National Parks Wrestle with Warming

As the world warms, officials at the National Park Service are starting to sweat: No glaciers at Glacier, no Joshua trees at Joshua Tree. These are part of the long-range forecast for the national parks.

Last month from Glacier National Park, Park Service director Jon Jarvis was not in a mood to mince words, calling climate change "the greatest threat to the integrity of the national park system that we've ever faced."

That assertion was underscored last week in a new report on potential impacts to the parks from climate change. The collaboration by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization, attempted to zoom in on specific parks and projected changes ahead for ten national parks in California, as well as impacts on the state's economy. NRDC and RMCO have previously released reports on the impact of climate change on Jamestown and other Virginia areas, the impact of the Gulf oil spill on the Gulf, as well as a statement about the impact on the National Park system overall. To read these reports click here.

This recent report details how climate disruption could affect ten national parks in California. If emissions of heat-trapping gases are not limited, before the end of the century Yosemite National Park would become hotter than Sacramento historically has been. Temperature increases of this magnitude would have far-reaching impacts on Yosemite, Point Reyes National Seashore, and Sequoia, Kings Canyon, Joshua Tree, Death Valley, and Redwood national parks, and more of California's very special places.

Among a broad range of threats to the ten national parks identified in the report are:

• Joshua trees (right), which need winter freezes to set seeds, are projected to disappear entirely from the national park named after them, and from most of Death Valley National Park and Mojave National Preserve.

• In Redwood National Park and Muir Woods National Monument, higher temperatures already have reduced by 30 percent the coastal fog that redwoods depend on for nearly half their water supply. A continued decrease in the fog could keep the coast redwoods from growing to the astonishing heights that make them the world’s tallest trees.

• In Sequoia, Kings Canyon, and Yosemite, giant sequoias in the mountains parks may not be resilient to the water stress and increased wildfire expected with rapid climate change.

• Yosemite Falls, mostly fed by snowmelt, could dry up more often and earlier in summers, depriving many park visitors of one of the world’s greatest sights.

• In Yosemite, Sequoia, and Kings Canyon, as the parks have gotten hotter and drier, pine and fir trees are dying more quickly. The death rate of trees has nearly doubled over just the past two decades.

• Sea-level rise of 2.0 to 4.7 feet in this century, as projected by the California Climate Change Center, would lead to seas washing over in storms and then permanently inundating low-lying areas in Point Reyes National Seashore, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and Redwood National Park. At risk are beaches, wetlands, other wildlife habitat, historic structures, highways and roads, campgrounds, picnic areas, and a visitor center.

• In Yosemite, mammals already are moving upslope to stay ahead of rising temperatures. About half of small mammal species in Yosemite now live at elevations different from where they were found nearly a century ago. Most have moved to higher elevations, by an average of about 500 yards. Along the coast, seals and shorebirds could lose habitat to a higher sea, and many may abandon the coastal national parks as suitable areas disappear.

And of course, for Montana's Glacier National Park, the report's authors cite projections that the last of the park's glaciers will be gone within 20 years, if not sooner.

This is, perhaps, a good place to pass along a favorite mantra of park rangers of late; that Glacier park wasn't actually named for its glaciers, but for the geologic history that formed the region's spectacular features. But it's logical that Glacier, tucked into the northwestern corner of Montana, has become the "poster child" of climate change in the national parks.

Scientists estimate that its 25 remaining glaciers could well be gone in a dozen years or so. Superintendent Chas Cartwright conceded that may be a small part of why Glacier is seeing record numbers of visitors -- more than two million this year, which is the park's centennial.

"Glacier isn't the only place we're seeing direct effects from climate change on the ground, right now," Jarvis said, standing on a gravel bar in McDonald Creek.

The parks chief cited apparent climate effects throughout the park system, including receding glaciers, withering water content in the mountain snow pack, and rain-on-snow events shifting from spring to fall.

"That completely changes the system," said Jarvis, who said they're also seeing wild land fires burning an average of 20 days longer into the season, encroachment of more exotic plants, and species moving up in elevation or vanishing from the landscape entirely. "We're not just gonna sit around and not do anything about it."

The question is what to do about it, which presents some unprecedented dilemmas for park managers and scientists, which, Jarvis says, are "causing us to rethink even the fundamental principles of national parks." Where as in years past, for example, new species moving into a park were looked upon as invaders to be dealt with inhospitably, now "they may be coming in because this is their last refuge."

Accommodating migrating species is one thing. But also on the table is direct, possibly radical intervention to save others. Jarvis recounts the time when a park scientist asked him, sardonically, "When do you put a sprinkler system on the giant sequoias?"

Jarvis asks rhetorically, "Where is the next habitat for the giant sequoia and are we as a society willing to move them, or plant them (somewhere else)? The biggest step in climate change is starting to ask those kinds of questions and to bring the very best minds to help us begin to wrestle with those as a society."

To this end, Jarvis is advancing a strategy with four key components:

• Expand the science and develop long-term data sets
  

• Embrace adaptation and multiple-scenario planning "at the landscape scale"
  

• Continue mitigation efforts, reducing the carbon footprint of the parks themselves
  

• Communication, leveraging the "extraordinary bully pulpit" that the parks provide, training scientists to speak to the layman, seizing opportunities to talk to the public about climate change.

Jack Potter, who directs science at Glacier, reinforced that this isn't just tomorrow's problem. He noted that spring "green-up" is occurring about three weeks ahead of the 40-year average at Glacier, which means that the landscape is drying out sooner in the season.

"No matter what scenario you look at, it's going to be drier," said Potter, pointing toward distant mountain snowfields. "That has all kinds of cascading effects downstream."

Potter said park managers are being forced to re-examine "the role of parks as reservoirs for biodiversity" and "how we view the type of appropriate management...in the face of the possible scenarios that are out there relating to climate."



Source:
KQED News, "National Parks Wrestle with Warming", accessed November 3, 2010
Greendiary, "25 National Parks Most Threatened by Climate Change", accessed November 4, 2010
Rocky Mountain Climate Organization, "RMCO - Statements and News Releases", accessed November 4, 2010