A Moving Mandate:

National Park Adaptation to Climate Change in Canada and the United States.

Andrew J. GertgeSN# 33823089

GEOG 512

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

The National Park Idea 3

Vulnerabilities: National Parks and Climate Change 5

Water Availability 7

Pests Outbreaks 7

Wildfires 7

Melting Sea Ice and Permafrost 8

Coastal Ecosystems 9

Habitat Change and Species Migration 10

Tourism and Recreation 11

Climate Change Scenarios (GCMs and emission scenarios) 12

Using GCM Scenarios: Possible Future Impacts 14

Impacts on Biodiversity 16

Impacts on Tourism and Recreation 21

Adaptive Strategies: Challenges and Opportunities 23

Biodiversity Change: Theoretical Adaptation Strategies 23

Adapting to Tourism/Recreation Changes 27

Biodiversity Change: Strategies for Canada and the US 27

Conclusion 30

References 31

2

I. Introduction “National Parks are about meaning...As meanings change, so does the nature of national parks...these shifts are not smooth and effortless, and their paths are both obscure and labyrinthine.” 1

The National Park Idea U.S. President, Ulysses S. Grant signed the worldʼs first National Park into existence in 1872. The federal government created Yellowstone National Park to be “"a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.2" While this implied that certain lands had a social value that was more important than their sheer economic value, it did not define an environmental mandate for the park. The desire to so designate geographic areas spread and by 1900, Yosemite, General Grant and Sequoia in California and Mount Rainier in Washington became national parks as well. It was not until 1916 that Congress created the National Park Service (NPS), a branch of the Department of the Interior, with the specific mandate of managing the growing number of national parks. The Canadian federal government created its first national park in Banff, late 1885, with no specific management policy3. The 1911 Forest Reserves and Parks Act that followed set up the Dominion Parks Branch, the worldʼs first federal agency with exclusive mandate to manage the parks. The 1930 National Parks Act finally defined the first policy management scheme for the national parks as environmental protection for the areasʼ “wilderness character”4. Indeed, the perceived purpose of these parks has evolved since their inception. National Parks in Canada are now managed by Parks Canada, created in 1998 under the federal Department of Canadian Heritage, with maintaining ecological integrity as its

3

1 Kopas 5

2 Keiley 3

3 Ibid 29

4 Ibid

core objective5. Precisely how to define ecological integrity and how to maintain it when faced with climate change is, therefore, a primary challenge for Parks Canada. As Figure 1 shows below, Parks Canada has identified 39 natural regions within its countries political borders.

Figure 16

Canadaʼs 43 national parks currently represent 24 of these 39 regions, and Parks Canada states its aim is to establish a park in each of the 39 regions.7 In addition,

4

5 “To protect for all time representative natural areas of Canadian significance in a system of national parks, to encourage public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of this natural heritage so as to leave it unimpaired for future generations.” Scott, Daniel, Jay, et al. 477

6 Source: Parks Canada Website: http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/np-pn/cnpn-cnnp/itm1-/page1_e.asp. Last Accessed 3 March 2009 4pm.

7 Scott, Daniel, Jay , et al. 477

national parks in Canada also have an educational and recreational mandate:, “...To encourage public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of this natural heritage so as to leave it unimpaired for future generations.8 The National Park Service (NPS), the agency that manages the 58 national parks in the United States, shares a similar, multidimensional mission. The “Organic Act” of 1916, establishing the NPS under the U.S. Department of the Interior, articulates that the purpose of the NPS “...is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”9 Unlike the Parks Canada, the NPS has not established the goal of creating a national park for every geographical region within the borders of the United States. Like Parks Canada, however, the NPS has a clear mandate to preserve both ecological biodiversity and recreation opportunities within the borders of its parks. To understand the challenge that climate change presents to this shared two-fold mission, it will be helpful to first understand how sensitive or vulnerable national parks in Canada and the United States are to changes in climate and how these climate changes are forecasted to manifest themselves in the future.

II. Vulnerabilities: National Parks and Climate Change The “Fourth Assessment Report” published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), describes climate change primarily in terms of temperature increases, precipitation pattern changes and sea-level rise. Figure 2 below illustrates the various climate changes that have occurred in North America in the last 50 years. According to the report, annual mean temperatures from 1955-2005 have risen most in Alaska and the Canadian Northwest with the greatest changes occurring in the spring, winter and night-time low temperatures.10 For the same time period, precipitation has increased the most in northern Canada and decreased the most in the southwest U.S.,

5

8 Scott, Daniel, Jay R. Malcolm, and Christopher Lemieux 477

9 National Park Service Website http://www.nps.gov/ Last Accessed 03 March 2009 at 4pm

10 IPCC 620

the Canadian Prairies and the eastern Arctic.11 Being so vast and varied, North American coasts have seen numerous trends in sea-level, with the sea-level rising in many areas and high water-level fluctuations being recorded in the Great Lakes region.12

Figure 213

These three facets of climate change have already begun to affect national parks in Canada and the United States in several key, interrelated areas: (1) Water Availability, (2) Pests and Invasive Species, (3) Wildfires, (4) Melting Sea Ice and

6

11 IPCC 621

12 Ibid 622

13 Ibid 621

Permafrost, (5) Coastal Ecosystems, (6) Habitat Change and Species Migration, and (7) Tourism and Recreation.

Water Availability The availability of water is, of course, vital for the health and survival of the ecosystems in a national park. Changes in precipitation patterns affect the hydrological cycle of a park primarily by altering the intensity and timing of precipitation events and by shifting the mix of rain and snow. These hydrological changes have already been reported in New England and in the western United States.14 Rising temperatures accelerate glacier and snowpack melt and trigger earlier spring runoff.15 These alterations affect aquatic and riparian ecosystems and the patterns of animals relying on these ecosystems for their sustenance.

Pests Outbreaks In Canada and the U.S., frost and persistent low temperatures at high altitudes and latitudes often keep outbreaks of pests and insects at bay. Warmer temperatures in precisely these areas, however, have abetted the spread of insect outbreaks such as the prolifically nefarious pine bark beetle in the Western alpine areas of Canada and the United States.16 Such outbreaks affect the floral species makeup of national parks and lead to increased vulnerability to wildfires by leaving large swathes of dead, desiccated trees in their wake.17

Wildfires Rising temperatures, variable precipitation, reduced snowpack and the prevalence of fire-prone plant species have worked to increase the duration, frequency,

7

13 Stewart, I.T. et al. and Hodgkins, G. et al.

15 Dudley N. 5

16 Reid, Mary Lynn. et al. See also, “Bark Beetles hammer Forest throughout the West, Headed Eastward.” Refuge Notebook. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Alask. Available Online: http://kenai.fws.gov/overview/notebook/2005/nov/25nov2005.htm Last Accessed 21 February 2009

17 IPCC 623

intensity and scope of wildland fires. A recent study of wildfires in the western United States showed that from 1970 to 2003, the length of the wildfire season increased by 78 days and the average burn duration lept from 7.5 to 37.1 days.18 National parks with areas of high elevation as well as those, like Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota, situated on a delicate ecotone between grassland and forest are the most vulnerable to these changes in wildfire behavior.19

Melting Sea Ice and Permafrost Given that the greatest increase in North American temperatures in the last 50 years has been in the high latitudes, it is not surprising that the cryosphere-the frozen part of the earthʼs surface-in the Arctic has been significantly affected. Figure 3 below shows the Arctic sea shelf in the 2007 melt season. Having shrunk to 4.1 million square kilometers, the sea ice reached its smallest size since satellite measurements began in 1979. The white area indicates sea ice; the traced outline indicates the median ice edge over the 28-year study period.

Figure 320

8

18 Westerling, A. L. et al. 940

19 Bachelet, D., et al. 229-44.

20 U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. 2007

Retreating sea ice has had a particularly pernicious effect on polar bear habitat in Canadaʼs Hudson Bay area. Early spring ice break-up has resulted in the loss of nearly two weeks hunting which has affected the weight, fitness and reproductive success of adult polar bears.21 The IPCC suggests that the Western Hudsonʼs Bay polar bear population has declined from 1200 bears in 1987 to 950 bears in 2004, and that the nutritional stresses from the longer ice-free season has incited instances of cannibalism among polar bears.22

Thawing Permafrost in northern Canada and Alaska has also had an effect on the vegetation, hydrology and soil erosion in the Arctic Tundra and Boreal Peatland ecosystems found there.23 Of particular concern are erosion to coastlines no longer protected by sea ice and increased river sedimentation and siltation caused by eroded riverbanks.24 Coastal Ecosystems Coastal Ecosystems in Canadian and American national parks have been most affected by rising sea levels and warmer waters. Rising sea levels has been gradual thus far--28 cm since 1931 in the New York Harbor area--but has led to the loss of fragile wetlands, alterations in the protection provided by barrier island systems. Disruptions in Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge on Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United States and wintering grounds for myriad species of waterfowl, has already seen one third of its marshland inundated and is expected to be entirely flooded in 25 years.25 Ninety-one species are at risk of extinction in Gulf Islands National Park Reserve of Canada in British Columbia. 26

9

21 Stirling, I., et al. 294.

22 Dudley N. 3

23 Camill, P. 135-52.

24 United States. DOI. 61

25 Leatherman, S.P.

26 Parks Canada Website: http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/v-g/ie-ei/cc/actions_e.asp. Last Accessed 02 March 2009 at 10:00pm.

Habitat Change and Species Migration Plants and animals can only survive and reproduce within certain temperature and precipitation limits. Geographic areas with similar temperature and precipitation patters are sometimes referred to as ecoclimatic zones.27 In general, climate change has caused many ecoclimatic zones in Canada and the United States to crawl northward in latitude and upward in elevation.28 When these ecolimatic zones move, certain animal species may respond by moving their range boundaries, too. Species migration refers to the long-term shift in range for a certain species. In their seminal work in the early 1990s, Peters and Lovejoy illustrated that species range shifts are the predominant response of species to climate change (See Figure 4 below).

Figure 429

10

27 Cohen pg 180

28 United States. DOI. 81

29 Peters, Robert L.

With their fixed borders, national parks are intrinsically vulnerable to species migration given that species migration is a dynamic process both temporally and spatially. Montane and coastal biomes are particularly sensitive to changes in species range and species abundance changes.30 It may occur, however, that certain natural or human-made barriers prevent the species from migrating. In a montane region, if the ecoclimatic zone shifts too quickly, a species may find itself trapped and unable to adapt, thereby facing extinction. Unfortunately, this is already occurring for the pika, a rodent living in the tundra of mountain peaks in western North America, whose “sky islands” have begun to disappear due to the upslope migration of the treeline.31 In a coastal area,

Tourism and Recreation Climate change affects park visitation directly by placing constraints on when and where certain recreational and tourism activities can occur. Season length of snow-cover, open water and open trails as well as species diversity, glacial activity, and general weather patterns all influence the number and frequency park visitors While coastal areas constitute an important recreational resource. The NPS estimates that 76 million people visit its coastal parks each year.32 National Parks in the Western Rockies region also represent a crucial share of park visitation, particularly in Canada, where in 2004, approximately 65% of all visits to national parks in Canada occurred in Canadaʼs Rocky Mountains.33 Park visitation also generates revenue for Parks Canada and the National Park Service, as well as for the communities surrounding the park. The revenue generated is substantial, with parks like Yellowstone generating two billion US dollars per year for the surrounding states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.34

11

30 L. Hannah, et al. 485-495

31 IPCC 1.3.5.3 and United States. DOI. 86

32 United States. DOI. 52

33 Scott, D., et. al. 570

34 Scott 570

National Parks in Canada and the United States are vulnerable to changes in climate that alter their perceived recreational benefit. Having briefly evoked several key national park vulnerabilities to climate change, this paper now turns to the ways in which park managers are attempting to understand how vulnerable their park will be to future climate change, in order to best adapt their conservation policies.III. Climate Change Scenarios (GCMs and emission scenarios) An essential tool for understanding and assessing the future impacts of climate change is the climate change scenario. The climate change scenarios used by Parks Canada and the NPS combine climate change models, which are computer-generated descriptions of climate responses to changes in atmospheric conditions, with different emissions scenarios, since much of climate change has been attributed to increased accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs), including CO2. 35 The most common climate change models used are Global Climate Models (GCMs), also referred to as Global Circulation Models. GCMs can simulate past and future climate responses to changing atmospheric conditions, relative to a base time period, usually 1961-1990. In its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC utilizes eight such models, which each differ in several respects, notably in atmospheric and oceanic layers, spacial resolution (the number of reference points in a given area) and average global increase in temperature by 2050 (See Figure 5 below).

Figure 536

12

35 Other deleterious gases, or “fugitive gases”, include methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, hyudrofluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Source: ?

36 Jones 9

Research teams from Canada and the United States have contributed the CGCM and GFDL GCMs, respectively, to the IPCC assessment:

o

o

In order to produce possible scenarios of future climate changes due to GHG emissions, the above GCMs need to incorporate how emissions are likely to change in the future. In its Third Assessment Report (TAR), the IPCC published a Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) that detailed a total of 40 world GHG emissions scenarios, from the present out to 2100. Figure 6 shows the four families of underlying assumptions about future GHG emissions inherent in the 40 emission scenarios. Figure 6 also helps clarify the six SRES scenarios used in climate change impact scenarios. Three are located in the A1 family: (1) A1FI-Fossil-fuel intensive, (2) A1B-a balanced scenario, and (3) A1T-non-fossil fuel. The other three SRES scenarios represent one of the other families: A2, B1 or B2.

Figure 637

13

37 Jones 8

Equipped with the above GCMs and SRES emission scenarios, park managers are able to create what are called bioclimatic scenarios. Bioclimatic scenarios incorporate site-specific profile data from given locations (usually collected from climate centers over a 30 year period) into GCM-derived scenarios. These bioclimatic scenarios have the benefit of having a finer resolution and therefore greater reliability when examining impacts of possible future changes in temperature, precipitation, water availability and degree-days.38 National park managers also have access to a third tool useful for examining the possible impacts of climate change: daily scenarios. Daily scenarios, like the bioclimatic scenarios, produce outcomes that incorporate greater site-specificity, using observed climate data. Daily scenarios apply climate change scenario data at the monthly level and temporally downscales them to daily data using a stochastic weather generator (Parks Canada uses the UK-base, Long Ashton Research Station (LARS) generator) that simulates weather patterns similar to the observed climate data for the observed area.39 These small temporal scale scenarios are useful in examining possible climatic thresholds for insect infestations, forest fire seasons, ice formation/melting, recreation season lengths, and the like. Having brushed a quick exploration of three basic types of climate change scenarios, this paper will now examine the outcomes of climate change scenario research when applied to biodiversity and recreation in national parks in Canada and the United States. It is with these outcomes that park managers must wrestle to devise effective adaptation strategies.

IV. Using GCM Scenarios: Possible Future Impacts Using the GCMs and emission scenarios listed above, the IPCC has produced impact scenarios for the North American region in 30 year periods: the 2020s, the 2050s and the 2080s. According to the Fourth Assessment Report for North America, by the

14

38 Jones vii

39 Jones 21

end of this century temperatures are expected to rise from 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius, the sea-level is expected to rise 0.19 to 0.59 meters, and average rainfall is expected to increase in the East and North, yet decrease in much of the Southwest.40 Parks Canada has applied this data to six park jurisdictions. Figure 7 shows the range in possible temperature change for these six park regions in the next 100 years, underscoring that the largest potential for temperature increase is in the Arctic regions, followed by the Prairies.

Region Temperature Range

Arctic

Prairies

Western

Pacific

Great Lakes

5.6-11.5°C

4.4-10.5°C

4.3-7.8

3.7-7.7°C

4.6-7.5°C

Figure 741

Figure 8 portrays the physical impacts that the projected changes in temperature, precipitation patterns and sea-levels will have on parks in the six regions. In essence, future climate changes are expected to negatively affect Canadian Parkʼs vulnerabilities to climate change in the areas of While managing a different variety of ecosystems, similar projections have been made for national parks in the U.S., with projected changes in climate exacerbating vulnerabilities.42

15

40 United States. DOI. 15

41 Adapted from Parks Canada Website: http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/v-g/ie-ei/cc/predictions_e.asp Last Accessed 03 March 2009 10pm

42 United States. DOI. 16.

Figure 843

Impacts on BiodiversityIn both Canada and the U.S., these changes were projected to affect the biodiversity in national parks in many ways. The most significant impact of these changes, as briefly evoked above, is the general movement of ecoclimates northward in latitude and upward in elevation. Figure 9 shows the results from a study of Canadaʼs national parks, conducted in the early 1990s. The study shows a possible shrinking of the tundra, a break in Canadaʼs boreal belt, a spread of temperate forests and an emergence of a grassland corridor. Only seven out of the twenty eight national parks in the study were forecasted to remain in the same biome.44

16

43 Jones 2

44 Scott 2000 pg 119

Figure 945

A recent study of 36 Canadian national parks suggests a more modest migration of ecoclimatic zones, but pointed to the same trends, with a projected decline in tundra and an increase in temperate mixed forests and savanna/woodlands.46 The study combines IGCMs from the second and third IPCC assessment reports with improved Global Vegetation Models (GVMs), BIOME3 and MAPSS. Figure 10 features 6 different biomes and three different national parks in the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Using the vegetation model, Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil-System (MAPSS), and two differing GCM scenarios (the HadCM2 being the newer, more conservative scenario, therefore incorporating less climate change) the two lower graphics illustrate possible ecoclimatic shifts in relation to the three national parks.

17

45 Scott, Daniel J., et al. 102

46 Scott, Daniel, Jay, et al. 479

Figure 1047

We see that both scenarios indicate that the biome in Wapusk National Park is projected to shift from a taiga/tundra biome to a boreal conifer forest biome. The boreal conifer forest will retreat from Riding Mountain National Park, to be replaced by temperate mixed forest and possibly some savanna woodland habitat. As for Prince Albert National Park, northward movement of the savanna/woodland biome and the novel spread of temperate evergreen forests in that area of Saskatchewan may or may not affect its ecoclimatic composition. The study notes that movement of ecoclimatic zones does not dictate, spatially or temporally, the transient response of vegetation change.48 Myriad other factors such as species migration rates, human interference and changes in disturbance regimes also affect the movement of vegetation and were not included in the scenario models.49 Nonetheless, the study results for Wapusk National park highlights a poignant problem for current national parks. Wapusk National Park was recently established in 1996 on the western shores of Hudsonʼs Bay with the primary mandate of protecting the

18

47 Scott, Daniel, Jay, et al. 481 ; Prince Albert National Park (PANP), Riding Mountan National Park (RMNP) and Wapusk National Parks (WNP) in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

48 Ibid 480

49 Ibid

worldʼs largest denning and congregation area for polar bears.50 Currently at the southern limits of their range, Canadian polar bears are facing extirpation--from the combination of sea ice loss and vegetation change (all scenarios in the study showed the replacement of the taiga/tundra with boreal conifer forest)---from the national park. Parks Canada faces the decision of whether to continue to invest resources in pursuing its original mandate of protect the current biodiversity of the park, or to invest resources in assisting the adjustment of the parks ecosystems--the polar bears included--in adjusting to climate change. An important study on changes in biodiversity in national parks in the United States elicits a similar discussion about the type of biodiversity that parks can and should protect. Focusing primarily on the effects of climate change on large mammalian species diversity, Burns, et. al. from the Department of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University selected eight national parks in the continental United States. Burns, et. al. also utilized the MAPSS vegetation model to incorporate vegetation dynamics and incorporated the atmospheric conditions of the Canadian GCM2 GCM, and a doubling of CO2 emissions. Likelihood levels for a targeted species to be found in a location were then calibrated using Vegetation/Ecosystem Modeling and Analysis Project (VEMAP) data and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data on the speciesʻ entire range distribution. Figure 11 below, shows the projected loss and change of species in the eight parks studied.

19

50 Scott, Daniel, Jay, et al. 479 481

Figure 1151

The results of the study indicate that the average species loss, in this 2XCO2 scenario, for all parks is 8.3% with the majority of parks losing between 0%-10% of their large mammalian species. A noteworthy trend in the study is that the southern parks (Big Bend in Texas, Great Smokey Mountains in Tennessee and Yosemite in California) are projected to incur the greatest loss of large mammal species. The study attributes this to the forecasted changes in vegetation and the substation northward shift of ecosystems.52 Another striking element of the study is the dramatic influx of new species in all of the parks. The study projects an increase of 11.6% to 92.5%, or an average of 48.1%, in new species within national park borders. This “virtual tidal wave” of species is projected to have consequences on the trophic (food chain) structure within park borders, which could result in altered predator-prey relationships. More importantly, though, this study carries implications for park managers with mandates for protecting current diversity with park boundaries. Faced with potentially significant losses of certain species and almost invariably substantial gains in other species, park managers may have to wrestle with different notions of what is “natural” and “unimpaired”. Before turning to the adaptation options available to park managers,

20

51 Burns et al. 11476

52 Ibid

this paper now turns to examine the forecasted impacts of climate change on its other key focus, national park recreation and tourism.

Impacts on Tourism and Recreation While climate change poses a threat the biodiversity mandate of national parks in Canada and the United States, it could present advantages to their tourism and recreation branches. In 2003, Dr. Daniel Scott, at the worldʼs first International Conference on Climate Change and Tourism, presented research that projected that the length and quality of the summer season would “improve markedly” under climate change.53 Using two scenarios, the PCM GCM/SRES B2 scenario as well as the CCSR GCM/SRES A1 scenario, the IPCC projects that visits to Canadaʼs national parks system will from 10% to 40% by 2080.54 A recent study by the US EPA in conjunction with Colorado State University projected that by 2050 park visitation could potentially increase by over 300,000 visitors and positively impact local economic output and jobs by 10% and 13%, respectively.55

Climate change is not projected to bring only benefits to the tourism and recreation aspects of Canadian and American parks, however. The shorter winter season and less snowpack projected by IPCC GCM scenarios mean less opportunities for snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, downhill skiing or snowmobiling.56 The disrupted weather patterns, increased fires, glacial melt, water availability issues and biodiversity loss discussed earlier, all may potentially alter the quality of a visitorʼs experience in the park. A recent study conducted in Waterton Lakes National Park in Albert, Canada suggests that, while climate change may have significant tourism and recreational benefits in the short and medium term, the long-term impacts of climate change may result in negative visitation rates.

21

53 Climate Change and Tourism in the Mountain Regions of North America. First International Conference on Climate Change and Tourism. Djerba, Tunisia. 9-11 April 2003.

54 IPCC 634

55 United States Environmental Protection Agency (2003) Research and Development, NationalCenter for Environmental Research. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/286/report/0. Accessed 23 Feb 2009.

56 IPCC 634

The study utilizes two GCM scenarios, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) GCM with a B2 emission scenario (a low greenhouse gas emission future) and the Center for Climate System Research (CCSR) GCM with an A1 emission scenario (a high greenhouse gas emission future). Both of these scenarios were combined with a climate visitation model, based on historical data, and the results projected high visitation rates for the park (11%-60%) by the 2080s. This study then conducted a visitor opinion poll using the form below, to asses how visitor frequency would be affected by the alterations that climate change is projected to bring to the park. The respondents were not informed that the three scenarios corresponded to climate change scenario projections for the 2020s, 2050s, and 2080s. Scenario 3 represents the projected changes to the park assuming the highest emissions scenario. Figure 12 below illustrates the result of the survey. It would appear that the direct effects of climate change--viz.,the lengthened and improved summer season--will most likely not change the visitation patterns for majority (>90%) of the respondents. Yet, if the park undergoes the changes wrought by Scenario 3, an impressive 56% responded that they would no longer visit the park or visit the park less often.

Figure 1257

The study does contain some caveats, namely that visitor attitudes toward the recreational value of a park can change over time and climate change mitigation could

22

57 Scott, Daniel, et al. 570

reduce the severity of the changes in the park, meaning that the 2080s would see results more similar to the Scenario 2 situation than that for Scenario 3. Most importantly, however, the study suggests that park managers in mountain parks would do best to focus their near-term (20-30 years) adaptation efforts on their biodiversity mandates and increased visitor use due to ameliorated warm season conditions.58 Given that the impacts of climate change are expected to be positive and adaptation practices closely linked to mitigation and sustainable development, remainder of this paper will focus on adaptation strategy for biodiversity conservation.

V. Adaptive Strategies: Challenges and Opportunities As developed, affluent countries, Canada and the U.S. have a relatively high capacity to adapt to the impacts of climate change on the biodiversity and tourism in their national parks.59 In Canada and the U.S., institutional stability, access to technology and availability of information enable and bolster the ability for individual and collective efforts to adapt to climate change.60 This section will briefly examine some of the latest theoretical adaptation options available for park managers concerning biodiversity and discuss the adaptations measures currently being implemented in or envisaged for national parks in the U.S. and Canada.

Biodiversity Change: Theoretical Adaptation Strategies Lee Hannah, a foremost expert in the field of biodiversity and climate change recently published an article that traces the two-decade development of protected area adaptation options and summarizes the alternatives available to park managers today.61 Figure 13 below lists the five strategies enumerated in the study:

23

58 Scott, Daniel, et al. 570-579

59 Schliep, R., et al. 116-124.

60 IPCC pg 637

61 Hannah, L. (2008). "Protected Areas and Climate Change." Annals: New York Academy of Sciences 1134: 201-212.

Adaptation Strategy Options

1

2

3

4

5

Protected Area Networks

Connectivity and Corridors

Individual Protected Areas

Mobile Reserves

Measures Needed When Protection Alone Is Not Enough

Figure 1362

Protected Area Networks and Individual Protected Areas are closely related. They both deal with the creation of new protected areas to adapt to the change in species representation changes in current protected areas. Protected Area Networks is the macro approach--examining numerous parks in a given area, region or country--whereas the Individual Protected Areas approach focuses on the conceptual design needs of a single preserve in the face of climate change. These two approaches incorporate resilience (ability to recover from habitat changes) or resistance (the ability to withstand habitat damage or changes). Hitherto, factoring species-specific biological resistance into planning models has been difficult.63 Meanwhile, certain studies based on Species Distribution Models (SDM) that incorporate historic species range data have been useful in allowing park managers to calculate the maximum amount of species representation possible through new reserve creation.64 Knowing a parkʼs highest possible species representation assists park managers in setting species conservation targets not only for specific parks, but also for a larger network of reserves.65

24

62 Hannah, L. 208

63 Ibid

64 Pressey, Robert L., et al. 583-92.

65 Pyke, C. R., and D. T. Fischer. 429-41.

National Parks in Canada and the U.S. (as opposed to those in the southern hemisphere) have the particular advantage of having larger, less inhabited landmass in the higher latitudes. Creating additional national parks in the northern parts of Canada has already been suggested to maintain the conservation mandate of certain vegetation types.66 Upslope bioclimatic growth (in terms of elevation) must also be incorporated in any new parkʼs design: i.e. Using a continental divide may facilitate demarcation, but incorporating both sides would be more judicious since habitats will be pushed up both sides. Using only one side of the divide would exclude half of the diminishing habitats from protection. 67

Connectivity and Corridors concern the ways in which park managers can understand, anticipate and facilitate a speciesʼ range movement. This strategy is a daunting yet primordial for park managers. Because each species has its own species-specific climatic tolerances, and its own dispersal pattern in response to climatic changes, range shifts are non-linear in their spatial and temporal manifestations.68 Park managers are beginning to use the latest commercial software to better pinpoint the time and place of species migration. A study in South Africa implemented Network Flow (a commercial planning software for industrial optimization problems such as airline routing) in such an attempt.69 The study utilized the software to design multiple dispersal corridors for each species that would connect suitable conditions between specific time periods that were subject to each species' limited dispersal ability. The implementation of the optimization software worked to minimize the total area requiring additional protection. It is important to remember that species dispersal in reaction to climate change, is not solely a flight movement outside of park borders. As mentioned above, climate change will very likely increase the number of species entering park borders. This species migration, also mentioned earlier, is likely to be northward and upward.

25

66 Scott 2002

67 Hannah, L 208

68 Ibid

69 Phillips, S. J., et al. 1200-11.

Therefore, parks in the norther latitudes or parks in higher elevations are using connectivity and corridor models not just to understand which species might leave their park borders, but also to better understand which species might enter their park borders--and when and from whence.70 Moreover, park managers might not need to focus as much on the species representation within the parks borders, but more on the the population size in the greater region.71

The concept of Mobile Reserves was first used in marine conservation in order to protect large areas of ocean current interaction (frontal zones) that would exhibit large variation in their geographical location.72 The goal of terrestrial mobile reserves is to make park borders as spatially and temporally flexible as needed to keep a species representation goal in response to shifting species ranges due to climate change. A recent report on adaptive conservation planning points to the various types of mobility that already exist within and around national park frontiers: rotating closures between management units , zoning-related restrictions for vegetation recovery and species trophic and phenological cycles, and seasonal modifications to area resource use (hunting, fishing, hiking, logging, skiing, etc.).73 Conservation easements (territories beyond current park boundaries that contain “bundles of use restrictions that can be reassessed, triggered, or removed as time passes”) is a flexible tool that will vary in its implementation according to the land-use practices around the park.74

The final biodiversity adaptive strategy in this typology encompasses options for park managers when species protection is no longer a possibility. Assisted migration and ex-situ conservation options such as gene banking and captive-breeding efforts for individual species may be necessary when dispersal from a park is impossible (due to

26

70 Burns, Catherine, et al. 11476

71 L. Hannah, et al. see 488.

72 Hannah, L 209

73 Pressey, et al. 583-92.

74 Hannah, L. 209

land use surrounding the park or brusque habitat loss) and decreased species populations lead to “genetic bottlenecks” and inbreeding. 75

Adapting to Tourism/Recreation Changes According to the impact scenarios introduced above, national park managers in Canada and the US will need to prepare for increased warm-season visitation numbers, particularly in the mountain and northern regions. The bulk of adaptation strategies for countering this ecological and infrastructural impact have already been coupled with mitigation and park sustainability measures.76 These measures will be discussed in more detail below. Biodiversity Change: Strategies for Canada and the US While Parks Canada and the National Park Service may have recourse to any combination of the adaptation tools mentioned earlier, current biodiversity management trends in both countries seem to place heavy emphasis on connectivity and protected area networks. Parks Canadaʼs strategy to meet its mandate of “ecological integrity” includes new park creation to include all 39 vegetation regions, and stresses the importance of developing park-specific SDMs that can be used to monitor climate fluctuations and “fill in the gaps” by producing results that can be used in local adaptation plans.77 Simultaneously, Parks Canada concedes that, “It is increasingly important for Parks Canada to look beyond park boundaries to address climate change,” and that, “Given the expected geographic shifts among species and biomes...coordinated management will be essential.”78 Park managers in the US are equally looking to employ adaptation measures that incorporate park specificity and greater collaboration with implicated stakeholders.

27

75 Hannah, L. 210

76 IPCC 637

77 Parks Canada and Climate Change Website. http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/v-g/ie-ei/cc/actions_e.asp. Last accessed 3 March 2008 at 4:00 p.m.

78 Ibid

On 16 January 2009, an order was issued by the US Secretary of the Interior for department-wide implementation of the Adaptive Management strategy developed by the Climate Change Task Force, created in 2007 within the US Department of the Interior (DOI).79 Adaptive Management (AM) sets in motion a flexible, learning-based and mutually-reinforcing policy vision:

Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself, but rather a means to more effective decisions and enhanced benefits. Its true measure is in how well it helps meet environmental, social, and economic goals, increases scientific knowledge, and reduces tensions among stakeholders.80

This vision is of particular salience to biodiversity conservation in the US because AM applies to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the branch of the DOI that manages the Endangered Species Act. FWS operations already work closely with Federal (viz. the NPS), tribal, State and local agencies, private citizens and conservation organizations in the protection of endangered species and the ranking of at-risk species.81 In this regard, AM has the potential to lend constructive unity to the dialogue on and management of biodiversity in US national parks. The DOI also calls for a redefining of the terms “natural” and “unimpaired” in the NPS biodiversity mandate.82 The DOI Climate Change Task Force recognizes that climate change may alter distinguishing species and features of national parks. The Task Force estimates that the costs for failing to clarify or redefine these terms will be larger in the future when biodiversity management policies are revised and adversely affected stakeholders and benefactors pursue legal action against the park service. Like Parks Canada, the NPS, via AM, seeks to develop species response models with greater site specificity with the intent of better assessing the impacts of selected management scenarios. The NPS also hopes to enhance collaboration with the areas

28

79 US Secretarial Order http://206.131.241.18/elips/sec_orders/html_orders/3226A1.htm, Last accessed 3 March 2008 at 4:00 p.m.

80 Williams, Byron K., et al. " HTML Version: http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/documents.html. Last accessed 3 March 2008 at 4:00 p.m.

81 United States. DOI. 89

82 Ibid 89

surrounding its parks through the Interior Climate Adaptation Partners (ICAP) Program. This program promotes regional partnerships among all land-use stakeholder to address the changes in species migration and range limits in response to climate change83. In addition to their work on the region and even federal level Parks Canada and NPS work closely with the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) program. MAB Canada covers 10 biosphere reserves and MAB USA covers 47. MAB strives to protect critical species and habitats not by conservation alone, but through proactive collaboration with stakeholders in the political, economic, cultural and scientific realities linked to the area within and surround the protected space.84 Through their affiliation with the MAB program, Parks Canada and NPS gain from the worldwide effort to protect biodiversity by employing best practices and scientific discoveries elsewhere, particularly in the areas of managing dialogue with regional stakeholders. Figure illustrates a MAB dialogue scheme working to properly translate the messages sent from various participants in discussions and decisions around a preserved area.

Figure 1485

29

83 United States. DOI. 86

84 Sourd, Christine, and UNESCO. Explaining Biosphere Reserves. Paris, France: UNESCO, 2004.

85 Ibid

VI. ConclusionThis paper brushes a quick survey of the climate change vulnerabilities, impacts and adaptation strategies concerning national parks in Canada and the U.S.. Parks Canada and NPS face manifold impacts of climate change that are projected to impinge on their mandate to preserve the biodiversity and recreation value of their national parks. In the near term at least, recreation in Canadian and American national parks will most likely benefit from the longer warm-season. Biodiversity in national parks, however, is expected to shift greatly with most park experiencing an influx of new species and a dispersion of others. Parks Canada and NPS are actively seeking to refine their modeling tools and their collaborative capacity to increase the connectivity and efficacy of their parks. Through initiativeʼs like Adaptive Management, the dialogue has already begun by policy makers at the highest level to rethink the language of conservation and refresh the notions of meaning that reside in the national parks of the future.

30

ReferencesBachelet, D., et al. "Interactions between Fire, Grazing and Climate Change at Wind

Cave National Park, Sd." ECOLOGICAL MODELLING 134.2-3 (2000): 229-44.Burns, C. E., K. M. Johnston, and O. J. Schmitz. "Global Climate Change and

Mammalian Species Diversity in U.S. National Parks." PROCEEDINGS- NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES USA 100 (2003): 11474-77.

Camill, P. "Permafrost Thaw Accelerates in Boreal Peatlands During Late-20th Century Climate Warming." CLIMATIC CHANGE 68.1-2 (2005): 135-52.

Dudley, N. "No Place to Hide: Effects of Climate Change on Protected Areas." WWF Climate Change Programme (2005).

Hannah, L. "Protected Areas and Climate Change." ANNALS- NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 1134 (2008): 201-12.

Hodgkins, G. A., R. W. Dudley, and T. G. Huntington. "Changes in the Timing of High River Flows in New England over the 20th Century." Journal of hydrology. 278.1 (2003): 244.

IPCC. (Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running and M.J. Scott, 2007: North America. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 617-652.).

Jones, Brenda, Canada Canada. Environment, and Canada Parks. "Climate Change and Canada's National Parks". [Ottawa?]. (2003): Environment Canada : Parks Canada. <http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Collection/En56-190-2003E.pdf>.

Kopas, Paul Sheldon. Taking the Air : Ideas and Change in Canada's National Parks. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2007.

L. Hannah, G. F. Midgley D. Millar. "Climate Change-Integrated Conservation Strategies." Global Ecology & Biogeography 11.6 (2002): 485-95.

Leatherman, Stephen P. Vanishing Lands : Sea Level, Society and Chesapeake Bay. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1995.

Peters, Robert L. and Lovejoy, Thomas E. "Global Warming and Biological Diversity." Ed. London: Yale University Press.

Phillips, S. J., et al. "Optimizing Dispersal Corridors for the Cape Proteaceae Using Network Flow." Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America 18.5 (2008): 1200-11.

Pressey, Robert L., et al. "Conservation Planning in a Changing World." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22.11 (2007): 583-92.

31

Pyke, C. R., and D. T. Fischer. "Selection of Bioclimatically Representative Biological Reserve Systems under Climate Change." Biological conservation. 121.3 (2005): 429-41.

Reid, Mary Lynn, and Centre Pacific Forestry. Mountain Pine Beetle Dispersal through Managed and Unmanaged Landscapes. Victoria, B.C.: Pacific Forestry Centre, 2008.

Schliep, R., et al. "Changing Climate in Protected Areas? Risk Perception of Climate Change by Biosphere Reserve Managers." GAIA GAIA 17.SPEC. ISS. 1 (2008): 116-24.

Scott, Daniel. "Climate Change and Tourism in the Mountain Regions of North America. ." First International Conference on Climate Change and Tourism. Ed.

Scott, Daniel J., et al. "Climate Change and Canada's National Park System : A Screening Level Assessment". Ottawa, 2000. (2000): Environnement Canada.

Scott, Daniel, Brenda Jones, and Jasmina Konopek. "Implications of Climate and Environmental Change for Nature-Based Tourism in the Canadian Rocky Mountains: A Case Study of Waterton Lakes National Park." Tourism management. 28.2 (2007): 570.

Scott, Daniel, Jay R. Malcolm, and Christopher Lemieux. "Climate Change and Modelled Biome Representation in Canada's National Park System: Implications for System Planning and Park Mandates." Global Ecology & Biogeography 11.6 (2002): 475-84.

Stewart, I. T., D. R. Cayan, and M. D. Dettinger. "Changes toward Earlier Streamflow Timing across Western North America." JOURNAL OF CLIMATE 18.8 (2005): 1136-55.

Stirling, I., N. J. Lunn, and J. Iacozza. "Long-Term Trends in the Population Ecology of Polar Bears in Western Hudson Bay in Relation to Climatic Change." Arctic 52.3 (1999): 294.

United States. Dept. of the Interior. Task Force on Climate, Change. "An Integrated Doi Science Plan for Addressing the Effects of Climate Change on Natural Systems Report of the Subcommittee on Science". [Washington, DC]. (2008): Department of the Interior Task Force on Climate Change. <http://www.usgs.gov/global_change/docs/science.pdf>.

U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (U.S.), Boulder Colorado:" Annual Report." 2007.

Westerling, A. L., et al. "Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity." Science. 313.5789 (2006): 940.

Williams, John W., and Stephen T. Jackson. "Novel Climates, No-Analog Communities, and Ecological Surprises." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5.9 (2007): 475-82.

32