal   Panelists identified the need to study the synergistic effects of two  dynamic systems—extreme weather events (such as intense storms)  and multidecadal events.
section_title: Grasslands and Shrublands Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: The group agreed that the most important types of information or research  needed include the following:  Improved precipitation modeling to better understand and prepare for  temperature and precipitation changes on these ecosystems.  Precipitation modeling is currently one of the greatest weaknesses in  projecting future climate change effects.
Research and consensus on the criteria and indicators of ecosystem  change or thresholds, with specific research on identifying monitoring  methods to help scientists detect change thresholds  Information on the economic value of grassland and shrubland   Better information on the location and rate of desertification  Information on positive feedback (i.e., the interaction of climate change  on natural systems that can lead back to an intensification of climate  change itself)
Experiments on interactions between climate change and other  ecological drivers, such as those previously identified (e.g., nitrogen  deposition, etc.)
Synthesis of information collected by the Long-Term Ecological  Research and the proposed National Ecological Observatory Network  (NEON). Are these programs in a position to provide answers to  climate-related questions?
Data on land use and the number of livestock grazing on federal lands  (to be able to distinguish between ecosystem effects related to livestock  grazing versus effects related to climate change)
Research to improve understanding of the mechanisms that trigger  complete regime changes. Is there just a single trigger, such as nitrogen  deposition, management style, and El Niño, or are there multiple  triggers?
Conversion of shrubland to grassland (i.e., the ratio of annual alien  grasses to native perennial plants that triggers a conversion to an annual  grassland system in some areas) as well as research to improve  understanding of the mechanisms that lead to a complete regime change  Conversion of grasslands to shrublands or woodlands, due to shifts in  precipitation timing and intensity, altering water availability to favor  deep-rooted woody species  Research on the consequences of alpine community disruption  Research on the consequences of a transition to high-erosion conditions  through the drought-induced loss of grasslands  Research to determine conditions to predict tree, grass, and forb  mortality.
Research to clarify the factors influencing the trends and direction of  change in the controls of soil moisture and soil organic matter on  groundwater hydrology  Research on phenological changes, including development of a U.S.
section_title: Day 1: Afternoon Plenary Session Questions and Responses
paragraphs: In this session, workshop participants were asked two questions. The first  question was to identify key new findings related to the effects of climate  change on ecosystems that have emerged in the past 5 or 6 years (i.e., since  the publication of the National Assessment of the Potential Consequences  of Climate Variability and Change in 2000 and the IPCC Third Assessment  Report in 2001). For the second question, we asked the participants to  identify the gaps in scientists’ understanding of how climate change might  affect the four U.S. ecosystem types. This session was moderated by Dr.  Virginia Burkett of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Dr. Burkett also  moderated the coasts and oceans breakout group.
subsections: section_title: Question 1 and Responses
paragraphs: What key new findings related to the effects of climate change on  ecosystems have emerged in the past 5 or 6 years?
Participants identified the following new findings that have emerged in the  past 5 or 6 years:  2005 Caribbean coral bleaching event  Results from Virgin Islands National Park: About 47 percent of  previously healthy Caribbean corals are now dead due to bleaching  and disease, both associated with thermal stress (increasing  temperature). Prior to 2005, the first massive loss of corals was in  1990. Global events also occurred in 1997 and 1998. Documentation  of 2005 bleaching events elsewhere corroborated that sea surface  temperatures are causing coral die-offs. This phenomenon is not only  limited to tropical areas, but is also beginning to affect temperate  waters such as the northwest Hawaiian Islands. Also, many corals  not typically associated with bleaching have been affected, like  elkhorn coral, recently listed as threatened under the Endangered  Species Act (ESA).
Climate regime shift in the Pacific  Documentation exists about the climate regime shift in the Pacific  and its impacts that have cascaded up the food chain, ultimately  affecting fish populations and phytoplankton communities and  resulting in a loss of marine mammals and seabirds.
Hypoxia off the Pacific coast  The “dead zone” off the Pacific coast, while not proven to be related  to climate change, is an example of future events that could  potentially represent a major, new, unanticipated climate change  consequence.
Recent evidence suggests that sea surface temperature increases are  related to the intensification of destructive tropical cyclones.
This report, published in late October 2006, is a global assessment  that discusses the causes and consequences of climate change  (externalities in public goods are valued on a global level) with long- term and persistent impacts (intergenerational inequity).  Uncertainties and risks are pervasive (ambiguity reigns, given large  uncertainties). There is a serious risk of major irreversible,  nonmarginal changes (“Act now or it will cost a lot more later”).
Faster and more heterogeneous sea level rise  Satellite Altimetry Measurements of sea level change have enabled  global ocean and coastal trend analysis.
Published/Documented Changes Since 2000:  Observational evidence (National Aeronautical and Space  Administration data) suggests that the Greenland Ice Sheet is breaking  up faster than any models projected, with major implications for sea  level rise. This implies that current models are not competent to deal  with the rate of loss of both the Greenland Ice Sheet and also the West  Antarctic.
Warmer springs have resulted in earlier snowmelt, longer summer  drought, and increased wildfire activity in forest ecosystems where fires  are limited by drought, rather than fuel in the western United States. The  bottom line is a 300 percent increase in the frequency of large fires and a  600 percent increase in area burned, comparing 1970-1986 with 1987- 2003. Dr. Tony Westerling acknowledged that if he had changed the time  periods of comparison, the previously mentioned percentages would  have changed significantly. He chose these years because he had 34  years of data, and he cut that time period in half.
Unprecedented ocean-oscillation changes from 1987-1988 took place  that affected many systems. These have been well-documented since  2000.
An unprecedented pine bark beetle migration across British Columbia  heading east has been observed. Migration patterns have been driven by  warm winters. Similarly, the southeastern United States has seen  southern pine beetle migration into red spruce area caused by drought,  nitrogen deposition, and beetle infestation. There have also been shifts  in the intensity and extent of the spruce bark beetle in the Pacific  Northwest and Alaska caused by an accelerated life cycle from 2 years  to 1 year. New England sugar maples have been damaged by pests as  well.
There has been a major loss of glaciers in the western United States and  Alaska, coupled with other kinds of ecosystem changes. Loss of glaciers  is not simply an iconic signal of climate change.
Early estimates of the role of terrestrial ecosystems as a carbon sink  (through COfertilization) are less than thought.
There have been multiple observed shifts in species distribution of both  animals and plants. Examples include manatees in the Carolinas and  Mid-Atlantic and polar bear decline.
A paper by Thomas, et al. (2004), which is the most cited paper in  environment and ecology in the last 2 years, shows that climate change  has caused changes in species and extinctions over the last 30 years.
Die-off of pinyon pines across the southwestern United States— magnitude of the die-off has been tied to warmer temperatures.  Cascading effects include the infestation of beetles.
Dust storms coming out of the Great Basin impact the rate at which  snow melts during the season. Both grazing and drought are  contributing causes of dust storms and are becoming more frequent.
There have been documented increases of net primary production in  both temperate and boreal forests related to natural factors.
There is evidence of increased turnover rates in tropical forests. This is  considered, by some, to be an indication of some kind of climate shift,  possibly climate change. Turnover rates in undisturbed primary forests  have increased all around the world.
There is well-documented evidence of the impacts/consequences of  permafrost thaw in Arctic ecosystems and economies.
There is documentation of temperature-induced drought die-back in  boreal systems in Alaska and Canada.
There has been a decline in the duration of lake and river ice cover  throughout the northern hemisphere associated with increasing  temperature.
There has been an increase in continental runoff in North America.
There has been an increase in shrub cover in the grasslands of Alaska.
There has been wetland drying in Alaska.
section_title: Question 2 and Responses
paragraphs: What are the gaps in scientists’ understanding of how climate  change might affect these four U.S. ecosystem types?
Participants identified the following gas in scientific understanding of  climate change effects:  The role of elevated CO The ability to model and project amount, timing, and distribution of  rainfall, especially for all grasslands, scrublands, deserts, and  rangelands  The ability to downscale and upscale climatic predictions to a level of  specificity that is useful for resource managers (modeling at the  appropriate scale)
Currently, much data are collected among different entities. If all of the  data that are being collected could be inventoried and put in one place, a  lot could be done with these data.
Will federal forest lands make it easier or harder to meet some kind of  international obligations to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG). What if  federal forest lands are more susceptible to fire?
Many questions exist about carbon sequestration.
We need to know the direction of the net ecosystem exchange for  forests in the United States.
The mechanisms that control the loss of atmospheric carbon (carbon  sinks) are not well-understood and carbon turnover is not well-modeled.  Models might falsely project an elevated level of carbon storage.
There is uncertainty about the interactions among snow, groundwater,  streamflow, and vegetation in reducing flow regimes of the future. In  other words, how do these different elements of the hydrologic cycle  interact in a climate-challenged world?
How flexible (plastic) will individual species be in adapting to climate  change? Phenotypic plasticity of species is rarely discussed in the  modeling community, but is a significant consideration in the real world.  How are these differences associated with climate gradients?
What is the interaction of climate change and demographic changes in  assessing future vulnerability to climate change?
Sensitivity analysis of water balance—how much precipitation is  needed, and at what timing, to balance an increase in temperature? This  coupling between terrestrial ecosystems and water resources is in the  early stages of modeling and development.
Use the modeling technique previously mentioned to assess how  important precipitation uncertainty is given expectations about  temperature.
Aquatic ecosystems—we are probably experiencing longer durations of  late summer, low streamflow that is degrading aquatic ecosystems, but  no papers quantifying this have been released.
Management—how will land managers begin to address climate change  issues? It is a science issue of determining the most effective way of  addressing and coping with these changes.
Have scientists and managers come to consensus on the criteria or  indicators of ecosystem thresholds? We need research identifying  adequate research tools so that we can identify thresholds before they  happen.
What are the changed use patterns of federal lands? How does this  affect infrastructure? How will this affect the staffing and services that  the land management agency provides to the public? What are the  strategies for addressing these issues?
section_title: Day 2: Breakout Session Questions and Responses
subsections: section_title: Question 1
paragraphs: Given some of the potential climate-related effects on this  ecosystem described at yesterday’s session, what might be the  implications for your unit, including how it is used and managed?
subsections: section_title: Coasts and Oceans Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Panel members provided examples of implications on various land units  based on the climate-related effects of the scientific panel:  Lose acreage (inundation): On refuges, acreage will be lost due to storm  events in combination with sea level rise (increase in storm   surge) – Coastal plain of Louisiana (hardwood – swamp – fresh waters  marsh – barriers islands). Land is being lost in all of these. This is a  possibility for all federally managed lands that are prone to flooding.
Applies across the board (including national seashores and other  coastal assets), but may manifest differently, especially with human  development impacting the ability of species to migrate. There are   157 coastal refuges - Atlantic and Gulf coast salt marshes are the key  ecosystem type that is threatened by sea level rise – impacts ability to  support shorebirds and other species. Models of sea level rise identify  areas that will be impacted. The United States Geological Survey  Coastal Vulnerability index and maps are a good source for this  information.
Complete loss of low-lying islands: Islands of 1- to 3-meter elevation may  be lost. This could result in the loss of critical habitats and, therefore,  the loss of species that have no capacity for migration.
Transition of habitat: Inundation and saltwater intrusion will cause  different species to take over or existing species to move. For example,  the pine rockland habitat community in the lower Florida Keys is  shrinking due to declines in the extent of the fresh waters lens. As a  habitat is lost, the species that live in that habitat are lost as well. Beach  erosion is also a problem for some species, such as turtles that nest on  eroding beaches. Coastal development is also putting pressure on some  habitats. Federal lands are one of the last remaining undisturbed  habitats for some species, but these refuges can only protect fragments  of ecosystems. However, development, combined with sea level rise,  impact some refuge areas (e.g., Assateague Island). Federal lands are  also a unique tool to educate the public about habitats and species. If  these lands are lost, a very valuable educational tool will be lost.
Saltwater intrusion into fresh waters table: Dramatic effects on low- lying islands. For example, the only population of key deer is limited to  the lower Florida Keys because this is the only area with fresh waters.  The fresh waters lens loss is affecting species. Intrusion into surface  water as well for long periods of time changes habitats and species that  are supported.
Loss and alteration of intertidal habitats and sessile species (such as  sponges and coral polyps): Some species cannot move, so if certain  habitats are lost, the species is lost. Some man-made structures, such as  causeways, cause considerable alteration to natural areas. For example,  Hurricane Wilma’s storm surge of 6 feet led to extensive flooding.
Due to the broad realm of federal holdings, including holdings such as  the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), there is a great potential for  adaptive management and experiments (some are already under way).
Warm conditions creating low soil moisture conditions (brown marsh  events)
What happens to recreational usage, economy, and competition for  water resources when we start to respond to climate change? Per  capita density is heaviest along the coast—this compounds the  effects and the ability to respond with management strategies.
Climate change has not been considered in management plans. In the  Everglades, studies have found that interannual variable  precipitation is most important for the ecosystem. Far more  important than the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan  influence. If the future is drier, the restoration plan reduces  vulnerability, but not enough to offset the impact of climate change.
Infrastructure for ports and commerce: Engineering impacts—U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers is trying to figure out how to deal with  these issues. Dredged materials’ influence on habitat.
Much more pollution: Sea level rise and storm surges will increase  pollution along highly developed coastlines.
Coral bleaching: There is an increasing trend in occurrence of  bleaching and related diseases. Beginning in 1978, 1980 (fish die-off),  1982 (first basin-scale bleaching event, linked with climate change  drivers), and 1997—coral bleaching has expanded geographically and  intensified each time. Inshore reefs (1990—lost 65 percent of one  species, the Fire Coral), which are more resistant to bleaching, have  started to bleach. In 2005-2006, the Virgin Islands National Park lost  one-half of its live coral cover to bleaching and disease. Sea surface  temperatures drive coral bleaching. Dissolved oxygen and light are  also important. Higher metabolic rates, lower oxygen levels, and  greater stratification are all related to temperature. Lack of wind,  combined with the previous issues, results in large problems with  bleaching. The Florida Keys and U.S. Virgin Islands reefs would  provide a good case study for this issue.
Panel members provided the following examples of potential effects of the  previous list on the value of federal lands:  Economic impact—cultural and historical value—impact on Alaska  coastal societies and subsistence-based societies  Fisheries lost—subsistence economies, recreational economy, and   Outdoor recreation activities (approximately $5 billion in National  Wildlife Refuges alone) will be impacted. Much due to waterfowl  hunting. Some of these species will be impacted.
Coastal parks—75 million visits per year; $2.5 billion in revenues and  57,500 jobs generated for local economies.
Florida Keys—4 million visitors per year, resulting in 14.3 million visitor  days. Visitors to the Keys spend $1.2 billion dollars directly while  visiting. The Keys are dependent on snorkeling, scuba diving, and fishing  ($50-$70 million worth of seafood, totally dependent on a healthy coral  reef system).
Not limited to subsistence communities. Apalachicola Bay provides 70  percent of the oysters from Florida. The economy is dominated by  oyster production, but now the economy is shifting to retirees and  housing developments. Harmful algae blooms and toxins can limit  fisheries as well as coastal development.
According to the Department of Labor’s National Ocean Economics  Program, the United States’ coast accounts for more than 60 percent of  the Gross National Product. State-level data about this topic are  expected to be released (California and Florida also have studies).  Coasts drive the economy of coastal states.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spends significant amounts of money  on federal activities in coastal areas. If federal activities in these areas  are factored in, they have a huge multiplier to economic and resource  effects. Between the Corps and the Department of Transportation, much  money is spent on roads and bridges, etc., so impacts could be great.
Not all climate-related changes are bad. For example, the Arctic may  open up, presenting some economic opportunities in the area. Also,  there may be shrimp in the Chesapeake Bay as the ecosystem changes,  but pollution problems must be resolved. Change is a given over the  next 50 years, regardless of actions in changing greenhouse gas  emissions. However, changes in emissions can change the rate and  extent of the change. Adaptation is within the realm of influence for  some systems.
General loss of ecological integrity. Degrading ecological integrity. Need  to understand paleoclimatic context.
section_title: Forests Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: See Question 2 (Day 2).
section_title: Fresh Waters Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Participants identified the following potential climate-related effects on  this ecosystem:  Change in public use and visitor patterns  An NPS representative said that some park visitation levels,  particularly in colder climates, have been restricted by weather  conditions, resulting in a “self-selection” of visitors, based on their  willingness to participate in water activities in cold water. Climate  change is expected to result in a change of visitor patterns and may  also result in a wider use of the land’s resources and infrastructure.  As water temperatures increase, there have been more people using  the parks, sometimes in inappropriate or illegal ways. This requires  greater enforcement and rescue efforts, and may require more  frequent replacement of equipment or a change in infrastructure.  Because funding is not related to the number of visitors to a park, the  change in visitor patterns may impose an additional stress on park  managers. According to one expert commenting after completion of  the workshop, if climate change leads to substantial reduction in the  abundance of actively managed species, more-intensive management  plans may need to be developed, particularly on those federal lands  where consumptive uses are permitted (e.g., wildlife refuges).
An NPS representative said that NPS may face challenges in  preserving many cultural resources that were previously preserved  by dry conditions (e.g., archeological resources in the desert) or cold  waters (e.g., shipwrecks in the Great Lakes). With warmer conditions  and the possibility for increased erosion, cultural resources and  landscapes may be at risk of degradation.
Reduced supply of water during the summer season  A representative from the Bureau of Reclamation said that the  expected reduced summer season supply of fresh waters (due to  earlier and reduced snowmelt volumes), when demand is highest, is  likely to be exacerbated by a lower storage capacity in the winter  season (due to reservoir flood control rules being adjusted to reserve  more space, compensating for elevated snowlines and more of the  upstream watershed participating in runoff generation during  threshold storm events, according to this expert commenting after  completion of the workshop). This will likely cause an increase in the  cost of water. Land managers along the Great Lakes region expressed  similar concern, saying that lake levels may fall during dry periods,  requiring dredging near docks, extending docks, or limiting shipping  routes or recreational access to smaller vessels. Whether dredging or  limiting the size of ships in the Great Lakes, this is likely to have an  adverse economic impact.
As runoff volumes and patterns change, migration corridors may  open in some areas and close in others. This migration pattern  change may necessitate additional support for local and regional  wildlife, such as the introduction of migration corridors. Managers  asked fundamental management questions, including whether  particular mitigation and adaptation strategies (such as construction  of artificial migration corridors) were necessary, and, if so, under  what conditions. An FWS manager said that it was important to also  consider the risks associated with implementing particular  strategies.
section_title: Grasslands and Shrublands Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Representatives of four federal land management agencies (BLM, FS, FWS,  and NPS) described some of the challenges they face on their land types.  The group generally agreed that, because all grassland and shrubland  ecosystem types are likely to change, there are going to be cascading  effects on public lands. The full group—including participants from the  previous day’s discussion on impacts—further agreed on some  management-related issues that apply across all agencies and developed  the following overarching statement:  Because all of these ecosystems will change, and there will be cascading  effects for all major land management agencies, there are several issues  of concern: (1) managers of individual management units need to  recognize that the entire system is vulnerable to vegetation change,   (2) increased coordination and strategic planning across isolated units  are needed to increase management effectiveness and minimize  ecosystem/species losses due to climate change, (3) agencies need  additional resources to address these issues, and (4) agencies need an  overall mandate and a coordinated approach to address the climate  change issue.
In addition, the group noted the following:  Agencies cannot easily process new information due to current  bureaucratic structures. (They lack the agility to adapt quickly to new  scientific information.) Climate change will most affect federal lands  and these lands will be the reservoirs containing the species that will  populate the earth in the future. However, climate change is currently  not a priority in agencies that manage the federal lands.
The following is a summary of some of the specific concerns identified by  representatives of BLM, FS, FWS, and NPS with respect to the types of  units they manage:  Land cover conversions are occurring as a result of wildfire in the Great  Basin. The challenge is to reestablish sagebrush cover, which is very  difficult to do, but these cover types are critical from a habitat and  species management perspective. (The same thing is also occurring in   Water cycles and managing water resources on the rangelands are   Riparian areas are important on BLM lands, as they represent critical   A key BLM task, the allocation of forage resources among wildlife,  livestock, and watershed needs, may need to change if resources are  changing (i.e., if temperature and precipitation patterns change). To  date, BLM has not managed with this possibility in mind.
Red brome is a nonnative annual grass that flourishes in warm climates. It competes with  other grasses and displaces native species. The grass sprouts early in the spring, grows  quickly, and dies, leaving a dense carpet of dry grass that carries fire.
Riparian areas are those on the bank of a natural watercourse, such as a river, or  sometimes a lake or tidewater.
BLM does not manage landscapes. Rather, it manages smaller planning   Managing habitat under severe drought conditions will be a challenge. If  droughts become more severe, how should FS manage national  grasslands? How should FS manage for changes in species and habitats  (e.g., sage grouse, other birds, mammals, etc.)?
Reduction and loss of wooded habitats—including, to name a few,  juniper woodlands, pine woodlands, green ash, and cottonwood flood  plains—is a concern.
The ESA obligates federal land management agencies to prevent loss of  species, yet species will inevitably shift due to climate change. The  question arises as to how to meet the intent of the ESA while also  managing for the shift in species. (If the FS mandate is to recover an  endangered species, but the systems that support that species no longer  exist, what do we do?)
Climate change represents a moving target: What are we managing  toward, given that the historical policy has been to manage for the status  quo (i.e., policy to manage for pre-European habitats, mandates to  manage for native species)?
Invasive species will be a major issue, particularly invasive cheatgrass  and invading bromes.
Better regional models and multiple scenarios are needed to help in the  decision-making process.
Some rare prairie and savanna types are being lost at a rapid rate. For  example, oak barrens at the northern edge of the United States are a  type of dry savanna that is critical for certain threatened and  endangered species that are being lost. Some of these oak barrens  support threatened and endangered species—such as the Karner blue  butterfly, for example, which is dependent upon lupine, a plant species  that grows in the barrens.
Phenological relationships may be threatened, especially C3 and C4  plant species composition and relationships and all fauna—both  vertebrates and invertebrates—that are associated with them.
Species currently on the edge of the range in which they can survive  may become important as future “last survivors” of their species. This is  an issue in the dry areas of the tallgrass region, for example. New areas  may become the main part of the range. As temperature or water  availability changes, favorable habitat may shift from one geographic  area to another. For a nonmobile species, such as plants or certain  invertebrates, rare outholdings may serve as sources for repopulation if  new areas become favorable to its growth. For example, a species in a  warm, moist area of midwestern grassland that is becoming hot and dry  may cease to exist where it was previously most common. A small  population existing in a cooler area with a shorter growing season in  suboptimal conditions for the species may become the main part of the  range if that area becomes warmer, with an extended growing season.
Riparian areas may be threatened as a result of both drought and  temperature increases. This could have implications for certain species,  such as sandhill and whooping cranes, for which water habitats are  important for migration. “Funneling points” where birds congregate  prior to migration may disappear.
Lowland oak savannas (rare ecosystem) that occur in oxbows (a bend in  a river) and wet areas will be threatened if water disappears or if the  timing of water changes (e.g., if snowmelts come earlier). Timing,  frequency, and intensity of wildfires may also threaten these savannas as  the environment becomes drier.
Mychorrizal fungi live in and around the roots of most plants, serving as a secondary root  system. Mychorrizae extract mineral elements and water for their host plants and live off  the plants’ sugars. They may confer increased resistance to pathogens to the plants’ roots.
The skills and abilities to reconstruct natural systems need to be  developed so that buffers can be developed in critical areas for effective  connection of land management areas.
FWS has guidance for many things, such as maintaining biological   The current FWS approach to addressing climate change is ad hoc and   Lack of baseline data is a key issue; without it, managers do not know  what they are losing and how fast. The cost of baseline data is high.  Protocols for monitoring are also needed (e.g., for monitoring  phenological changes and rate of increases of invasive species). A  mechanism for interpretation of these data is necessary for the agency   Managers also need guidance and acquisition policies to maintain   FWS is also unprepared for the increasing pressures of using federal   The NPS management policies address individual issues, but the agency  has no explicit guidance on climate change, except that NPS “can’t  change the weather” (i.e., practice cloud-seeding.) The Park Service’s  Organic Act, which created NPS and defines its mission, is very general.  There is no mention in the act of ecosystems or climate change; the  guidance to protect resources is implied.
Because guidance in the Organic Act is implied, different managers have  different ideas on how to interpret the Park Service’s Organic Act with  respect to climate change, since the act, which was created in the early  part of the 20th century, does not explicitly address climate change.  Therefore, some managers will attempt to address climate-related  issues, and others will not. In addition, each individual park has enabling  legislation that gives additional guidance along with the Organic Act.  Thus, each park has its own set of mandates based on the type of park,  and there is no single, coordinated approach. The public approval  process is also inconsistent. For example, if climate change is  mentioned in the course of the public comment process for park general  management plans, NPS addresses the issue. However, if it is not  brought up, it is not addressed.
Since federal lands are not contiguous, and there is development  between habitat corridors, agencies could cooperate more, particularly  with respect to planning corridors for endangered species. The  Cooperative Ecosystem Study Unit (CESU) is an existing tool that has  not been fully utilized but could be utilized to conduct regional-scale,  cross-ownership boundary climate change effects.
More adaptation is needed in the national parks. Planners should be  trained to take possible climate change into consideration. However,  this may be challenging because every park has different enabling  legislation. NPS currently sponsors a Climate-Friendly Parks initiative  with the Environmental Protection Agency. The goal of the initiative is  to educate park personnel so they can educate the public. Emissions  inventories are conducted for member parks and included in  Environmental Management Systems (EMS). The focus is on  greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, not necessarily adaptation,  although bigger culverts have been suggested for under the Going-to- the-Sun Road at Glacier National Park to accommodate waters resulting  from faster, more concentrated melting of snow or ice, and NPS has  built portable bathhouses on some barrier islands where severe storms  and flooding are problems. Also, the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse was  moved in response to rising sea levels. (At the time, they called it merely  “coastal erosion, but it is also a result of sea level rise, a climate change  effect.)
section_title: Question 2
paragraphs: What are the challenges, constraints, and limitations associated  with adapting to the effects of climate change for this type of  federal land?
subsections: section_title: Coasts and Oceans Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Panel members discussed multiple challenges facing land managers in the  coasts and oceans ecosystem in adapting to the effects of climate change.  Panel members gave the following examples of challenges based on  management guidance, planning processes, and other general challenges  and constraints:  Wildlife refuges: Created under a variety of acts and executive orders.
Some refuges have their own enabling legislation. The Refuge  Improvement Act is one recent example in the system history that looks  beyond certain species in a more holistic manner. Refuges often have no  specific guidance. This issue is being raised more often in the planning  process. FWS briefing statements for next 5 or 6 years, address certain  places. There are rapidly developing models to project sea level rise.  Also have increased consideration of climate change in land acquisition  processes. This is driven by managers and planners. $20-$50 million per  year for land acquisition, trying to shift paradigm inland and upland in  general to catch transition zones to accommodate marsh migration.  Little support from political leadership to address these issues  comprehensively. No leadership example set in agencies to sit down or  even use specific terms in political statements.
Marine sanctuaries: No formal guidance, but open to talking about  climate change if there are quantifiable data.
NPS: No specific climate change-related guidance, but must base  decisions on best available science. This is based on statutory guidance  in the Thomas Bill.
Common theme: Guidance is bottom up, not top down. It mainly comes  from constituents through the planning process.
Wildlife refuges: The public is starting to call for consideration of  climate change in the planning process. Comprehensive Conservation  Plans (CCP)—have started to address climate change impacts in more  recent plans.
Climate change vulnerability issues have begun to get consideration in  some planning efforts. For example, collaborating with state agencies to  redefine the purposes of shellfish leasing from harvesting to  conservation and buying commercial fishing licenses.
Marine sanctuaries: Management plans are being rewritten. Each  sanctuary has advisory councils that bring up concerns. Climate change  has been a driving factor in the Florida Keys since the early 1990s. This  process is bottom up.
In general, the planning process is midlevel or below in the federal  government—bottom-up guidance is driven by constituents. The states  are taking the lead in some cases (e.g., California).
Some federal lands have static boundaries and, in some cases, very  specific purposes. This limits management options.
Global changes and local impacts: On a local scale, managing particular  units, not a lot of control over the big drivers. Certain changes will  happen, such as temperature increase. Local action is needed to manage  these impacts. With big climate changes out of management control,  managers have responsibility and jurisdiction to control the local  factors that they can potentially influence. Need to look at local  management regimes in light of climate change. New options need to be  examined, such as buying upstream land or establishing local planning  boards.
Dollar limitations: FWS land acquisition dollars have declined from  about $125 million in 1999 to $10 million more recently. This impacts the  ability of FWS to manage the lands it has, let alone buy additional lands.  Furthermore, the agency is spending more on current holdings to  expand and adjust.
Preserving ecosystem values and services: One way to do this is to build  resiliency into current holdings by protecting areas that are minimally  impacted, and to identify additional lands—resources that are not  federally controlled, but that can be influenced through federal  interaction with other landholders.
Institutional: There is a lack of top-down leadership. The federal  legislative branch has the opportunity to take the leadership role and fill  the vacuum. There are also impediments within agencies. Management  impediments exist between field and higher-level leadership (if any  higher-level leadership exists). Conflicting agency missions—different  agencies have different missions. Some agencies focus on conservation,  others extraction.
Education and public buy-in (climate literacy): Most people do not  understand the long-term nature of climate and think it is too complex  to understand. When they see the “debate” they do not understand the  fundamentals and think there is actually uncertainty regarding whether  climate change exists. This does not reflect scientific consensus. Within  the scientific community, there is no debate over the reality of climate  change and its human cause. The climate change issue is not on the  public agenda. This issue needs to be posed by showing its impact on  the economy and everyday activities. Coastal community resilience  indicators and self-assessment tools are being developed to assist  coastal communities to plan for impacts. Remarkable recent change in  public awareness of climate change has occurred in some areas, but  other areas do not have much public enthusiasm about climate change.  There is an EPA study about perception, discontinuous appreciation of  the issue after Hurricane Katrina. People perceive that Katrina was  associated with climate change. This has recently led to a much greater  appreciation of climate change.
Lack of information: The Thomas Bill requires NPS to manage resources  using the best available science. Established inventory and monitoring  networks are based on bioregions. Models and indicators are needed to  track ecology. Climate is playing a role. Local- and regional-scale  modeling of specific ecosystems, not artificial boundaries, is important  and necessary to plan appropriately. Barriers also exist with state, local,  and other land-use management agencies. When the information is  available, it is easier to designate protected areas and preserve  ecosystems. To demonstrate performance of reserves, more information  on the functioning of systems and species connectivity and better  understanding of other stressors, such as bleaching and disease, are  needed. Is leadership paying attention to the information available?
Shift from historic paradigm to looking to the future: For example,  should money be spent on prescribed burning to preserve pine rockland  that will not exist in 50 years? It is important to set up a system for  future managers.
Scientific debate (endless debate after science has been established as  well): Gives decision makers a reason not to make a decision. Adaptive  management needs to take over—needs to move with the majority of  scientists, both at the management and leadership levels. For example,  out of 928 papers, none disagreed with IPCC’s assessment. Scientific  debate is over; however, public debate is ongoing.
Setting aside protected areas conflicts with economic goals: For  example, fishery extraction is limited or prohibited in protected areas,  just as timber extraction is prohibited on some terrestrial protected  areas. This raises two questions: Is there an ecological limit to the  production and consumption of goods and services? Is there a conflict  between increasing production and consumption of goods and services  (i.e., economic growth) and ecological health? If so, then protected  areas and conservation lands will be encroached upon or degraded as  long as economic growth ensues. This implies that biological  conservation and environmental protection entails macroeconomic  policy reform.
Economy is primarily driven by fossil fuels: With fossil fuel combustion  constituting the primary source of greenhouse gases, and with an  economy that is 85 percent fossil-fueled, ceteris paribus, economic  growth entails more global warming. Does the goal of economic growth  trump the need for a stabilized climate? Does the pursuit of economic  growth, which imperils the stability of global climate, likewise imperil  future economic prospects?
Need for an integrated approach: Climate change, land-based sources of  pollution, habitat and hydrologic alteration, invasive species, and  overfishing are the major management challenges. There is a need for  integrated approaches to deal with all of these challenges. EPA  completed a relative risk analysis of stressors across the country and  came up with the previous factors, plus invasive species, as  management challenges.
Burden of proof to take actions: The burden is on federal land managers  to prove that conservation areas work. Land managers are constantly  defending themselves against consumer groups. For example, protected  areas are important to sustain fish harvests. Marine reserves and  limiting the taking of species (“takes”) can help. In the tropics, this is  much more important to demonstrate that the reserves work. In  temperate and higher latitude areas, marine reserves and limiting takes  do not always work because of differences in ecosystem functions due  to highly mobile fish species. In tropical areas, fish are there because of  the reefs. On other fishing grounds, fish are mobile; but some reserves  have worked. This is known as spatial nature. In tropical areas, fish are  site-attached.
Conflict between federal and state water management: About 85 percent  of existing protected waters are state waters. If resource managers can  agree on commonly held conservation goals, needs, priorities, and  threats, they will have more commonalities than differences: Oceans are  connected. We need to transcend administrative authority barriers. All  share the same threats and issues. If these were drivers of debate,  jurisdictional authority issues would go by the wayside.
Ocean/Land interface: Improve management of land-based resources as  they relate to the coasts (coastal watersheds). Need to maintain critical  streamflows for anadromous fisheries (e.g., Sacramento River National  Wildlife Refuge for Chinook and Coastal Alaska).
section_title: Forests Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Forests ecosystem workshop participants from FWS, FS, and NPS  identified the following management challenges and constraints:  Climate change will demand a paradigm shift on how FWS approaches  its mission—essentially, species conservation/preservation—due to  paradigm shifts in climate regime and the related impacts on species.
The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act directs the National Wildlife Refuge  System to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and  environmental health are maintained for the benefit of present and  future generations of Americans.” The impacts of climate change will  impose an enormous burden on the National Wildlife Refuge System,  depending on how “biological integrity, diversity, and environmental  health” are interpreted.
Examples of unprecedented change abound in the Kenai National  Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, including anomalies related to fire events,  glacial retreat, tree line rise, wetland decrease, species shifts, and insect  infestations. Other wildlife refuges may face similarly unpredictable or  unexpected disturbances, so managers may need to make  preparations/plans on the basis of assumptions that are fundamentally  different from the past. The appropriate document for managers to  develop would be a CCP.
Many National Wildlife Refuges and Waterfowl Management Areas are  inherently at risk due to small size, sensitivity (many are wetlands), and  location (i.e., coastal).
There will be a need to revisit assumptions about regeneration,  management, and system resetting activities.
Climate change will require a reexamination of the multitude of fragile  partnerships developed for the protection/preservation of land use (e.g.,  the Northwest Partnership to secure viability of spotted owl habitat was  hindered by massive fire damage).
Climate change will require managers to work beyond administrative  borders, so arrangements that encourage groups and organizations to  come together are needed.
The body of legislation that regulates day-to-day management was  developed in the social context of the 1970s. Managers today are still  bound to backward-looking viewpoints, while climate change issues  loom tomorrow.
Of the major ongoing fire management activities, some are not being  developed with climate change or long-term monitoring in mind. For  example, LANDFIRE, an interagency project generated by the 2000  National Fire Plan, does not address monitoring effectively and does not  incorporate the concepts of climate change.
Climate change may cause NPS to reexamine its role in view of its  fundamental mission, which in part involves “conserving wildlife and  historic objects for future generations.”
Climate change will affect the ability of NPS to fulfill its mandate to  preserve certain species, which may not be able to migrate away and,  therefore, will face die-off.
Climate change will challenge NPS’s ability to achieve some broad  mission goals, such as maintaining visitation levels and preserving  cultural resources, in view of increased climate variability, such as  storms, floods, fires, and extreme heat and cold.
Climate change will challenge NPS’s ability to manage insect outbreaks  and invasive species events.
Federal land systems are fixed on the landscape, while climate has no  boundaries, posing challenges for managing an administrative unit that  does not move with the climate.
In some cases, policies and laws, geared toward responding to events as  they occur, constrain the ability of managers to incorporate anticipated  events into planning and to incorporate climate change within the  context of natural diversity.
Managers lack risk assessment or approaches that allow for the  inclusion of climate change and demographic change in planning  activities.
Political pressure to do something, regardless of whether it is likely to  be effective in reducing the actual risk or whether it was appropriate for  that system, can be a challenge.
Defining “natural variability” by looking at snapshots of the past is not  appropriate; regardless, the future will be different, whether it is  considered “natural” or not; no accurate predictions exist; and preparing  for the future in the face of this uncertainty is challenging.
Climate change effects will exacerbate other environmental stresses  and already existing problems.
There is some degree of disconnect about the nature of agencies’  mandates with respect to climate change and, accordingly, differences  in the interpretation and implementation of such guidance at the  management level.
Managers operate in an administrative environment that is highly  fragmented. Stakeholders include FS as well as landowners, state  agencies, and industry. Climate change effects span large areas, creating  problems that defy remedy along administrative lines. No one has all the  information, which punctuates the importance of having infrastructure  in place to develop a shared vision of issues and solutions.
The social interface between research and management is lacking. For  example, social factors play an important role in determining which  fires are suppressed and which are not. Although researchers may  provide rational, scientifically based recommendations to managers,  legal and social constraints may take precedence.
section_title: Fresh Waters Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: fresh waters ecosystem workshop participants identified the following  management challenges and constraints:  Various water rights laws create problems.
According to a USGS scientist, certain western water allocations and  rights were established during a relatively wet period in the history of  the United States (the wettest 15-year period in the history of the  United States). As water resources become scarce, and competing  demands increase, NPS and FWS land managers face pressure  regarding use of water resources, and several of the land managers  expressed concern over whether enough water resources would be  set aside for ecosystem functions. An FWS land manager said that the  agency has a very limited ability to convincingly state water  requirements to protect fish habitat and aquatic ecosystems. Land  managers believed that competing demands for water resources are  largest in areas of rapid development, such as Las Vegas, Nevada.  Other water-stressed areas include groundwater reserves under parts  of Nebraska and Kansas. Land managers believed that a collaborative  effort to equitably assign water rights was necessary, otherwise  public lands would suffer. Some suggested that the Congress should  reassess the mandates regarding water allocation.
A USGS representative said that it will be increasingly difficult to  obtain hydrologic information from USGS because funding for the  agency’s stream gauging network and hydrological data is being  eliminated. According to the USGS representative commenting after  completion of the workshop, many core monitoring efforts are being  reduced unless USGS can find funding through other, nonagency  budget means. A NPS representative believed that the eastern United  States already faces water challenges, and that human demand for  water puts added strain on eastern aquatic ecosystems.
In addition to complexities associated with various water laws and a dearth  of hydrologic data, managers face reduced management options if  interrelated water supply systems are affected, and increased complexity  regarding mitigation of protracted droughts or reservoir spills.
Organic Acts and some statutory requirements are explicitly vague.
NPS is asked to manage land such that it is “unimpaired for the  enjoyment of future generations,” and FS is required to manage in  order to maintain “favorable conditions of flow.” An FS scientist  explained that it is difficult to manage flow regimes with respect to a  historic range or variability because of the added stress associated  with climate change and increased demand for water resources.  Many land managers believed that the mandates are vaguely written  and not specific to ecological preservation. An FWS land manager  said that land managers react based on statutory requirements,  which presumably reflect human societal values; however, other land  managers believed that the general public and the Congress do not  have a clear understanding of the purpose of the federal lands.
Management planning horizons and climate change are on different  timescales.
NPS and FWS officials said that planning can be difficult with so  much uncertainty about future climate conditions. Accountability  structures that have emerged over the past decade are very short  term in nature. For example, land managers are typically accountable  for things on a year-to-year time frame, and “long-term” planning  horizons are commonly just 10 to 15 years. An FWS land manager  explained that he is required to create a general management plan on  a 15-year planning horizon, which he believed was too short for  incorporating management practices for addressing long-term  climate change, although he also believed that decisions beyond the  10- to 15-year time frame would be very speculative. An NPS  superintendent suggested that management plans may help address  this timing issue by including a section on long-range issues expected  beyond the time frame of the plan. For example, long-term planning  in coastal areas will need to consider rising sea levels, and consider  whether the management decisions being made today are also  relevant for the future. This will require adaptability and will require  that each management agency consider how climate change may  affect its mission in the long term.
Land management has historically been intuitive.
Because climate is expected to change more rapidly than in the past,  managers will have a difficult time making assumptions about future  conditions to justify anticipatory land management practices, and  any assumptions will have to be justifiable. Managers believed that  land management has historically been intuitive, and they expressed  concern over their ability to react quickly if they were to reach a  threshold and experience a relatively quick, dramatic change. Land  managers cited the example of the whooping crane, whose  population decreased to such a low level in the past that FWS had to  embark on an intensive program of management. The agency is  improving models to help determine continental population  objectives to help make management decisions.
Political hazards are associated with discussing climate change.
Land managers and scientists believed that it is not politically  profitable to talk about climate change. An FWS representative said  that climate change impacts are not explicitly addressed in agency  strategic plans, but may occur at a unit level, for example in the  Kenai or Blackwater National Wildlife Refuges’ management plans.  An NPS representative agreed, saying that the agency may discuss  “sea level rise” rather than referring directly to climate change. NPS  has decided to talk about the effect of climate change, such as the  sustainability of parks, and has implemented programs, such as  “Climate Friendly Parks,” to mitigate those effects.
Participants generally stated that land managers have to accept the notion  of climate change in order to develop a recovery plan. For example,  regarding the polar bear, land managers must decide whether to list the  species under the ESA, based on what is likely to happen to the species as a  result of climate change.
section_title: Grasslands and Shrublands Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session
paragraphs: Grasslands and shrublands ecosystem workshop participants identified the  following management challenges and constraints:  BLM does not have any policy from the national office to the field   A possible entree for bringing up climate change might be through   BLM field offices address their situation with respect to current climate   BLM has been involved in seed-banking for about 5 or 6 years through  its fire rehab program. The agency collects native seeds for this purpose,  and some of the seeds go to a botanical garden for storage.
There is no real direction trickling down of guidance from the FS Chief’s  level. FS talks about sustainability but does not discuss climate change  per se.
One of the barriers to managing for climate change on national  grasslands is that some FS lands are intermingled with private or state  lands. Therefore, even if FS buys off on climate change, it is necessary to  have the private landowners on board and in agreement. Being able to  manage a system with the fragmented ownership and landscapes is a  challenge; it is difficult to impart an understanding of what climate  change means to private landowners and having them believe it.
The way the public involvement process works on multiple-use federal  lands can really complicate discussions like adaptive management.  There is a general mistrust in some circles of FS use of the adaptive  management concept.
Another challenge is that the process for planning is outpaced by the  speed of scientific information coming in. Science is coming down the  pike faster than it can be processed. The agency will start its planning  process, and new information will come in that cannot be addressed  because the planning process will not allow for it.
Land management planning is complicated by this country’s litigious  society. Certain groups are able to obtain scientific information and sue  the agency for taking or not taking certain actions; these groups can sue  quicker than an agency can incorporate new science.
FS may recognize that climate change is important, but the agency does  not see it as urgent. A demonstration of urgency might make the agency  view the issue as a priority.
section_title: Question 3
paragraphs: What land management practices or approaches to planning may be  considered when responding to the effects of climate change?
subsections: section_title: Coasts and Oceans Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Panel members provided examples of steps that can be taken in land  management planning that are important to consider in order to better  respond to the effects of climate change:  Planning for resilience on a large scale: Set relatively undisturbed areas  aside to limit impacts. Identify more resilient communities to help  preserve them for the future. Marine reserves are a promising  management tool for adapting to climate change by managing for  resilience. Remove the effects of fishing as a stressor. For example,  Australia set aside one-third of reefs as protected areas. Showcase  Marine Protected Areas that are multiagency (state and federal) state  partnerships as “poster children” to decision makers. Such partnerships  can demonstrate the effects of reserves.
Best practices: National Association of Counties, etc., to adopt best  practices for lands management. Look at the past and the future.  Prioritize investment of resources on habitats that may be impacted in  the future. Consider the past, but plan for the future.
Needed: A coastal manager’s guide to climate change similar to A Reef  Manager’s Guide to Coral Bleaching, a 2006 report on ways that local  managers can help make coral systems more resilient to manage  stresses during bleaching events and plan for future bleaching events.  Workshops and training courses are in development. Managers need a  coastal land manager’s guide and training course for how to plan for,  adapt to, and mitigate climate change on federal holdings.
National Estuarine Research Reserve Conceptual Models: Climate  change is important, but not the only thing that is important. Climate  change creates multiple stressors, but other stressors also affect the  coastal system. Emphasize cumulative stressors within the ecosystem  management context. Plan needs to be in context with other stressors.  Integrate watershed-level planning with coastal management  adaptation.
Manage fishing and its impacts on marine and coastal environments  ESA critical habitat designations: Can prevent extinctions and provides  land acquisition authority for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Legislation to create refuges: Use the following as a model to protect  marine areas: wildlife (ecosystem services) first, wildlife-dependent  public uses, where appropriate, based on compatibility assessments.  Using the management paradigm of limiting fishes in order to limit  commercial harvests. Other agencies have different missions. Need  regional demonstration projects.
Natural capital banking: Optimize the ratio of natural capital existing in  a state of ecological integrity to the ratio of manufactured capital and  consumer goods that flow from the stock of natural capital. Create a  balanced account to optimize the public welfare. What about things that  cannot easily be measured economically? Resource economists are  working on this—need improved methodologies for valuing ecological  services.
Cooperative conservation approach: Beyond government jurisdiction—  adopt a seamless approach for managing coastal zones and marine  waters that allows for adaptation to climate change (migration, etc.).  Need to include public, private landowners, and interested constituents.  Manage the greater ecosystem. Also need this approach for monitoring  programs.
Restore hydrology and wetlands functioning: This can be done, for  example, by constructing weirs (small dams) and increasing the land’s  capacity to adapt to changes. Learn about anticipated future conditions  and build/remove infrastructure as necessary. Remove ditches, roads,  etc., as necessary. “Retreat” (i.e., moving man-made structures) is an  option.
Change incentives for building in high-risk areas, for example, by  mapping erosion zones. Higher resolution coastal mapping of flood,  erosion, other high-risk zones. Offer tax incentives for conservation  easements or to move to different areas? In North Carolina, people can  be reimbursed for destroyed coastal property, but the property will then  be placed in public hands. Rolling easements (past example: Upton- Jones Amendment). In Louisiana, the Federal Emergency Management  Agency has provided funds to wetland mitigation projects for storm  protection. This program should be expanded beyond wetlands.  Mitigation pays 4:1 across the country, but 7:1 in coastal areas. The cost  of adapting now would be less than paying later.
There is a tremendous lack of investment in adaptation at this time,  but investment in the future may change this ratio. We may not be  able to spend our way out of this problem.
Florida coastal control line: Line drawn around the boundaries where  overwash is expected. Setback lines in combination with building  requirements and permitting in areas at risk. For example, the Maryland  Critical Areas Act is intended to stop eutrophication of the bay with  setbacks, but serves a similar purpose. These concepts should be  enhanced using scientifically based lines.
Florida water management districts: Management boundaries are based  on watershed boundaries. These districts have taxation authority.  Boundaries are contiguous with natural boundaries, allowing the  districts to address watershed-scale issues.
United Kingdom Climate Impacts Program: Good model for what can be  done at a national and local level to enhance adaptive capacity. This  program provides a Web site (http://www.ukcip.org.uk/) and a monthly  newsletter, and each political subdivision in the United Kingdom has a  devoted team to help people adapt in all sectors. One potential  suggestion to the Congress: Create a Climate Impacts Office, which  would be distinct from Climate Change Science Program and the  Climate Change Technology Program, and create a climate change  extension program in every county.
Coastal Barriers Resources Act: Private lands are demarcated as  relatively immune to development. Delivery of the program is  problematic due to top-down approach. This is a half-hearted fix to the  problem.
Work with insurance and financial industry to construct incentives for  mitigation and adaptation. Need to also focus on what could be, not just  what has already happened. Also need to include incentives for other  coastal areas at risk, including New York, etc.
Need to build a community of practice. Expand the community of  practice, such as local land trusts, and expand influence.
section_title: Forests Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Workshop participants contributed the following ideas with regard to  management options for addressing or mitigating climate change effects:  A monitoring strategy that is affordable and reflective of some of the key  vital signs of forests is needed to inform management decisions.
One approach is to conduct vulnerability assessments to identify  characteristics associated with species loss, and to pay special attention  to those species most threatened.
The Kenai National Wildlife Refuge has launched the Long-Term  Ecological Monitoring Program in cooperation with FS’s Forest  Inventory and Analysis Program, in which vegetation data are coupled  with wildlife sampling to produce a spatial explicit, comprehensive  species inventory. The program has already resulted in the identification  of new species to science and the modeling of species distributions.
The Kenai National Wildlife Refuge also helped launched the Alaska  Landscape Cumulative Effects Simulator, a stock-and-flow model to  which several stakeholders—public, private, and nonprofit agents, and  other communities and groups—contribute. The main objective of the  simulator is to provide a strategic-level land planning tool by identifying  and examining landscape change drivers, including climate change, in  the context of other management issues to provide an effective strategic  land planning tool.
What is needed is a national data repository and a separate Bureau of  Statistics to provide a holistic portrayal of the status of the landscape.  This will facilitate collaboration and address the issue that the sum of  local level choices may result in a suboptimal or counterproductive  aggregate outcome. In one instance, individual agency actions resulted  in threatening the spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest. A holistic view  also will address the issue that, although information is abundant, much  of it is not comparable or compatible. Some did not agree with this  approach.
While research needs to be conducted iteratively over time to reach a  level of certainty, managers need information in real time to make  decisions. The needs gap may be closed by using better communication  tools.
FS tools developed for broad-scale application do not have capability at  the species level, which managers would like. Developing such high- resolution models should be a research goal.
One approach to scenario modeling is to use it to convey possibilities to  the public, to change expectations and alleviate pressure on land  managers, which provides more freedom to make the correct decision.
The concept of moral hazard, the idea that climate change is inevitable,  should not be used as a reason for inaction.
The question of where to invest resources has been ignored. Should a  billion dollars be put toward trying to slow the rate of climate change,  fending off its effects, or adapting?
Five basic management strategies are being submitted for consideration  in an upcoming paper: (1) reduce GHGs by sequestering carbon, (2)  resist climate change by legislating that the landscape remain as it has  been historically (this approach is increasing in cost and is likely  doomed to fail), (3) create resilient landscapes that can revert to their  previous state after a disturbance, (4) respond to climate change by  anticipating change and seizing opportunities, and (5) conduct triage by  acknowledging priorities in conservation efforts (this approach would  be legislatively challenging).
There is a need for an agreed-upon suite of indicators that address  social, economic, and ecological vital signs of the sustainability of forest  lands. The research community can help identify such indicators by  leveraging ongoing developmental systems, such as the Sustainable  Forest Roundtable process.
FS is testing a program that utilizes a combination of high-elevation  aircraft and helicopters to produce low-cost imagery at a half-a-meter  resolution that can be linked to models and indicator systems, thereby  providing scalability.
The nation’s satellite system currently is not equipped to improve the  problem of out-of-date National Forest land cover information. There is  no operational commitment to conduct regular reporting on the actual  state of land cover. It will be at least 5 to 7 years before 30-meter  resolution data become available.
Land managers are heavily dependent on technology platforms for  information, but as technology changes continuity and reliability  become a serious issue; there is a need for better integration of existing  inventory monitoring programs that are scaled at the landscape level.
The Healthy Forest Restoration Act has brought people together to  manage fuel treatment strategically, rather than on an acre-by-acre  basis.
An ecological risk assessment framework, in which a desired outcome is  identified and trade-offs discussed with stakeholders, is better than a  “support-this-but-not-that” triage approach, which limits options and  discussion.
section_title: Fresh Waters Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Land managers had some difficulty in identifying management practices for  specifically addressing the effects of climate change. They said they are  likely to draw on historic practices, although the frequency of the use of  each practice may change. In general, they saw opportunities for public  outreach and collaboration across federal agencies.
Opportunity for public outreach and education  Managers of federal lands said that the federal lands with visitor  centers provided an opportunity for people to learn about the  benefits that protected areas provide to the public. A USGS official  said that several USGS employees were told explicitly not to  interpret climate trends for the public, but NPS officials said that  they had more latitude for public outreach and education as part of  the park interpretive experience. The management structure at each  park has flexibility to include public outreach efforts, and workshop  participants said that each park should take advantage of this. Land  managers said that the Congress should mandate that parks  incorporate public outreach and education as a low-cost, effective  part of management practices. Participants also said that land  management agencies should jointly fund facility investments and  minimize energy use.
Use of historic record for planning  A scientist from USGS suggested that land managers look at  paleostudies, including the National Tree Ring Database, to  understand past climate variability and hydrologic responses.  Because some ecosystems have already gone through analogous  changes as are expected with climate change, land managers can  learn from past periods of drought during the past several hundred  years. If severe droughts of the past are becoming the “norm” of the  future, land managers should address this in management plans. The  scientist believed that the historic record may be a better planning  tool than current general circulation models, since many of the  climate models are poor predictors of precipitation.
Collaboration among federal land management agencies  A representative from NPS said that BLM has fragmented landscapes  and migration corridors because of a mandate requiring the agency to  expedite energy development. Panelists generally agreed that this  could have been avoided, if BLM were required to cooperate with  other federal land management agencies as part of the energy  development efforts.
Panelists further identified “economies of scale,” including examples  where it is more efficient for agencies to work together. They cited  the National Interagency Fire Center as a successful model of  incident management (e.g., fire suppression). Although an FWS  representative said that collaboration among agencies can be  inefficient, since agencies have differing missions and priorities.  However, the panelists generally agreed that the agencies have some  common interests with respect to climate change, which may  necessitate the need for fire protection, cooperative snow surveys,  groundwater data collection, regional model development, and data  collection and dissemination, in general. An FS representative  believed that USGS has a clear role to support agencies’ need for  water resource (hydrology) data, and to coordinate and share  information. He believed that USGS was developed to address  emerging needs and issues, but this function has recently been  outsourced. For example, approximately 28 percent of USGS stream  gauges have been eliminated over the past decade, and the current  USGS long-term monitoring and research function is a user-pay,  client-based system that is less useful than many university-level  efforts.
Panelists generally agreed that monitoring and research functions  related to climate change are inherently governmental functions,  because of the need for national-scale data that must be beyond the  range of a single appropriations cycle or contract period.
Although land managers discussed the possibility of physically  managing and manipulating an animal habitat to maintain species  health in a location where the environment would no longer naturally  support the species (presumably due to changed water availability),  this option was not viewed as optimal because it may require  considerable infrastructure investments.
Reevaluate the concept of ecological succession  Experts believed that climate change impacts will result in species  shifts, and may require a paradigm shift in the way that land  managers think about and react to invasive species. For example,  invasive species in a particular region may become the norm under a  new climate regime. When treated as an invasive species, rather than  part of natural ecological succession, there is a tendency to make  value judgments (based on an ecological response, rate of  disturbance, etc.) and fight against the species. Land managers  considered what control of invasive species is likely to resemble in  the future, and the degree to which managers should continue to  manage (against) invasive species. An FS representative believed  that land managers need to throw out the idea of what species should  and should not be on a landscape, because the world (of pandemics,  microbes, and seed dispersal) is changing faster than any other time  in (documented) history.
Development of adaptive management strategies  Managers generally agreed that the current management structure on  federal lands does not provide the flexibility needed to mitigate or  adapt to climate change impacts. Land management plans generally  cover a 10- to 15-year time frame, although some managers  considered whether they should also be looking at a 50-year time  frame, and how to handle the uncertainty associated with long-term  climate effects and planning.
FWS managers and others believed that an adaptive, or anticipatory,  style of management and decision making would be necessary to  reflect learning that takes place over time (e.g., with respect to  climate change and ecological responses). This would require  managers to state assumptions regarding the future conditions of a  system and manage on the basis of those assumptions. The  assumptions can later be verified against observational data and used  for improving regional models.
According to participants, a good adaptive management framework  should involve a clear set of assumptions, which are checked against  real, observed situations. For example, if a resource manager must  make productive habitat for wintering populations of endangered  whooping cranes, he or she should do this on the basis of  assumptions of what the landscape will look like 5, 10, and 15 years  in the future. Although this style of management is not specifically  managing for climate change, it helps an agency meet its mission (i.e.,  protecting species habitat).
Some panelists believed that they currently lack a clear  understanding of the baseline from which to adapt, because they lack  adequate scientific information about their management area.  However, they thought it would be useful (to the Congress) if  agencies would state their assumptions about what they expect their  areas to look like in the future and how that is likely to affect  visitation, employment, and economic resources of these areas.
FWS has a successful adaptive management model for migratory  birds that is highly driven by climate considerations, such as the  availability and timing of water in prairie pothole regions. An FWS  representative said that the model is transferable, and that the  agency is moving toward adaptive management in many of its  program areas.
Possible modification of agency mission or management statutes  Land managers expressed concern that climate change might present  such a large challenge that an agency may face difficulty in fulfilling  its mission. They considered ways of incorporating climate change  into a management process and believed that agencies may need to  consider changing land management practices (FS, NPS) as a  potential means of mitigating effects of climate change. For example,  FS may consider managing in a way to specifically free up water  supplies.
Build public-private partnerships for environmental stewardship  An FWS representative spoke about the possibility for public-private  partnerships between federal land managers and private energy  companies wanting to purchase carbon credits by planting trees. For  example, FWS reforested 3 to 4 million acres in the lower Mississippi  valley in the past few years, at the expense of the private sector. This  partnership helped FWS to meet its goal of habitat restoration and  provision of a recreation area, and the industry met its goal of carbon  sequestration (carbon credits).
section_title: Grasslands and Shrublands Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: The group’s responses to this question, in the general order discussed, are  below:  Conduct seed-banking (storing seeds of endangered plant species for  later planting).
Educate agency staff and the public on the significance of federal lands  and how climate change might affect these lands (internal and external  outreach).  “Protect what you can”—that is, manage current stresses, such as  invasive species, pests, and pathogens, because climate change will only  make these worse.
Analyze and synthesize existing information on the effects of climate  change on federal lands in each ecoregion. Make a list of the lands that  will likely be impacted by climate change in 25 to 100 years under  various kinds of scenarios.
Improve coordination among land agencies; interconnectivity needs to  be explicitly valued where management goals could be combined to  ensure sustainability. (Connect smaller land parcels to create a region of  a size that enables the resilience of species. Strategic land easements or  purchases could create larger corridors.)
Adopt adaptive management scenario planning (contingency planning)  for climate change.  the most adverse and significant effects under Question 2, and the  effects on the most vulnerable areas identified under Question 4, and  the reduction in the flows of goods and services due to climate  changes.
Take action at the highest levels of government to integrate climate  change into planning and decision making at all federal land  management agencies. Improve coordination among agencies on  management for climate change, leading to a concerted national  approach (following the model of the interdepartmental Coral Reef Task  Force or the Invasive Species Task Force).
Conduct baseline inventories of species on federal lands to determine  their type and health. Periodically repeat monitoring on a scale that can  provide feedback on changes. Have a method of interpretation that can  allow managers/decision makers to develop effective land management  and connectivity strategies.
Find a specific and tangible “success story” for each agency that shows  that the federal land management community is making progress to help  get some traction for the climate change issue.
section_title: Question 4
paragraphs: What is the most important type of information (research,  monitoring/measurement) needed to better understand, prepare  for, and address the effects of climate change? What resources will  be needed?
subsections: section_title: Coasts and Oceans Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Land management panel members agreed with the information needs  identified with the scientific panel. See Day 1, Question 5.
section_title: Forests Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Forests ecosystem workshop participants identified the following as  information and/or research needed to better understand and prepare for  the potential climate change effects on forest ecosystems:  Information related to biology and biogeography of forest pests and  pathogens—factors that cause life cycles to accelerate, interactions  with natural enemies, and phenology of infestation outbreaks  Interactions between disturbance events and monitoring of forest  establishment after disturbances, especially the potential for forest  composition to change substantially  Information on water balance, related to temperature-induced drought   Remote sensing, especially from LANDSAT and Geostationary  Operational Environmental Satellite platforms that provide indicators of  seasonal to interannual stress—particularly with regard to fire and other  disturbance phenomena—and related to this, a family of models that are  based on actual land cover—not potential vegetation—and that are  more closely integrated with decision-making models and that are  spatially relevant at the 30- to 100-meter level  High-elevation monitoring of climate, soil moisture, and streamflow  Monitoring and assessment of the amount of residual aquifer  groundwater available throughout the country  Stream gauging network needs to be improved  Optimize monitoring systems for early impacts  Ecological studies of all the species likely to be engaged in responding  to climate change. (One expert disagreed with this approach.)
section_title: Fresh Waters Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: Fresh waters ecosystem workshop participants identified the following as  information and/or research needed to better understand and prepare for  potential climate change effects on fresh waters ecosystem:  Need for better understanding of current anthropogenic stressors  Stream systems in the west are managed for other purposes in ways that  are likely to “trump” climate change effects that we anticipate (e.g.,  dams out west create a wide range of flow). Human-induced changes  may “swamp” climate change effects—how should our water  management practices be changed, if at all, in light of climate change?  An NPS representative said that millions of dollars are spent on  infrastructure on federal lands, but asked whether federal land  managers are adequately addressing the effects that climate change  might have on these investments in the future. Panelists suggested that  the Congress may want to consider requiring that climate change be  considered in environmental impact analyses (environmental impact  statements, environmental assessments, etc.) required under NEPA.  This could be mandated by changes in the regulations promulgated by  the Council on Environmental Quality. One official commenting after  completion of the workshop said that this sentiment was directed at  proposed projects requiring an environmental impact statement where  (1) climate is significant in the project’s context and (2) the look-ahead  horizon is long enough where significant climate change is projected to  occur. This official said that federal agencies plan projects where NEPA  is required but conditions (1) and/or (2) are not met.
Need for better understanding of current ecological stressors  Existing ecological problems, such as fires, invasive species, and  nitrogen deposition, may be exacerbated by climate change.
The panelists believed that a “model-based” capacity to think about  ecological succession would be helpful in making management  decisions.
Develop a national-scale program to establish linkage between water   A national-scale program to establish ecological flows for rivers and  wetlands would provide a knowledge base with the ability to respond  to management questions—for example, regarding the amount of  water needed to protect particular species, the (seasonal) timing of  the water demand, and the relationship between water flow  (availability) and demand. This would provide a science-based  system for making management decisions regarding surface water- flow variability and the ecological response.
Workshop participants explained that the NEON network is  dedicated to the study of phenology, or the interaction between  climate and biological systems. They strongly advocated for the  creation of a national phenology network dedicated to observing and  recording “on-the-ground” changes over time and sharing those  observations with other resource managers. One expert commenting  after completion of the workshop said that NEON has not actually  been established yet, and that other observatory networks, including  the Critical Zone Observatory network and the Hydrologic  Observatory network are also in the works. According to this expert,  all of these networks are still in the “request for proposal” phase  (with NEON being out in front) and all are highly vulnerable to lack  of funding in the NSF budget. Another expert commenting after the  completion of the workshop wanted to make clear that NEON and  the national phenology network are not one and the same. The expert  said that some of the same scientists are involved, but the two  networks would be separately funded and managed.
Establish consistent data collection, management, and storage and   Several federal agencies collect ecological data, each with its own  data quality standards. Workshop participants recommended that  existing data be cleaned up and formatted uniformly, and that current  and ongoing data collection efforts be standardized. Participants  acknowledged that some data may be useful to a wide range of  agencies, while other data may be agency-specific. They suggested  that a monitoring program be developed to collect data on “vital  signs” (of ecosystem health). An expert commenting after  completion of the workshop said investment in data translation tools  designed to make data sharing easier was a better idea than enforcing  some uniform data format. This expert said that encouraging data  sharing preserves agency-centric creativity and control when it  comes to information management, and that requiring a specific data  format would be a bad idea, forcing many agencies to change their  information management structure. Furthermore, the expert said  that requiring a standard format would likely cost more than  encouraging the development of information sharing tools using  existing data formats.
Need for regional climate models  Experts generally agreed that climate projection methods must be  improved and that regional climate projections with accurate  temperature and precipitation projections, rather than global-scale  projections, would be helpful in more accurately identifying (and  planning for) the likely effects of climate change. Federal land  managers believed that phenological records, or documented  ecological responses to changes in environmental conditions, would  complement regional models and would be helpful in better  understanding the relationship between projected climate change  and plausible ecological responses. Although FWS collects some  phenological information, it does not currently have a system to  compile this information and make it readily accessible to answer  questions about species’ tolerance for seasonal shifts and any other  possible limiting interactions. Participants agreed that hydrological  and ecological models are needed to couple these systems with  climate models at a scale that supports land management decision  making.
Guidance for incorporating climate change into management plans is   Most managers did not know how to build climate change into the  management process, but believed that there is the need to do so.  They identified the need for direction or guidance on how to  incorporate climate change into management plans, and what set of  tools may be useful in addressing climate change.
Need for financial support  An NPS representative referred to a previous GAO report when  discussing the “decimation” of NPS’s operating budget. He said that  NPS has less money to fulfill its mission, and that it is difficult to  assign additional resources to long-term problems, like climate  change, when performance is evaluated on an annual basis.
section_title: Grasslands and Shrublands Ecosystem Workshop Breakout Session Responses
paragraphs: The group’s responses to this question, in the general order discussed, are  as follows:  Need information on what will happen in specific regions. In particular,  information is needed on flora, invertebrates, soil conditions, surface  water, and groundwater. (It is very likely that this will not require new  research, but rather a synthesis of information that already exists. The  information needs to be packaged for a local land manager to be able to  see what the global change means for him or her at the local level.)
Managers need to better understand how the management actions of  today will interact with climate change so they will know how their  actions will affect either the climate itself or exacerbate the impacts of  climate change.
Need better information on temperature and precipitation changes from  which models can be developed. Or vice versa—managers need better  models to anticipate the temperature and precipitation change.
Need better guidance at all levels on the effects and impacts of climate  change and the appropriate agency responses to those impacts.  Sometimes the appropriate response is to do nothing. The genius is  knowing when that is.
section_title: Day 2: Afternoon Plenary Session
paragraphs: At the end of the second day, GAO Director John Stephenson convened a  plenary session in which he asked all participants for ideas, from big to  small, that might be of interest to the Congress. Suggestions could include  ideas for future hearings or specific items of legislation that might be  constraining managers’ ability to act. Below are the suggestions that came  out of this plenary session.
subsections: section_title: Workshop Participants’ Suggestions for the Congress
paragraphs: Consider the poor condition of the civilian satellite program. This  program is to the point that continuity of basic earth observation is on  the verge of failing.
Examine the current body of legislation that constrains natural resource  managers to manage lands/waters with respect to historical conditions  (rather than in light of conditions that may be very different in the  future). Review and possibly revisit specific acts as appropriate.
Examine prescribed fire fuel management policies. Spatial, budget, and  temporal targets are too narrowly defined. Land managers cannot shift  resources from one area to another to meet immediate needs.
Explore Canada’s national park system as a model. Parks Canada has a  very explicit ecological integrity mandate. Specifically, the Congress  should add guidance to give NPS a mandate for ecological integrity,  along the lines of what Parks Canada has (but do not reopen the NPS  Organic Act).
The Council on Environmental Quality should provide guidance that  federal agencies should consider climate change in analyzing proposed  actions in environmental documents.
The NEPA process can be a hindrance in managing for climate change.
NEPA requirements begin when an agency takes action, so there is an  incentive for agencies not to take action because NEPA costs agencies  money.
The Congress should empower the Council on Environmental Quality,  or a special committee, to develop a multiscale monitoring and  evaluation framework (National Indicator Initiative) that could be used  in existing planning efforts at the regional level. Then, these indicators  should be migrated into the respective mission statements of affected  federal agencies. For example, FS would deal with indicators for forests  and rangeland information would be dealt with by BLM or the Natural  Resources Conservation Service. Information from shared indicators  that are common across the landscape would be aggregated for all to  use.
The Congress should establish a Bureau of Environmental Statistics and  a central environmental data repository to be used by agencies,  universities, etc.
The Congress should enforce Title II of NEPA, which requires the  administration to submit to the Congress a report on the status and  trends of the nation’s resources, the foreseeable trends in impacts, and  the adequacy for filling the human and economic requirements along  with remedies for deficiencies in resources.
The Congress should request and fund a report detailing climate change  on all federal lands. What are the impacts likely to be for all federal  lands? People will then have a clear idea what scientists and land  managers are talking about when there is information available about  “their” federal lands. (That is, the Congress should request and fund an  effort similar to the Millennium Ecosystem Reports.)
Develop a metric that builds on the Bureau of Economic Affairs’  accounting efforts to capture the value of maintaining natural capital.  There needs to be a supplementary way to account for the value that  natural system services and flow of ecological services provide (i.e.,  develop a federal environmental accounting initiative). This can help  managers identify what is being lost as a result of climate change.
Many land management policies and regulations operate under the  assumption that federal land managers manage on their own lands only  (and that the effects of land management are confined to those lands).  Climate change should be managed at the regional scale or above.  Statutory authority and incentives are needed to work outside and  beyond individual lands for the common goal of adaptation. The  Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve is an example of such an  arrangement. Some statutory authority to make such arrangements  would be useful. The structure of the national fire centers and  multiagency, colocated budget directors is also useful.
There needs to be a cross-agency, cross-governmental assessment of the  capability of our current EMS. How effective are current networks for  measuring and predicting climate change? This network needs to be  optimized to collect and analyze data that are relevant to climate  change.
Federal land managers need legislative direction to account for climate  change when making land management decisions.
NOAA needs an Organic Act; this act should include language requiring  direction on managing lands in anticipation of climate change.
The Congress should promote planning at the highest level of the  executive branch that recognizes the potential impacts of climate  change and promotes integrated, cross-agency approaches to  addressing these impacts, including a functional review of the current  legal and policy frameworks that drive land management decisions.
The Congress should direct and provide funds for federal land managers  to develop prototype management documents on how to address  climate change in the immediate future.
Land managers need the ability to forecast the effects of climate change  on their lands. The United States needs better short-term general  circulation model forecasts. Land managers also need the ability to  forecast natural resources’ response to climate change.
Land management agencies need to reconcile their divergent missions.
The moderator of the coasts and oceans breakout session referred GAO  to her group’s answers to Day 2, Question 3 of the workshop notes.
Develop climate impacts offices at the county level (or through  extension programs), based on the United Kingdom’s climate impacts  program. Each office in the United Kingdom’s program has a Web site, a  monthly newsletter, and a staff that helps stakeholders deal with climate  change.
The Congress and federal agencies should encourage on-the-ground  entrepreneurship and creativity to address climate-related problems.  These kinds of creative responses can then “bubble up” through  management.
The Congress should authorize the preparation of a “Stern Report” that  focuses on the United States. (The Stern Report is a 700-page report  released on October 30, 2006, in Britain, stating, among other things,  that climate change will cause tremendous economic and social  disruption.)
The Congress should fund an objective assessment of the conflicts and  outcomes of the Healthy Forests initiative.
A mechanism to raise the visibility of climate change among the  American people is needed. In particular, the constituents of the most  politically powerful Members of Congress should be alerted to the  potential negative effects of climate change—and not just on federal  lands.
section_title: Four Case Study Profiles
subsections: section_title: Coasts and Oceans Ecosystem: The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
subsections: section_title: Site Characteristics
paragraphs: We selected the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, managed by  NOAA, as our coasts and oceans case study. The sanctuary is part of the  south Florida ecosystem. The coasts and oceans ecosystem, according to  the Heinz Center, includes habitats such as coastal wetlands, coral reefs,  seagrass meadows, shellfish beds, and ocean waters as far as 200 miles  from the U.S. shoreline. The south Florida ecosystem consists of a mosaic  of subtropical habitats connected and sustained by water.
The sanctuary is home to coral reef systems that are part of a marine  ecosystem, including a variety of plants and animals. The sanctuary’s  extensive nursery areas, feeding grounds, and spawning grounds support a  multimillion dollar commercial fishing industry that lands nearly 20 million  pounds of seafood and marine products annually. Approximately 4 million  visitors come to the nearby Florida Keys each year, providing tourist  revenue and economic benefit to the region. FWS manages four National  Wildlife Refuges in the Florida Keys. These refuges are located within the  boundaries of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary but are separate  and distinct units from the sanctuary and managed under different  authorities and mandates. One of these refuges, the National Key Deer  Wildlife Refuge, is home to 22 federally listed endangered and threatened  species, 5 of which are found nowhere else in the world. (The other three  Keys refuges within the sanctuary’s boundaries are Crocodile Lake, Great  White Heron, and Key West). National Key Deer and the other refuges were  established to provide habitat and protection for threatened fish, wildlife,  and plants. The refuges also protect globally imperiled habitat, including  pine rockland and tropical hardwood hammock.
The sanctuary’s ecosystem is also closely linked to other south Florida  ecosystems, including those of the Everglades and the Dry Tortugas  National Parks. North of the Keys, the Everglades provides drinking water  for 5 million people and supports a diverse range of flora and fauna,  including 14 endangered species. Each year, more than 1 million visitors  come to the Everglades National Park, managed by NPS, contributing to  the region’s $13 billion annual tourism industry. Dry Tortugas National  Park, which is situated more than 70 miles west of Key West, is also under  the jurisdiction of NPS and includes a cluster of 7 coral reef and sand  islands.
The three agencies managing these federal units—FWS, NOAA, and NPS— coordinate with one another in managing their resources. For example,  FWS and NPS assisted NOAA in the development of the comprehensive  management plan for the sanctuary. These federal agencies also coordinate  with certain state agencies, universities, and NGOs.
section_title: Climate Change Effects
paragraphs: Sanctuary scientists told us that climate change may increase sea water  temperatures in the area of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and  may cause sea levels to rise. Climate change could have a range of  ecological effects as warming sea temperatures could harm coral reefs,  which are the foundation of rich marine ecosystems in the area, and rising  sea levels could threaten low-lying animal and plant species. Officials also  told us that climate change could result in increased storm activity, which  could threaten humans as well as plant and animal species. Furthermore,  officials noted that the ecological effects brought on by climate change  could have a negative impact on the economic and social goods and  services supported by the South Florida ecosystem.
NOAA officials told us that climate change has already contributed to the  degradation of coral reefs, the key component of the complex marine  ecosystems that support the Florida Keys’ ecology and economy. According  to NOAA scientists, if the climate—and sea temperature—warm, the reefs  could be increasingly vulnerable to coral bleaching, a stress response that  occurs when the corals expel the algae that live within the coral tissues and  give the healthy corals their color. Bleaching, which turns the corals white,  has affected the sanctuary with increasing frequency. Corals can recover  from bleaching events if the stress is not too severe and long-lasting, but  the stress on corals caused by coral bleaching has led to secondary  problems, such as coral diseases. The corals are first stressed by the  conditions that lead to coral bleaching, which is directly related to  increased sea surface temperatures, and then afterward may succumb to a  variety of coral diseases. A NOAA scientist told us that, as a result of  climate change and seawater temperature increases, coral reefs could  bleach every year, starting around midcentury. NOAA officials stated that  climate-related factors, in conjunction with other environmental factors  that stress the ecosystem, such as pollution, disease, and overfishing, may  make coral reefs increasingly vulnerable to bleaching and degradation.  Many other species in the surrounding marine ecosystem, such as fish and  crustaceans that depend on the reefs for food or shelter, may be threatened  by widespread bleaching. Officials stated that, in the long term, the  deterioration of coral reefs and the attendant loss of biodiversity could be  “devastating.”
A University of Miami scientist who has been studying coral reefs and  climate change for 11 years told us that coral reefs are also vulnerable to  ocean acidification, which occurs when increased carbon dioxide levels  decrease carbonate ion in the seawater; carbonate ion is a substance that  corals need to build their skeletons. By 2050, carbonate ion could be 34  percent less abundant, according to this scientist.
FWS officials told us that various habitats found on the Keys Wildlife  Refuges may be vulnerable to climate-related changes and other factors  that stress the environment. These officials stated that endangered species,  such as the Key deer and Lower Keys marsh rabbit, may have greater  difficulty surviving as a result. In addition, rising sea levels and increased  storm surges after hurricanes that may result from climate change can  cause saltwater intrusion on land, which can overwhelm sources of fresh  waters that support the ecosystem’s plant and animal life. Increasing  salinity can change where fire occurs as well as the distribution of species,  according to FWS officials.
FWS officials said that increased storm activity that may result from  climate change will pose a threat not only to humans on the low-lying  islands, but also to many animals—including sea turtles—which may find it  difficult to lay eggs on eroded beaches. NPS officials pointed out that  hurricanes, exacerbated by higher sea levels, will do more damage if they  become more frequent as a result of climate change. An NPS official  indicated that eight major hurricanes occurred in a 14-month period in 2004  and 2005, something that had not occurred in at least the previous 100  years.
NPS officials told us that the low-lying Everglades ecosystem is particularly  vulnerable to potential sea level rise because portions of the park are  currently just a few feet above sea level. These officials indicated that the  ocean front is already encroaching further inland, pushing the salt content  higher in border areas and traditionally fresh waters areas, a concern  because many fresh waters species cannot tolerate increased salinity. NPS  officials noted that increased saltwater intrusion will affect the endangered  Florida manatee, a fresh waters species, as well as the crocodile, which  flourishes in brackish water. Wading birds are also vulnerable to such  changes, since as salinity increases, their key food source—fish—also  decreases. Other species, such as shrimp, blue crab, and spiny lobster, are  likewise affected by salinity.
NOAA managers told us that the South Florida economies that depend on  the reefs to support such activities as snorkeling, diving, and tourism, may  be adversely affected by coral bleaching. Other economic activities, such as  fishing as well as cultural resources, including Native American artifacts  and historic buildings, may also be vulnerable, according to NPS officials.  For example, Fort Jefferson, the 170-year-old military fort on Dry Tortugas  National Park, could be severely damaged by increased frequency and  intensity of hurricanes and sea level rise. Similarly, shipwrecks and other  submerged artifacts valued by divers could be harmed. According to an  NPS official, there may be over 1,000 shipwrecks located around the Dry  Tortugas National Park.
section_title: Management Challenges
paragraphs: Managers with whom we spoke from all three agencies near the Florida  Keys National Marine Sanctuary face some common climate change-related  management challenges. For example, these managers said that they lack  information about climate change, suggesting that making decisions in the  face of uncertainty is difficult. NOAA managers stated that determining  specific relationships between climate and its effects against a complex  background of other interactive environmental stressors is nearly  impossible. Therefore, prioritizing where and how to focus conservation  efforts remains difficult. NOAA officials also noted that they currently lack  adequate modeling and scientific information that would enable managers  to predict change on a small scale, such as that occurring at the sanctuary.  FWS officials stated that more research is needed in a number of areas,  including acres lost to sea level rise. In addition, more monitoring of water  levels, water salinity, fauna, and vegetation—especially indicator  vegetation (plants that provide clues as to overall ecosystem health)—is  needed. Furthermore, an NPS manager said that more information is  needed to reduce uncertainty on the expected rate of sea level rise.
Another common concern expressed by these managers is a lack of  climate-related guidance from their agencies’ headquarters. NOAA  managers, for example, indicated that the agency has no specific guidance  on how to address the effects climate change, and that most of their  guidance is focused on meeting the many daily challenges they face, such  as designating no-boating or no-fishing zones to protect sensitive areas.  FWS officials commented that, although climate change is embedded in  general discussions on ecological issues, it is not explicitly addressed;  there is little or no guidance specifically on climate change. According to  an NPS official, how to interpret limited guidance and deciding what, if  anything, to do about the effects of climate change is difficult. Nonetheless,  overall management authority is broad and gives managers some flexibility  to act as they believe appropriate to protect the resources under their  jurisdiction.
Officials also noted a number of planning and resource challenges to  addressing the effects of climate change on their land and water units. FWS  and NPS officials indicated that they operate in the context of a 10- to   20-year planning process, but that they would need at least 50 years to  adapt to climate-related effects. They stated that it is unclear how to  account for such a long-term issue within a short-term planning horizon.  FWS officials also stated that FWS budgets are being cut, and that biologist  positions are being lost. NPS officials said that funding reductions and loss  of research stations pose challenges to conducting the research necessary  for appropriate decision making relating to climate change issues.
NOAA officials indicated that the limitation that the agency places on  discussing climate change is a significant challenge to addressing climate- related issues. NOAA officials stated that the agency’s control of the  message on climate change is rigid, and that, in general, the agency prefers  to focus on more immediate concerns. NOAA officials further said options  to address climate change at a local level are limited and reactive; the issue  must be addressed at a national and global level. Likewise, NPS staff stated  that, to address the effects of climate change, it is necessary to address the  source—greenhouse gas emissions—at a national and international level.
section_title: Forests Ecosystem: The Chugach National Forest
subsections: section_title: Site Characteristics
paragraphs: We selected the Chugach National Forest in south-central Alaska as our  forests ecosystem case study. According to the Heinz Center, the forests  ecosystem consists of land areas of 1 acre or more that are at least   10 percent covered by trees. This includes areas in which trees are  intermingled with other cover and both naturally regenerating forests and  areas planted for future harvest.
The Chugach—the nation’s second largest national forest—covers  approximately 5.5 million acres. The Chugach is a contiguous,  interconnected unit, which also includes private, state, and other federal  land. It encompasses a wide variety of habitats that support over 232  vertebrate species, including brown bear, lynx, moose, wolf, and wolverine  populations. However, only about 18 percent of the land area is forest  vegetation and approximately 35 percent of the area is covered by  perennial snow and ice. The Chugach has three distinct geographic areas:  the Kenai Peninsula region (21 percent of the land area); the Prince William  Sound region (48 percent of the land area); and the Copper River Delta  region (31 percent of the land area). Southeast of Anchorage, the Chugach  is a recreation area for activities such as fishing, wildlife-viewing, and  hiking and receives approximately 8 million recreation visits per year. The  Chugach also serves as a primary resource for subsistence hunting, fishing,  trapping, and gathering activities for many south-central Alaskan residents.  Furthermore, the forest also supports extraction activities, including  mining.
The Chugach is located next to or near several other land units, including  the Chugach State Park, Kenai Fjords National Park, and the Kenai  National Wildlife Refuge. The Chugach’s staff, therefore, coordinates with  multiple stakeholders in managing the forest, including FWS, the Alaska  Department of Natural Resources, and several Alaska native corporations.
section_title: Effects of Climate Change
paragraphs: The Chugach scientists and managers described a variety of changes  currently affecting the lands they manage that may be attributable to  climate change. In this regard, they attributed a number of changes in the  forest ecosystem, at least in part, to the warming and drying of the climate  on the Kenai Peninsula area of the forest. For example, the peninsula has  been the center of a spruce bark beetle outbreak that has killed large  numbers of Sitka, White, and Lutz spruce trees on 4 million acres in south- central Alaska. In lowland areas of the peninsula, lake levels have declined  by as much as 1 meter, and many ponds documented in aerial photographs  from the 1950s are now grassy areas with spruce and hardwood trees. In  the Kenai Mountains, the tree line has risen an average of 1 meter per year  during the past 5 decades. Furthermore, many glaciers in the region have  been retreating since the 1850s, but the pace has greatly accelerated in  recent years in response to a warming and drying climate. For example,  one large ice field in the Kenai Peninsula has lost 70 vertical feet and   5 percent in surface area in the last 50 years. As they have continued to  melt and recede, the runoff from many glaciers has created glacial lakes,  which capture glacial sediment and decrease the amount of sediment going  into glacial rivers. As a result, the rivers are transforming from glacial,  multiple channel systems to single channel meandering systems that can  have considerable impacts on fish habitat, riparian and floodplain  vegetation, and water quality. Officials at the Chugach also told us that they  have observed an increase in the frequency of severe storm events, along  with a seeming increase in lightning strikes and fires caused by lightning in  recent years.
In addition to changes that the region is already experiencing, managers  and scientists told us that they were concerned about a variety of potential  effects from climate change that may impact the Chugach in the future. For  example, although invasive species have not been a problem to date in  most of Alaska, occurrences of invasive species could increase in response  to disturbances associated with climate change, according to these  officials. Furthermore, as habitats shift, sensitive and rare species could be  adversely affected. Hydrological changes resulting from climate change  could affect salmon fisheries and spawning habitat. Although the impacts  are not yet known, climate change could affect tourism and recreation  activities in the region, according to the Chugach officials. For example,  any changes in snow cover will affect the mix of motorized versus  nonmotorized vehicles permitted on forest land. In addition, tourism and  property could be negatively affected by more frequent extreme events that  may result from climate change, such as wildfires.
section_title: Management Challenges
paragraphs: Managers from both the Chugach National Forest and the Alaska Regional  Office of FS told us that they were unaware of any requirements for or  guidance on considering climate change in their planning and management  efforts. Furthermore, due to budgetary constraints, managers at the  Chugach said they have little flexibility to address the effects of climate  change because climate change activities have, to date, not been funded in  annual budgets. Alaska Regional Office officials added that once the budget  is set by FS headquarters, individual land units do not have the flexibility to  modify funding priorities.
Chugach managers also told us, however, that they can respond to the  effects of climate change, but that their responses are reactive and not  predictive. However, they stated that they would face difficulty basing  management decisions on forward-looking projections about the potential  effects of climate change because of the lack of reliable models of future  conditions in the forest. This lack of information makes it difficult to  anticipate potential effects caused by climate change. However, these  officials noted that better modeling and communication about risks could  help them better anticipate changes.
Finally, Chugach officials told us that because climate change is a global  issue, individual forests cannot effectively address climate change in a  piecemeal manner. Officials with whom we met stated that any strategy to  address climate change needs to be integrated across broad landscapes,  not individual forests. These officials said that they hoped that the National  Forest system will develop a method to monitor climate change effects on a  large scale.
section_title: Fresh Waters Ecosystem: Glacier National Park
subsections: section_title: Site Characteristics
paragraphs: We selected Glacier National Park in northwestern Montana near the  Canadian border as our fresh waters case study. The fresh waters  ecosystem, according to the Heinz Center, consists of streams, rivers,  lakes, ponds, reservoirs, fresh waters wetlands, groundwater, and riparian  (riverbank) areas. Water sources such as glaciers and snowfields in  mountain systems, according to park officials, are also considered to be  part of the fresh waters ecosystem.
Encompassing more than 1 million acres, the park features forests, alpine  meadows, mountains, glaciers, rivers, streams, and lakes. It is home to a  number of endangered and threatened species, including bald eagles, bull  trout, gray wolves, and grizzly bears. In recent years, approximately   2 million people visited the park annually. According to an estimate from  the early 1990s, once the Going-to-the-Sun Road, one of the park’s main  attractions, opens in the spring, the daily economic benefit of the park to  the surrounding region would be $1.1 million; today this figure would  probably be considerably more, according to NPS.
Bordering the park are the Flathead and Lewis and Clark National Forests,  managed by FS. NPS and FS cooperate on regional activities, such as  wildland fire and river management. FWS also participates in the  management of some wildlife resources within the park’s boundaries. NPS  also coordinates with USGS, which has a field research station in the park,  and various Canadian organizations that oversee resources north of the  U.S. border.
section_title: Climate Change Effects
paragraphs: A USGS scientist told us that the average temperature in western Montana  has increased over the past century. While the northern hemisphere has  warmed 0.6 degree Celsius during that period, the mountainous areas of the  park have warmed 1.6 degree Celsius. Spring, measured by such indicators  as point of maximum snow melt, initiation of first melt, and water level, is  coming 3 weeks earlier now compared with the historical average. In  addition, a USGS scientist mentioned that the area may be affected by  extreme weather events caused by climate change. For example, forests of  the intermountain west and Glacier National Park become more vulnerable  to fire due to evaporative stress (drying) when more consecutive days  above 90 degrees Fahrenheit are experienced. Since the early 20th century,  Glacier (and western Montana) has gone from an average of 5 to  approximately 20 days per year above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, with 2003  setting the record at 31 days. In addition to causing moisture stress in  plants and increasing fire hazards, the increasing number of extremely hot  days poses substantial human health risks, especially in regions that  historically do not have air-conditioning. USGS officials also told us that  physical features of the park, such as glaciers and snowpack, as well as  ecological features, such as streams, forests, and alpine meadows—all of  which provide habitat for a large number of species—are vulnerable to the  effects of climate change. Some park infrastructure, such as roads,  campgrounds, and trails, may also be vulnerable if warmer winters lead to  more snow avalanches, landslides, and flooding.
According to USGS scientists, 70 to 80 percent of the western United  States’ drinking water comes from mountains. An NPS official stated that in  the park region, precipitation patterns are changing, such that there is more  rain in winter and less snow, causing winter streamflow to increase.  Accordingly, snowpack has decreased by more than 30 percent. Officials  explained that, with less snow and warmer winters, the timing of spring  runoff can be up to 20 days earlier than in the past. Park officials expect the  park to continue to receive less snow in winter on average, with more rain  and midwinter melting of snowpack.
Summers in the park are expected to be drier, especially later in the season,  and stream flow probably will continue to be lower than normal in late  summer. Scientists stated that some mountain streams will become  ephemeral (short-lived), and that the overall ability of the system to  provide fresh waters to aquatic and downstream communities will likely  decrease. In addition, these scientists said that, as precipitation patterns  and streamflow change, the structure and function of river communities  will be stressed, possibly causing the loss of species diversity. This, in turn,  could have negative consequences for the downstream communities—both  natural and human—that those species support.
A USGS scientist informed us that, since 1850, the number of glaciers  within the park has dropped from 150 to 26, and that current trends in the  rate of glacial melting in the park suggest the remaining glaciers will be  gone in the next 25 to 30 years. According to scientists with whom we  spoke, the loss of glaciers is symbolic of the overall changes to the natural  systems in the park, including the water cycle and water temperatures.
NPS officials told us that the increasing number and severity of storms and  lightning that may result from climate change may cause more forest fires,  while more dead vegetation and drier conditions late in the season may  feed larger, more intense wildland fires. An official also said that warmer  temperatures and more severe drought may increase the risk that insects  and diseases will harm already stressed trees. Greater disturbances to the  park’s natural systems will place native plants and animals under greater  stress, and invasive (nonnative) species may be able to get a firmer hold  and spread more easily, out-competing native species. According to an NPS  official, warmer temperatures are expected to negatively affect mountain  aquatic organisms, including insect larvae, which are an important part of  the food chain as well as fish species, such as bull trout, that thrive in cold  water. An NPS official explained that organisms that cannot migrate  upstream to colder temperatures will not survive.
An NPS scientist noted that climate change is expected to cause vegetation  in the park to migrate uphill in many places, where it is cooler, changing the  ground cover in many areas of the park and affecting wildlife species that  depend on those habitats. An official said that as alpine habitats warm,  trees are expected to move upslope into areas that are currently treeless.  Forests are already beginning to invade alpine and subalpine meadows.  (Alpine refers to the zone consisting of slopes above the timberline and  characterized by, among other things, the presence of low, shrubby, slow- growing woody plants.) These officials added that several animal species  may be negatively affected by the loss of alpine and subalpine habitat,  including bighorn sheep, grizzly bears, mountain goats, and wolverines.  They observed that because many rare plants and animals in the park are  living at the edge of their range, climate change may cause some of these  species in the park to die off. Officials noted that the park has already been  afflicted by a mountain pine beetle infestation. This insect has decimated  large areas of forest, owing to an increased vitality that has been linked, in  part, to warmer temperatures.
Park and USGS officials are concerned that warmer winters resulting from  climate change may lead to more avalanches and to more winter flooding,  which will threaten park infrastructure. For example, they told us that  there may be an increase in the frequency of heavy rainfall on snow cover,  which can cause severe floods. According to these officials, if this happens,  trails would need to be modified to meet such conditions, and the greater  potential for weather-related infrastructure damage will require more  maintenance and improvements. In addition, climate change might result in  a longer park visitation season as spring comes earlier and winter comes  later; this would place additional demands on park resources. For example,  they said that there would be pressure for roads and facilities to stay open  longer, which will require more staff and resources. These officials also  said that if more fires occur, the visitor experience could be diminished by  reduced air quality or limited access to fire-ravaged areas of the park, and  the park and local communities could lose revenue from visitation. For  example, in 2003, the Going-to-the-Sun Road was shut down for 23 days due  to fire. Officials also noted that fires divert park and FS staff from their  regular duties.
section_title: Management Challenges
paragraphs: Resource managers from FS, NPS, and USGS told us that they face several  challenges in addressing climate change, including limited funds,  insufficient monitoring capability, the lack of baseline information,  competing priorities, the need to involve surrounding communities, and the  inability at the local level to make a significant impact on a global issue,  among others.
NPS and USGS officials stated that monitoring systems—programs that  monitor the health of various park plants, animals, and physical   features—within the park are insufficient due to lack of funding. For  example, USGS, which has provided much of the monitoring effort for the  park in the past, has closed down about 28 percent of stream gauges  nationally. An NPS official noted that, while legislation directs NPS to  conduct and use research to support resource management decisions,  programs to support their efforts, and the efforts of their other federal  partners, have suffered from incomplete or partial funding due to budget  shortfalls. The NPS Inventory and Monitoring program was developed to  address managers’ needs for better scientific information about park  resources. Although one of the goals of the Inventory and Monitoring  program is to create baseline inventories of basic biological and  geophysical natural resources, NPS officials stated they do not have  sufficient baseline information, and the program is not comprehensive  enough to meet all of their information needs. In addition, because no  systematic monitoring of species currently exists, it is very difficult to  determine which species are at risk, determine the health of the species’  populations, and develop early warning systems to predict specific effects  of climate change.
According to Glacier National Park officials, a number of issues may  compete with climate change for priority in receiving resources and  attention. These issues include the impacts of a proposed upstream coal  mine in Canada, a request from a railroad to trigger avalanches with  explosives inside the park, the proliferation of noxious weeds, the  deterioration of park infrastructure, and urban encroachment along the  park’s borders.
An NPS official expressed concern that high growth rates in the  surrounding community may exacerbate some of the impacts of climate  change on park resources. One of the ways in which plant and animal  populations might adapt to climate change is to migrate as conditions  change. For migration to occur, migration corridors must be connected to  other regions. As development and land-use pressures increase on  neighboring lands, these corridors will disappear, which may limit the  ability of park ecosystems to adapt, according to an NPS official.
NPS officials emphasized that since climate change is a global issue, little  can be done to stem the problem of climate change within the park, other  than to respond, to the limited extent possible, to the symptoms of climate  change through activities such as prescribing burns, reducing vegetation  that may serve as kindling for forest fires, or controlling noxious weeds.  However, park officials said that they are trying to address climate  change—to the extent possible—by, among other actions, setting a good  example in reducing the park’s own greenhouse gas emissions. For  example, they told us that the park is participating in the Environmental  Protection Agency’s Climate Friendly Parks program, which focuses on  reducing parks’ greenhouse gas emissions. The park also has an  Environmental Management Plan that includes a number of energy  efficiency and renewable energy initiatives. In addition, the park requires  the concessioners that run businesses in the park to abide by certain  environmental requirements, some of which affect greenhouse gas  emissions.
NPS officials also told us that there is currently no explicit guidance from  NPS headquarters on addressing climate change, and that no funding or  resources have been allocated directly to the issue. In addition, an NPS  staff member felt that it would be useful for the park to produce a formal  written position on climate change to further clarify the park’s stance on  the science and impacts and to outline a communication strategy for  discussing the issue. NPS staff also indicated that one of the greatest values  of parks such as Glacier may be in informing visitors about the potential of  climate change to disrupt natural ecosystems and decrease the benefits  that these systems provide to human society.
section_title: Grasslands and Shrublands Ecosystem: Bureau of Land Management Kingman Field Office, Arizona
subsections: section_title: Site Characteristics
paragraphs: We selected the land managed by the BLM Kingman Field Office, Arizona,  as our grasslands and shrublands ecosystem case study. According to the  Heinz Center, the grasslands and shrublands ecosystem comprises lands in  which the dominant vegetation is grasses and other nonwoody vegetation,  or where shrubs are the norm. Bare-rock deserts, alpine meadows, and  Arctic tundra are included in this system as well. Also included are some  pastures and haylands, which represent an overlap with the farmland  system.
The field office manages approximately 2.6 million acres of public land in  northwestern Arizona, including portions of the Sonoran Desert, Mojave  Desert, Colorado Plateau, and six different mountain ranges. This land unit  is home to a variety of wildlife, including the largest desert bighorn sheep  population in the world, the desert tortoise, and several other threatened  and endangered species. The land unit receives approximately 540,000  visitors per year for a variety of recreational activities, such as camping,  hunting, hiking, bird-watching, and all-terrain-vehicle 4-wheeling. It also  supports economic activity through multiple types of resource extraction,  most notably livestock grazing and sand, gravel, gold, and copper mining.  In managing this land unit, the field office staff coordinates with several  other agencies that manage adjacent land units. These agencies include  FWS, NPS, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and others.
section_title: Effects of Climate Change
paragraphs: In our meetings and site visits, officials described a variety of changes  currently affecting the lands they manage at the BLM Kingman Field Office  that may be attributable to climate change. For example, the officials said  that a prolonged drought in the region had likely resulted in high mortality  rates of old growth pinyon pine trees, most notably those located on south- facing mountain slopes as well as some ponderosa pines and chaparral.  Ponderosa bark beetle and mistletoe infestations had also acted as  stressors, contributing to the die-off of ponderosa pines.
Furthermore, according to field office staff, drought conditions in the  region are causing desert scrub plant communities to convert into annual  grassland communities, which are more vulnerable to fire. They said that  this phenomenon has contributed to problems related to fire management.  Prolonged drought acts as a stressor to native plant communities. Then, in  periods of wetness, invasive species (typically, invasive annual grasses) fill  in the gaps between native vegetation. Invasive species can spread and  grow faster than native species. As a result, the thicker and less-evenly  spaced vegetation leads to fire danger. If a fire starts, it burns much longer  and hotter due to the invasive grasses. Native plant communities, such as  saguaro cacti and Joshua trees are not fire resistant, so fire damages these  communities and provides further environment for invasive species and  increased fire danger. In some instances, according to officials, repeated  fires of this nature have destroyed native plant communities, such that only  invasive grasslands remain. A severe drought occurred in 2002 that resulted  in the loss of perennial grass, shrubs, and trees. This drought, coupled with  increased annual growth in wet years, accelerated conversion of hot  deserts plant communities into annual grasslands. Should continued severe  drought become the norm, this conversion can be expected to continue.
The drier climatic conditions experienced in the region have created a list  of vulnerable species and natural systems on land managed by the field  office. For example, BLM scientists and resource managers told us that  continuing dry conditions will likely cause changes in vegetation  composition and species populations. They also said that dry conditions  increase soil erosion; decrease plant productivity, resulting in less forage  for cattle; decrease wildlife species abundance and diversity; decrease  habitats for certain endangered species; reduce water flows in creeks and  rivers; and dry up natural springs, leading to reduced water availability for  wildlife (including wild burros), livestock, and riparian (riverbank) plant  communities. With less precipitation, there would also be less groundwater  recharge, potentially creating a situation where groundwater removal  could exceed its replenishment.
section_title: Management Challenges
paragraphs: BLM Kingman Field Office managers with whom we met told us that they  were unaware of any requirements or guidance for how to consider climate  change in their planning and management efforts. In addition, field office  staff said that climate change is not a priority, as partially evidenced by the  fact that climate change-related activities have not been included in agency  budgets. They further said that they evaluate priorities on a year-by-year  basis, due to resource constraints. Because of these constraints, the field  office is necessarily only addressing the highest priority issues, leaving  many other issues untouched.
Another management challenge facing the field office is that much of the  land it oversees is situated in a “checkerboard” pattern of land plots,  alternating between public and private ownership. This pattern is primarily  due to the system of railroad land grants, in which the federal government  gave the companies land parcels to encourage railroad development in the  region. The alternating pattern of land ownership makes managing these  parcels for habitat protection purposes very difficult. BLM can face public  resistance when making land management decisions. For example, fire  closures that restrict access to certain areas of land leads to public  complaints. Land managed by the field office is also under stress due to the  high level of development of lands adjacent to BLM land that has taken  place over the past several years.
Furthermore, field office officials told us that they have adequate  management tools, such as reducing grazing-use levels, to reduce the  impacts of climate change. However, they said they must show a clear  pattern of historical data to make decisions or they risk opening  themselves to litigation. These managers added that they would likely face  challenges and opposition if they based their management actions on  theoretical projections. Therefore, the managers stated that they were  unsure whether they could base management actions on projected changes  that may be brought about by climate change. In addition, they stated that  climate change, because of its large scale, is difficult to deal with on the  local level. That is, although they might be able to react to the effects of  climate change on the land they manage, they are not able to control  changes in the atmosphere or greater climatic patterns.
section_title: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (FS)
section_title: Comments from the Department of Commerce (NOAA)
section_title: Comments from the Department of the Interior (BLM, FWS, and NPS)
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Vincent P. Price, Assistant  Director; Marc Castellano; John Healey; Ian Jefferies; Anne K. Johnson; and  Joseph D. Thompson were major contributors to this report.  Kisha Clark,  John Delicath, Heather Holsinger, Richard Johnson, Karen Keegan, Carol  Kolarik, David Marwick, Micah McMillan, Jean McSween, and Anne O.  Stevens also made important contributions.