Developing Climate Change Strategies and Actions at Your Park

• Tom Olliff, NPS Intermountain Region, Program Manager Landscape Conservation and Climate Change, National Park Service
• Pam Benjamin, NPS Intermountain Region, Climate Change Coordinator, National Park Service
• Andrew Erwin, NPS Intermountain Region, Sustainability Coordinator, National Park Service
• Joel Reynolds, Solutions Consulting
• Wylie Carr, NPS Climate Change Response Program, Climate Change Planning Specialist, National Park Service
• Larry Perez, NPS Climate Change Response Program, Communications Coordinator, National Park Service
• Amber Runyon, NPS Climate Change Response Program, Ecologist, National Park Service
• Koren Nydick, NPS Climate Change Response Program, Climate Science and Adaptation Coordinator, National Park Service
• Gregor W. Schuurman, NPS Climate Change Response Program, Ecologist, National Park Service
• David Lawrence, NPS Climate Change Response Program, Ecologist, National Park Service
• John Gross, NPS Climate Change Response Program, Ecologist, National Park Service

Abstract

To be effective, the National Park Service (NPS) response to climate change must be applied at the park level. The NPS Climate Change Response Program (CCRP) and partners have developed tools, frameworks, and strategies to help park managers understand, adapt to, mitigate, and communicate about climate change. This article details what these tools are and how parks can access them, using examples from the American Southwest emphasizing drought and its effects.

In the American Southwest, 2000-2021 was the driest 22-year period since at least AD 800.

NPS photo

Megadrought. Aridification. Call it what you will, current conditions are unprecedented in modern history. In the American Southwest, 2000-2021 was the driest 22-year period since at least AD 800 (Williams et al. 2022). Impacts from this unprecedented drought are affecting southwest parks. Along the Colorado River, water levels at Lake Powell have sunk to historic lows, resulting in the closure of 11 of 12 large boat launches, the passage of non-native smallmouth bass into Grand Canyon, and exposure of cultural resources to potential theft and vandalism. Bandelier National Monument has experienced increased rates of drought, fires, floods, and soil erosion, all of which are affecting archeological resources and ecological processes. Mean annual temperatures in the Southwest Region are projected to increase 5-8°F in the 21^st Century (USGCRP 2017) and is expected to become drier and experience more aridity during La Niña conditions (Dominguez et al. 2010).

In 2023, the National Park Service (NPS) updated the Climate Change Response Strategy (NPS 2023a; Strategy) to help parks develop coordinated park-based climate change responses through four cornerstones of action: Understand, Adapt, Mitigate, and Communicate. Based on a model developed by the Intermountain Region (IMR), the Resource Stewardship Advisory Team (RAST) Climate Change Workgroup, the Climate Change Response Program (CCRP) developed a Quick Guide to make it simpler for parks to implement the four cornerstones and 12 goals of the Strategy. This article explains how parks can, and have, used the Strategy and Quick Guide (NPS internal link) to respond to climate change.

Coordinate Your Park’s Climate Response

The Quick Guide recommends two high-level actions that are key to a park’s climate change response: (1) coordinate across divisions and (2) incorporate the Strategy into annual work planning. Climate change response involves every park division, from facilities managing the Green Parks Plan, rangers incorporating climate change response into operations, interpreters engaging the public, and resource managers understanding and adapting to climate change in natural and cultural resources. To best respond to climate change, parks should assign a climate change coordinator and create a cross-divisional team to coordinate actions and review progress on climate change response. At a minimum, this team should hold at least one annual meeting of the leadership team to review accomplishments, progress, and future priorities and incorporate information about the park’s response to climate change into at least one all-employee meeting or training.

Strategy Cornerstone: Understand

Know how climate is changing at your park

How has climate changed in the last 50 years? How is it projected to change in the next 30-50 years? Parks have resources to help answer these questions, including:

Climate Futures. The NPS Climate Change Response Program (CCRP) has produced climate futures—descriptions of the physical attributes of plausible future climates that could occur at a specific place and time (Runyon et al. 2024)—and summaries on climate exposure for all parks in the conterminous United States. These climate futures look at divergent climate projections that broadly characterize climate uncertainty so they can be used to stress-test goals, activities, and decisions. Climate futures are illustrated in Figure 1 by plotting each model’s average temperature and precipitation projections for the years 2040-2070. Climate futures are illustrated in Figure 1 by plotting each model’s average temperature and precipitation projections for the years 2040-2070. The projections are each equally plausible realizations of the future and range from “warmer to hotter” and “wetter to drier” (Figure 1; see Runyon et al. 2024 for details).

Figure 1: Change in average annual mean temperature and average annual total precipitation ca. 2050 (2035–2065) relative to the 1979–2012 historical period for the Carlsbad Caverns National Park for each General Circulation Model-Representative Concentration Pathway projection (black dots).

The “warm wet” and “hot dry” climate futures were selected because they often represent a “best-” and “worst-case” scenario for resources. For each climate future, the most extreme projection in the quadrant is indicated by a circle.

Parks can then focus on two models (often “Warm, Wet” and “Hot, Dry”; blue and red circled projections in Figure 1) to understand the range of future projections and additional climate metrics such as number of extremely hot days (Figure 2) or changes in drought status. Climate futures provide the basis for creating climate resource scenarios (Schuurman et al. 2019; Runyon et al.2020; Runyon et al. 2021).

Figure 2: Number of hot days (>95°F) per year at El Malpais National Monument (ELMA) increases from <1 during the historic baseline (1950-1999) to 3 in the "Warm-Wet" Scenario and 11 in the "Hot Dry" Scenario (CCRP climate futures ELMA 2021, unpublished data).

Parks can create similar charts in Climate Analyzer, a web-based tool supported by the NPS Inventory & Monitoring Division.

State or regional climate assessments. The Fifth (and latest) National Climate Assessment (NCA5; USGCRP 2023) provides summaries of observed and projected trends in climate change, as well as associated effects at the national and regional levels. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides State Climate Summaries that present climate exposure and impacts to ecological processes such as wildfire. Both products can provide important information on climate exposure and vulnerabilities for your park.

Finally, you can find several different climate summaries specific to your park by searching in the NPS Integrated Resource Management Applications (IRMA) Data Store. These summaries include historic and projected changes in temperature and precipitation, projected climate-driven changes in park visitation, climate-related changes in bird populations, and, for some parks, resource-specific vulnerability assessments.

Know how your resources, infrastructure and operations are vulnerable to climate change

Understanding the vulnerability of park resources is important to developing proactive management plans. Climate change vulnerability assessments (CCVAs) evaluate climate exposure, sensitivity of resources or facilities, and for living resources, adaptive capacity. Climate change vulnerability assessments identify what is at risk and why. Despite the significant climate-change vulnerabilities facing parks, relatively few parks have site- or resource-specific CCVAs to inform any of their major management decisions (Peek et al. 2022, Michalak et al. 2021). While climate futures, the National Climate Assessment, and the NOAA State Summaries help identify the major exposure concerns that parks may face, CCVAs combine them with climate sensitivities (and adaptive capacity for living resources) to identify vulnerabilities, providing a foundation to identify climate adaptation options, and promote climate-informed management decisions. Since CCVAs are driven by exposure and sensitivity, and exposure differs by location and sensitivity differs by the CCVA target (e.g., sagebrush vegetation vs elk vs park water supply), there is no such thing as a park CCVA that will answer all questions and inform all decisions.

Where do you find CCVAs? There are several regional scale or species-focused studies, including the U.S. Forest Service-led regional CCVAs (e.g., Halofsky et al. 2018a,b; Williams and Friggins 2017) assessments for regional forested areas, and published assessments of key species, trees, fish, or other taxa (e.g., Bagne et al. 2011, Isaak et al. 2016). More climate change assessments can be found through the USDA Climate Hubs.The NPS Vanishing Treasures Program with partners from the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, and Boise State University, created the Cultural Resources Environmental Assessment Toolbox (CREVAT) to understand how cultural resources are vulnerable to climate change. CREVAT provides data for six key environmental exposures variables (annual maximum temperature, extreme precipitation, number of dry days, wildfire, soil erosion, and changes in freeze-thaw) and integrates climate exposure data with the sensitivity of materials in a geospatial system. Because cultural resources are often composed of more than one material type (stone, wood, metal, adobe, etc.), and each material type can have a different level of sensitivity to climate, CREVAT uses a unique “building systems” framework to evaluate resource vulnerability (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Vulnerability assessments of stone architecture from CREVAT were used to inform on-site discussions at Aztec Ruins National Monument and Chaco Culture National Historic Park (SOURCE: Introduction to CREVAT).

The Stone 1 system is one of several systems characterized in CREVAT based on material type, structure, construction complexity, weatherability, preservation treatments, and protective systems.

The NPS Sustainable Operations and Maintenance Branch has developed the Natural Hazards Handbook (explained in detail below) to help park managers identify and respond to climate risks during the facilities planning and design process. The Natural Hazards Checklist, part of the handbook, lists 27 potential climate risks with links to databases and resources to assess those risks.

Despite these studies and tools, we don’t have a quantitative vulnerability assessment for every resource. Often the best source of vulnerability information will be park staff and partners with local expertise that can tease out how climate change may impact your resources on a site-by-site, resource-by-resource basis. The CCRP has developed worksheets to help parks do this (see section Manage Resources and Facilities with Climate Impacts in Mind for more information).

Vulnerability assessment in action

A variety of studies address climate vulnerability for specific parks or vegetation types. For example, Thoma and others (2018), assessed vulnerability of four dominant vegetation types to projected drying associated with climate change across the Colorado Plateau, including Zion National Park, Dinosaur National Monument, Curecanti National Recreation Area, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, Arches National Park, Canyonlands National Park, and Capitol Reef National Park. They related vegetation production to the availability of water and determined the degree of aridity at which vegetation production shifted from above to below average values–the “pivot point” for that vegetation type. They found that the water available to vegetation depends on climate and soil properties that change along environmental gradients, and that in arid years, vegetation production is well below average and thus unlikely to sustain current levels of cover if those conditions prevail. Pivot points provide an early warning of changes in vegetation production in response to projected climate changes, such as the drying that is projected for much of the NPS Intermountain Region (Bradford et al. 2020).

Strategy Cornerstone: Adapt

Manage resources and facilities with climate impacts in mind

After park managers understand climate exposure and vulnerability, they will need to decide whether, when, and how to manage resources and facilities in response to these plausible projected climate impacts. The Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD)—A Decision Framework for the 21^st-century Natural Resource Manager (Schuurman et al. 2020, Schuurman et al. 2022) provides a simple set of distinct management options that park managers can consider when responding to ecosystems facing the potential for rapid, irreversible ecological change. This framework encourages natural resource managers to consider strategic, forward-looking actions rather than maintain management goals based on past conditions. The RAD response options include:

1. Resist the trajectory, by working to maintain or restore ecosystem composition, structure, processes, or function on the basis of historical or acceptable current conditions.

2. Accept the trajectory, by allowing ecosystem composition, structure, processes, or function to change autonomously.

3. Direct the trajectory, by actively shaping ecosystem composition, structure, processes, or function toward preferred new conditions (Schuurman et al. 2022).

The three RAD options vary in terms of whether and in what way managers intentionally intervene to shape the trajectory of ecosystem change. Where and when they do decide to intervene, managers can choose preferred ecological outcomes that vary from a return to a historical benchmark, to persistence of existing (non-historical) conditions, or emergence of conditions for which there may be no local precedent.

The RAD framework also is applicable to cultural resource and facilities, in addition to natural resources. For example, mangers can resist change by protecting or rebuilding resources/assets in place, accept change by documenting them while allowing deterioration or removal, or direct change by moving or rebuilding them in less vulnerable locations or using more sustainable materials. Post-disaster response, including Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) and Burned Area Rehabilitation (BAR) presents an opportunity to apply RAD across disciplines.

To help managers move from broad approaches to adaptation to identifying more specific adaptation strategies and actions, NPS developed Planning for a Changing Climate (P4CC; NPS 2021). Planning for a Changing Climate (see section Build Climate Change Information in your Plans and Operations for more information) uses worksheets to help managers (1) Record existing resource management goals; (2) Assess resource vulnerability to climate change; (3) Re-examine your management goals in light of climate change vulnerability; (4) Brainstorm adaptation (management) strategies and actions; (5) Prioritize adaptation (management) strategies and actions; and (6) Implement strategies and track effectiveness. In addition, the U.S. Forest Service’s Northern Institute of Climate Applied Science has synthesized management strategies and approaches into menus for a variety of natural resource topics. These “menus” provide lists of adaptation actions that can help you move from broad ideas to specific actions. Park managers can use these resources to select appropriate actions based on their unique project location and goals (Swanston et al. 2016).

The NPS Sustainability Operations and Maintenance Branch developed the Addressing Climate Change and Natural Hazards Handbook (Handbook) to help facilities managers adapt to climate change. Grounded in NPS Policy Memorandum 15-01 (NPS 2015a), the Handbook provides a process and information to help identify, avoid, and mitigate risks associated with environmental change hazards and effects on facility investments. The Handbook includes two parts: (1) Natural Hazards Checklist and (2) Natural Hazards Risk Assessment. The Natural Hazards Checklist is a screening tool to be used at the investment concept stage to help teams determine potential climate change effects and natural hazards to a proposed facilities investment. The Natural Hazards Risk Assessment is a tool to be used throughout the project, from investment concept through project scoping and design to help teams minimize and mitigate the hazards or climate change implications identified in the checklist on the planned investment. Managers are required to use the Handbook for any project they bring forward to the Bureau Investment Review Board.

Adaptation in action

Big Bend National Park is reinvesting in the 70-year-old water supply infrastructure from Oak Spring, a groundwater-fed spring that is the sole water source for the Chisos Basin, one of the busiest areas of the park. Park managers were interested in future projections of Oak Spring flows to determine risks and benefits of either (1) re-developing the Oak Spring system as is, (2) re-developing the Oak Spring system to withstand longer and more severe dry periods, or (3) switching to a more reliable water source several miles distant. The design life of the replacement project is 50–70 years and the expected to cost more than $40M due to the complexity of either directional drilling or removing and replacing the existing pipeline. The CCRP generated climate futures and determined that under the (best case) Warm Wet scenario, flows in the 2060s fall below 20 gallons per minute (gpm; the flow below which Oak Spring is unreliable as a water supply) about the same amount as the 1950-2000 historical period. Under the Hot Dry scenario, the number of months per decade in which Oak Spring flows fall below 20 gpm in the 2060s is more than double the historical baseline. Based on this information, local knowledge of current and potential future water requirements at the site, and considering the relative costs and potential environmental risk of switching to the other water source, the park currently plans to re-develop Oak Spring as a water source. Understanding that less water will be available in the future, the park will simultaneously (1) increase water conservation in developed areas to reduce significant water losses, and (2) add water storage to the system to help weather periods of drought. Together, these actions are intended to make their water supply robust to even the “Hot Dry” scenario (Lawrence et al. 2021, Lawrence and Runyon 2019).

Address climate change through routine plans and operations

Climate change is creating a new and dynamic environment that challenges the NPS mission to “manage park resources and values in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (NPS 2006). Thus, the NPS is developing guidance and decision support tools that improve park planning efforts in response to continually shifting climate conditions. Planning for a Changing Climate (P4CC) is at the forefront of this guidance, helping NPS planners and managers identify climate adaptation options as a regular practice across comprehensive, strategic, and implementation plans as well as in day-to-day operations.

P4CC guides NPS planners and managers in developing robust climate change adaptation strategies to better protect park resources and assets today and for future generations. P4CC advances Climate-Smart Conservation (Stein et al. 2014) and customizes it to NPS planning purposes. More specifically, P4CC highlights that climate-informed planning processes need to:

1. Develop forward-looking goals that consider future climatic conditions. Adaptation planning looks to the future, not the past, by using climate projections to adopt forward-looking goals; and

2. Consider more than one scenario of the future when developing management strategies and actions. Adaptation planning considers multiple scenarios of the future to account for uncertainty in the scope, magnitude, and effects of climate change.

Figure 4: The NPS climate change adaptation planning process. Darker circles around steps 2-5 indicate where key principles of developing forward looking goals and considering multiple scenarios play a critical role.

P4CC helps link the tools and resources discussed in this article—climate futures, resource vulnerability, management (adaptation) options—into an overarching adaptation planning process. The NPS adaptation planning process (Figure 4) consists of familiar stages of adaptive management to reflect that climate adaptation does not require a separate planning endeavor or a stand-alone plan. Instead, climate change is best addressed through existing planning tools and operational decision-making processes. For example, CCRP has worked with Park Planning and Special Studies and the Denver Service Center to standardize how to include climate change in the development of Resource Stewardship Strategies (NPS 2020). In addition, the CCRP is facilitating park-based adaptation workshops that use P4CC guidance and worksheets to inform operational decisions. As reflected in the planning cycle, adaptation is a continuing process, rather than an endpoint.

As part of planning processes, parks should consider climate change in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses as climate change is likely to affect park resources and a park’s ability to reach project goals. Considering climate change in NEPA analyses helps identify potential impacts over the full planning time horizon. The NPS Environmental Quality Division recommends adding climate change as part of the trends section of affected environment.

Specific to facilities planning, Policy Memo 15-01 (NPS 2015a), Addressing Climate Change and Natural Hazards for Facilities, requires park managers and planners to identify and document facility vulnerabilities to climate change. Policy Memo 15-01 also provides guidance on the design of facilities to incorporate impacts of climate change adaptation and natural hazards. The Addressing Climate Change and Natural Hazards Handbook (NPS 2015b) tiers from Policy Memo 15-01 and includes a Natural Hazard Checklist (NPS 2015c), which provides a screening tool to determine the most likely hazards a project may confront. The Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook (Beavers et al. 2016) recommends how to assess vulnerability for coastal infrastructure, with over 20 coastal vulnerability assessments having been published for parks.

Scenario Planning

We have to look to the future when we think about climate change, but doing so involves uncertainty. Scenario planning (NPS CCRP 2013) can be a useful tool for managing parks under conditions of uncertainty, including climate uncertainty. Scenario planning asks the simple question of “What might happen?” In doing so, it encourages planners and managers to (1) explore a variety of plausible future conditions, (2) evaluate the implications of those conditions, and (3) identify a portfolio of possible management strategies.

Scenario planning can be scaled to fit the complexity and timeline of a planning or decision-making process.Scenario planning is a fundamental component of implementing Planning for a Changing Climate guidance (NPS 2021). The NPS has been using scenario planning since 2007 to help parks address uncertainty and prepare for climate change (Star et al. 2016).

Strategy Cornerstone: Mitigate

Implement sustainable practices

The NPS manages the largest number of constructed assets of any civilian agency in the federal government. The NPS developed the Green Parks Plan, 3^rd Edition (NPS 2023b) to ensure that the NPS is reducing its environmental impact. The plan establishes five ambitious goals to improve sustainability and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including:

• Be Climate Friendly and Climate Ready

• Be Energy Smart and Water Wise

• Buy Green and Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle

• Green Our Rides

• Foster a Sustainability Ethic

Since the Green Parks Plan was introduced, the NPS has reduced energy and water consumption, limited waste generation, began the transition of fleet to zero-emission vehicles, and is managing its facilities more sustainably. Further, as of FY 2020, NPS has reduced our GHG emissions by 32% compared to the FY 2008 baseline.

The Climate Friendly Parks (CFP) Program supports the NPS Green Parks Plan. The CFP Program is structured around four milestones (Submit an Application; Complete a Greenhouse Gas Inventory; Conduct a CFP Workshop; Complete a CFP Action Plan). After successfully completing these milestones, a park becomes an official CFP Member Park. Fourteen IMR parks have been certified Climate Friendly since the program began in 2012.

Sustainability in action

In 2012, San Antonio Missions National Historical Park became the first Texas NPS unit to join the CFP Program. From initiating a bicycle rental partnership to transitioning to propane-powered mowers, San Antonio Missions takes alternative-fueled vehicles to the next level. In 2012, the park partnered with the city of San Antonio and the B-Cycle Bike Share to initiate the B-Cycle Mission Reach Expansion Project. Incorporating eight miles of non-motorized recreation, the project encourages visitors to explore the park while reducing their carbon footprint. Additionally, the park uses three propane mowers, covering 270 acres a year, to reduce petroleum use—also achieving a 50% savings in fuel costs annually. The park's partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy Clean Cities Program helps reduce GHG emissions by replacing two gasoline vehicles with alternative fueled vehicles and installing a public electric vehicle charging station. By 2014, 40% of the park's fleet were alternative-fueled vehicles.

Strategy Cornerstone: Communicate

Communicate with the public about climate change in your park

National parks are living laboratories where the effects of climate change can be readily observed and demonstrated. Given an annual reach of 800 million in-person and digital visitors—and our vast cadre of communication specialists—the NPS is uniquely positioned to advance public dialogue on the climate crisis.

The CCRP provides guidance and inspiration for park-level communications. The National Climate Change Interpretation and Education Strategy (NPS 2016a) advances four broad goals for communicating about the science and impacts of climate change across the NPS, including (1) provide opportunities to find personal relevance in relation to climate change; (2) develop a climate-conscious workforce; (3) provide leadership in national and global climate change response; and (4) cultivate a community of climate communication with our partners. The Climate Change Subject Site on NPS.gov provides robust, public-facing information on NPS climate change response, and climate-related updates are shared regularly through dedicated monthly newsletters.

Saguaro National Park developed web content that explores local climate trends, unpacks implications for park resources, and offers possible solutions for the future.

NPS/Hannah Schwalbe

Several ongoing, targeted efforts further support park-level communication. Original research findings on audience analysis (Davis et al. 2012) and current interpretive methods (Roberts et al. 2021) provide insight to guide the development of products and messaging. Annual offerings of the Interpreting Climate Change virtual course provide training to front-line communicators on best practices in climate communication. Curriculum-based K-12 education on climate-related topics is supported through various partnership efforts (Perez et al. 2020), including the Park for Every Classroom program.

Technical assistance requests, one-time project funding, and youth internship programs provide additional opportunities to advance discrete climate communication projects. Such mechanisms have supported the development of in-park waysides, park-specific climate web pages, interpretive multi-media videos, and climate communication strategies.

Communication in action

The Drawing Connections video series was created by parks in collaboration with the Climate Change Response Program. The series uncovers subtle, lesser-known connections between park resources and climate change—particularly at cultural and historic sites. Video scripts were developed using interpretive audience engagement techniques and dialogic questions. The ideas were then brought to life through animated, hand-drawn illustrations. Episodes from the series explore climate connections at nine different parks, including Organ Pipe Cactus National Park, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, and Fort Laramie National Historic Site, among others. Parks use the videos online, in visitor centers, as part of K-12 curriculum-based programming, and during community outreach. The Drawing Connections series has won several awards, including top prize from the National Association for Interpretation Video Award and a Silver Telly.

Train our workforce

The Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Action Plan (2021) prioritizes the development of a climate-literate workforce to meet management challenges posed by the climate crisis. The CCRP supports workforce climate change literacy efforts through the development of training plans, content delivery, outcomes evaluation, and coordination across bureaus in the DOI. The existing portfolio of training offerings provides various depths of learning across priority disciplines, delivered in a variety of online, in-person, and hybrid formats.

The NPS Workforce Climate Change Literacy: Needs Assessment and Strategy provides a service-wide blueprint for cultivating a climate-capable workforce. The strategy informs training “road maps” for specific occupational categories and guides investments in future curricula. The CCRP offers a blended portfolio of formal and informal learning opportunities targeting NPS employees across occupational series (NPS 2016b). Periodic webinars, monthly newsletters, and a growing collection of climate change videos support continued learning and discussion around climate change topics. And climate change content is increasingly incorporated into existing, servicewide curricula, such as the NPS Fundamentals intake training.

Training in action

Earth to Sky is an active partnership between the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that provides regional training opportunities in climate change communication. In spring 2024, Earth to Sky presented a course titled Florida Squeezed: The Convergence of Climate, Communication & Community that targeted DOI communications personnel and partners in South Florida.

Collaborate with partners

The scale of climate change impacts will far exceed the ability of any one park, agency, or organization to effectively respond. Standing and ad-hoc partnerships improve our collective ability to respond to climate change. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)-led Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASCs) and USGS Science Centers have a strong record of helping parks respond to climate. Parks are well established members of ecosystem-level partnerships such as the Crown Managers’ Partnership, the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, the Gunnison Climate Working Group, the Greater Grand Canyon Landscape Assessment, and Southwest Colorado Climate Adaptation Working Group, as well as working with local communities and universities.

Partnership in action

The NPS Southeast Utah Group, NPS Inventory & Monitoring Division, USGS, Northern Arizona University, and Northern Institute for Applied Climate Science held an adaptation workshop in August 2021 to address climate impacts across Colorado Plateau grasslands. Participants used their on-the-ground expertise to brainstorm climate adaptation strategies and discussed adaptation planning in their parks to create climate-informed management plans. The workshop was part of a series of workshops held over the past three years that culminated in testing a new adaptation menu of strategies and approaches for Colorado Plateau Arid grasslands. Park managers that participated in the workshops gained knowledge, resources, and tools to help in adaptation planning that is thoughtful, structured, and robust against a changing climate for national parks across the Colorado Plateau.

Conclusion

It is time to re-focus our energies on how climate change is affecting and will affect park natural and cultural resources, facilities, operations, and visitor experience. We need to prepare for both the dramatic, rapid impacts of climate change like more extreme fires, storms, and floods, as well as more gradual impacts like extended droughts and shifts in seasonality. To do so, we need to build park-based climate responses into all aspects of park management—that is, mainstream climate change response.

References

Bagne, K. E., M. M. Friggens, and D. M. Finch. 2011.
A system for assessing vulnerability of species (SAVS) to climate change. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-257. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Bradford, J. B., D. R. Schlaepfer, W. K. Lauenroth, and K. A. Palmquist. 2020.
Robust ecological drought projections for drylands in the 21st century. Global Change Biology 26: 3906-3919.

Beavers, R. L., A. L. Babson, and C. A. Schupp, eds. 2016.
Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook. NPS 999/134090. National Park Service. Washington, DC.

Davis, S., S. Karg, and J. Thompson. 2012.
Climate Change Education Partnership Visitor Survey Summary Report. Place-based Climate Change Education Partnership. Fort Collins, CO.

Dominguez, F., J. Cañon, and J. Valdes. 2010.
IPCC-AR4 climate simulations for the Southwestern US: the importance of future ENSO projections. Climatic Change. 99: 499-514.

Halofsky, J. E., D. L. Peterson, J. J. Ho, N. J. Little, and L. A. Joyce. 2018a.
Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the intermountain region [part 1]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station., Fort Collins, Colorado. pp. 1-198.

Halofsky, J. E., D.L. Peterson, J. J. Ho, N. J. Little, and L. A. Joyce. 2018b.
Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the intermountain region [part 2]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, pp. 199-513.

Isaak, D. J., M. K. Young, C. H. Luce, S. W. Hostetler, S. J. Wenger, E. E. Peterson, J. M. Ver Hoef, M. C. Groce, D. L. Horan, and D. E. Nagel. 2016.
Slow climate velocities of mountain streams portend their role as refugia for cold-water biodiversity. Proceedings National Academy Sciences, USA 113: 4374–4379.

Lawrence, D. J., A. N. Runyan, J. E. Gross, G.W. Schuurman, and B.W. Miller. 2021.
Divergent, plausible, and relevant climate futures for near- and long-term resource planning. Climatic Change (2021) 167: 38.

Lawrence, D. J. and A. N. Runyon. 2019.
Implications of climate change for the water supply of the Chisos Mountains developed area: Big Bend National Park technical assistance request 4945. Natural Resource Report. NPS/NRSS/CCRP/NRR—2019/2045. National Park Service. Fort Collins, Colorado.

Michalak, J. L., J. J. Lawler, J. E. Gross, and C. E. Littlefield. 2021.
A strategic analysis of climate vulnerability of national park resources and values. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/CCRP/NRR—2021/2293. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. https://doi.org/10.36967/nrr-2287214.

National Park Service (NPS). 2023a.
National Park Service Climate Change Response Strategy 2023 Update. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

National Park Service (NPS). 2023b.
Green Parks Plan, 3^rd Edition. Advancing the National Park Service mission through sustainable operations. National Park Service. Washington, D.C. 16pp.

National Park Service (NPS). 2021.
Planning for a Changing Climate: Climate-Smart Planning and Management in the National Park Service. National Park Service. Fort Collins, CO.

National Park Service (NPS). 2020.
Supplemental Guidance: Integration of Climate Change Scenario Planning into the Resource Stewardship Strategy Process. National Park Service.

National Park Service (NPS). 2016a.
National Climate Change Interpretation and Education Strategy National Park Service National Climate Change Interpretation and Education Strategy July 2016 High Resolution (nps.gov)

National Park Service (NPS). 2016b.
Green Parks Plan. NPS-Green-Parks-Plan-2016.pdf.

National Park Service (NPS). 2015a.
Policy Memorandum 15-01, Addressing Climate Change and Natural Hazards for Facilities. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. https://www.nps.gov/policy/PolMemos/PM_15-01.htm

National Park Service (NPS). 2015b.
Addressing Climate Change and Natural Hazards. Facilities and Design Considerations. Level 3 Handbook. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. https://www.nps.gov/dscw/upload/AddressingClimateChangeAndNaturalHazards-Level3Handbook_Jan2015_041218AF2.docx

National Park Service (NPS). 2015c.
Addressing Climate Change and Natural Hazards. Facilities and Design Considerations. Stop 1: Natural Hazards Checklist. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. https://home.nps.gov/dscw/upload/NaturalHazardChecklist-Stop1-Excerpt_Jan2015p.doc

National Park Service (NPS)-Climate Change Response Program (CCRP). 2013.
Using Scenarios to Explore Climate Change: A Handbook for Practitioners. National Park Service. Fort Collins, Colorado.

National Park Service (NPS). 2006.
Management Policies 2006. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Peek, K. M., B. R. Tormey, H. L. Thompson, A. C. Ellsworth, and C. H. Hoffman, eds. 2022.
Climate change vulnerability assessments in the National Park Service: An integrated review for infrastructure, natural resources, and cultural resources. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/CCRP/NRR—2022/2404. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. https://doi.org/10.36967/nrr-2293650.

Perez, L., A. Delorey, M. Nelson, R. Stubblebine, and M. Holly. 2020.
Every Kid in a Park Climate Change Academies: Notes from the field. Park Stewardship Forum. 36(2).

Roberts, R., M. Holly, and L. Perez. 2021.
Categorizing Online Climate Change Interpretation Across the National Park System. Journal of Interpretation Research. 26(1): 6-23.

Runyon, A. N., J. E. Gross, G. W. Schuurman, D. J. Lawrence, and J. H. Reynolds. 2024.
Methods for assessing climate change exposure for national park planning. Park Resource Report. NPS/PRR—2024/02. National Park Service. Fort Collins, Colorado. https://doi.org/10.36967/2302720

Runyon, A. N., G. W. Schuurman, B. W. Miller, A. J. Symstad, and A. R. Hardy. 2021.
Climate change scenario planning for resource stewardship at Wind Cave National Park: Climate change scenario planning summary. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/NRR—2021/2274. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. https://doi.org/10.36967/nrr-2286672.

Runyon, A. N., A. R. Carlson, J. E. Gross, D. J. Lawrence, and G. W. Schuurman. 2020.
Repeatable approaches to work with scientific uncertainty and advance climate change adaptation in US National Parks. Parks Stewardship Forum 36:98-104.

Schuurman, G. W., D. N. Cole, A. E. Cravens, S. Covington, S. D. Crausbay, C. Hawkins Hoffman, D. J. Lawrence, D. R. Magness, J. M. Morton, E. A. Nelson, and R. O'Malley. 2022.
Navigating Ecological Transformation: Resist–Accept–Direct as a Path to a New Resource Management Paradigm, BioScience, Volume 72, Issue 1, January 2022, Pages 16–29, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab067.

Schuurman, G. W., C. Hawkins-Hoffman, D. N. Cole, D. J. Lawrence, J. M. Morton, D. R. Magness, A. E. Cravens, S. Covington, R. O'Malley, and N. A. Fisichelli. 2020.
Resist-accept-direct (RAD)—a framework for the 21^st-century natural resource manager. Natural Resource Report. NPS/NRSS/CCRP/NRR—2020/ 2213. National Park Service. Fort Collins, Colorado. https://doi.org/10.36967/nrr-2283597

Schuurman, G. W., A. Symstad, B. W. Miller, A. N. Runyon, and R. Ohms. 2019.
Climate change scenario planning for resource stewardship: Applying a novel approach in Devils Tower National Monument. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/CCRP/NRR—2019/2052. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Star, J., E. L. Rowland, M. E. Black, C. A. F. Enquist, G. Garfin, C. H. Hoffman, H. Hartmann, K. L. Jacobs, R. H. Moss, and A. M. Waple. 2016.
Supporting adaptation decisions through scenario planning: Enabling the effective use of multiple methods. Climate Risk Management 13: 88-94.

Stein, B. A., P. Glick, N. Edelson, and A. Staudt, eds. 2014.
Climate-Smart Conservation: Putting Adaptation Principles into Practice. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.

Swanston, C. W., M. K. Janowiak, L. A. Brandt, P. R. Butler, S. D. Handler, P. D. Shannon, A. D. Lewis, K. Hall, R. T. Fahey, L. Scott, A. Kerber, J. W. Miesbauer, L. Darling, L. Parker, and M. St. Pierre. 2016.
Forest Adaptation Resources: climate change tools and approaches for land managers, 2^nd ed. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-GTR-87-2. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 161 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-87-2

Thoma, D. P., S. M. Munson, and D. L. Witwicki. 2018.
Landscape pivot points and responses to water balance in national parks of the southwest US. Applied Vegetation Science. 19(3): 157-167.

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2023.
Fifth National Climate Assessment. Crimmins, A. R., C. W. Avery, D. R. Easterling, K. E. Kunkel, B. C. Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA. https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA5.2023.

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2017.
Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I. Wuebbles, D. J., D. W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C. Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, doi:10.7930/J0J964J6.

Williams, A. P., B. I. Cook, and J. E. Smerdon. 2022.
Rapid intensification of the emerging southwestern North American megadrought in 2020-2021. Nature Climate Change 12: 232-234. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01290-z.

Williams, M. I. and M. Friggens. 2017.
Vulnerability assessment of sagebrush ecosystems: Four corners and upper Rio Grande regions of the southern Rockies landscape conservation cooperative. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Resources

For more information and examples of climate change planning tools, check out these U.S. Department of the Interior and National Park Service Resources:
Climate Friendly Parks Program
Climate Futures Summaries
Coastal Vulnerability Assessments
Cultural Resources Environmental Assessment Toolbox (CREVAT)
National Climate Change Interpretation and Education Strategy
NPS Green Parks Plan 
Planning for Climate Change 
Resist-Adapt-Direct Framework  
U.S. Department of the Interior Climate Action Plan

Also see these helpful resources from other sources:
Fifth National Climate Assessment (globalchange.gov)
State Climate Summaries 2022 (ncics.org)
USDA Climate Hubs 

NPS Internal Resources

The tools, frameworks, processes, and guidance developed by the CCRP and other NPS programs and partners can help you in park-specific climate change planning. How can you get help? Start with a Technical Assistance Request or contact your regional climate change team (Tom Olliff, Pam Benjamin, or Andrew Erwin). The IMR Resource Stewardship Advisory Team Climate Group and CCRP developed an easy-to-use Quick Guide (NPS internal link) to help you get started.

Also see these resources available to NPS employees:
Addressing Climate Change and Natural Hazards Handbook

The Climate Change Scenario Planning Showcase provides examples of scenario planning in action at parks across the country.

Climate Friendly Parks is one of many initiatives supporting the National Park Service (NPS) Green Parks Plan. The program provides parks with the tools and resources to address climate change and ensure the most sustainable operations across the agency.

Sustainable Operations and Maintenance Branch

Additional resources and guidance documents to support park sustainability goals and efforts to reduce GHG emissions can be found on the IMR Sustainability SharePoint Site

Training
Interpreting Climate Change virtual training courseScenario Planning: An Introduction provides a self-paced learning activity on the Common Learning Portal that highlights key principles and steps in the process.

Cite this article as:

Olliff, S. T., P. Benjamin, A. Erwin, J. Reynolds, W. Carr, L. Perez, A. Runyon, K. Nydick, G. W. Schuurman, D. Lawrence, and J. Gross. 2024. Developing climate change strategies and actions at your park. National Park Service, Intermountain Park Science 2(1), 2024.