Download Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2
NATURAL RESOURCES IN THE FACE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
4
NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
4
THE SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS ADDRESSED BY THE ACT
4
Definition of Climate Change
Effects of Climate Change
Freshwater Resources
Case Study: Climate Change and the Colorado River Basin
Wildlife
Vegetation
Relevance of the Problem
THE SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS OFFERED BY THE ACT
Featured Solutions to the Problems
Tools for Ecosystem Protection
Case Study: Giant Forest Restoration Project
SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTIES IN MITIGATING THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Assisted Migration
Case Study: Assisted Migration for the American Pika
Wetland Restoration
Implications for Policymakers
MEASURING ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
Ecosystem Integrity: Maintaining Resistance and Resilience
Next Steps
4
5
5
8
9
9
11
12
12
14
17
19
20
21
22
22
22
22
24
CONCLUSION
24
REFFERENCES
25
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Natural Resources Climate Adaptation Act (NRCAA) aims to coordinate Federal agencies across a
broad spectrum of responsibilities in order to mitigate the effects of climate change on the nation’s
natural resources. These agencies will establish a panel of experts to inform policy decisions, compile
data on the changing effects of climate on natural resources, generate strategies for the mitigation of
biodiversity loss, and coordinate efforts to spread information throughout agencies and states.
The climate changes anticipated to affect our natural resources include changes in temperature,
changes in the intensity and amount of precipitation, sea level rise, increased incidence of droughts and
floods, and more intense and potentially more frequent storms. These changes threaten a wide range of
American communities, from salt-water intrusion into drinking water sources in coastal cities to the loss
of property due to uncontrolled fires in rural regions. These changes also pose serious threats to
ecosystems and the multiple services that they provide. Forests, wetlands, and prairies throughout the
country will face changes to their water and nutrient cycles, and species interactions will be altered by
changes in the timing of seasonal events. Vegetation, wildlife and freshwater resources must be
monitored and managed so that they can continue to provide the essential products and services upon
which society depends.
The Act lists two specific foci for the protection of natural resources: habitats and corridors. The habitats
that are still intact must be preserved, which, in a changing climate, means allowing species to move
into new areas. This movement can be fostered by the development of wildlife corridors that link distant
but similar ecosystems and facilitate the movement of animals, plants, fungi, and other species. This
emphasis on movement is critical; as climates change, specific ecosystems will generally move up in
latitude or elevation.
In order to survey the breadth of the Act, we will study the effects of climate change on three types of
natural resources: fresh water, vegetation, and wildlife. Our exploration of these issues will address the
effects of climate change on mountain snow packs, freshwater quality and supply, extinction rates,
climate-induced migration, pests, biodiversity, forestry, recreation and tourism.
Within the three-focus framework, the specific effects on wetlands and forests command special
attention. Wetlands, which provide filtering and buffering services at the boundary between aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems, are at risk from habitat conversion, rising sea levels and the accumulation of
pollutants. Forests are susceptible to a variety of threats from climate change but especially from
increasingly severe fires. Forest management in the United States has historically maintained a strategy
of fire suppression. This strategy has resulted in dense vegetation and accumulations of dead leaves and
other organic matter which, when dry, become highly flammable fuels that increase the intensity of
forest fires and their associated damages. Reducing this fuel load is a recent management goal to return
the forests to their historic conditions in order to reduce the number and intensity of forest fires.
Beyond the ecological impacts listed above, climate change effects on natural resources will have
impacts on other sectors of the US population. Pests and fire which threaten natural systems also
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 2
threaten agricultural crops and forestry plantations. The management of domesticated animals will
need to adapt to new patterns of temperature, precipitation, and disease. Conflicts over water, either
between upstream and downstream communities or between agricultural, industrial and municipal
users, will increase in areas where precipitation declines.
Two major goals of ecosystem management are improving the resistance and resilience of natural
systems to climate changes. Resistance is the ecosystem’s ability to buffer against the ill effects of a
disturbance. Resilience is an ecosystem’s ability to recover after a disturbance. In the case of the Act,
most of the research and consequential implementation will focus on aiding natural resources in their
resistance and resilience. Restoration projects for forests, wetlands, and grasslands must be coordinated
among management agencies and with all stakeholders within the local communities. The projected
solutions to help natural resources adapt to climate change mostly have to do with reducing the stress
placed on them by people. Infrastructure development fragments habitats and reduces species’ ability
to move; migration corridors would help remedy this fragmentation. Wetlands degraded by pollution,
draining, or filling have reduced capacity to provide clean water; wetland restoration projects can return
some of these functions.
Climate change projections are uncertain. Projections of general trends are considered more reliable
than projections for specific areas, presenting a challenge for managers of a particular ecosystem.
Uncertainties about specific climate changes translate into uncertainties about the effects on wildlife,
vegetation and freshwater resources. Timelines for particular impacts are especially difficult to predict.
In addition to uncertainties about the impact of climate change, there are controversies over the
relative merits of particular management techniques, such as the best methods to manage migration, or
to reduce the severity of fires. Lack of certainty creates a situation rife with excuses to avoid decision
making.
There is no simple measurement for success of this Act. Measurements must look at quantitative and
qualitative aspects of restoration projects. The best metrics of success will be based on a variety of
measurements, including conventional assessments of productivity, biodiversity, and ecosystem
functions, as well as holistic assessments of ecosystem stability. The science behind these
measurements continues to develop. With the continued impacts of climate change, more resources will
go to the development of better measurements.
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 3
NATURAL RESOURCES AND THEIR RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
As climate change intensifies in the future, the natural resources of the United States will be threatened.
Threats in various forms, such as warmer temperatures and changes in precipitation, will manifest in
different ways depending on the integrity of the affected ecosystems. In anticipation of these changes,
government and non-governmental institutions can adopt strategies that improve the ability of our
nation’s natural resources to adapt to a changing climate. The Natural Resources Climate Adaptation Act
(S.1933, hereafter the Act) addresses the way climate change will affect the natural resources of the
United States and creates a system for coordinating the government response to those effects. The Act
aims to respond to the ongoing and expected impacts of climate change by protecting the nation’s
natural resources and ecosystem services. Climate change is one of the most complex problems facing
our natural resources today; therefore, it will require an integrated approach spanning federal agencies,
states, tribes, and non-Governmental Organizations. The Act attempts to bridge existing policy gaps in
preparation for these challenges.
NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
This bill lays the groundwork for coordination between the White House, Federal agencies, state and
local governments, and other entities invested in maintaining the value and protecting the longevity of
our nation’s natural resources.
Senator Jeff Bingaman introduced the Natural Resources Climate Adaptation Act on October 27, 2009.
The bill refines and reintroduces natural resources adaptation initiatives proposed in past bills, such as
the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (the Waxman-Markey Bill). It enlists the Secretaries
of the Interior, Commerce and Agriculture, as well as the heads of several divisions whose
responsibilities include natural resource management. Deliverables will include the creation of an
advisory board to distribute information needed to manage our natural resources, a climate change
impact survey updated every five years, and other administrative structures which provide an
opportunity for cooperation and information-sharing among resource managers at the national level.
Because the impacts of climate change will play out differently in different ecosystems, federal agencies
will work closely with local, state, and tribal institutions to create a dynamic strategy that can evolve
with climate science. The bill calls for the establishment of a fund and specifies how that fund will be
allocated to different levels of government or specific resources.
THE SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS ADDRESSED BY THE ACT
Definition of Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines climate change as “a statistically
significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended
period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or
external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in
land use” (IPCC 2007a). The bill does not offer its own definition of climate change.
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 4
Effects of Climate Change
According to the Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States report, effects of climate change
have already been observed in the United States (Karl et al. 2009). These effects include increases in air
and water temperatures, reduced number of frost days, increased frequency and intensity of
precipitation in certain regions, rise in sea level, and reduction in ice cover. Models predict that the
average temperature of the United States is expected to increase by 4 to 11°F (2.2 to 6.1°C) by the end
of this century. The number of days above 90°F (32°C) in parts of the southern United States is expected
to increase from 60 to over 150 days per year by the end of this century (Karl et al. 2009). According to
this report, climate change can potentially lead to large impacts on natural ecosystems and the
resources they provide to humans.
The Natural Resources Climate Adaptation Act focuses on the impacts of climate change on the nation’s
natural resources in the following areas:


Natural Resources & Ecosystem Services: Protection of clean water supply, carbon storage,
biodiversity, pollination services, wildlife habitat, recreation and scenic/historic landscapes.
Wildlife Habitat and Corridors: Enhancing the ability of species to respond to shifting habitats
and minimizing the impacts of energy development and other land use projects. This includes
facilitating the movement and/or migration of fish, wildlife and plants in response to the effects
of climate change.
To illustrate the types of impacts climate change is predicted to have on the nation’s natural resources,
this report will focus on three areas of major concern: freshwater resources, wildlife, and vegetation.
Other resources will be impacted as well, such as agriculture, oceans and coastal ecosystems. Their
exclusion from this report is simply due to space constraints.
Freshwater Resources
Climate change will have impacts on the water cycle, affecting where, when, and how much water is
available. Precipitation patterns are predicted to change, causing certain areas of the United States to
experience an increase in precipitation and others to experience a decrease. A warmer climate is also
expected to affect the frequency and intensity of flood and drought events, on the timing of snowpack
melt, and on water quality. Some regions of the United States will be more adversely affected and some
regions will see very little change (Karl et al. 2009).
Floods & Droughts
Floods and droughts are likely to become more frequent and more intense as regional and seasonal
precipitation patterns change, and rainfall becomes more concentrated in heavy events with extended
warm and dry periods in between (IPCC 2007a).
Higher temperatures on Earth’s surface will increase water evaporation from the oceans, lakes and
rivers, resulting in additional water vapor in the atmosphere. According to the United States Global
Change Research Program, the water holding capacity of the atmosphere will rise by 4% for every 1F
temperature increase (Joyce et al. 2001). Higher levels of water vapor in the air and changes in
atmospheric circulation will increase the northward transport of water. This effect will contribute to
heavier annual precipitation in most of the United States, especially in regions like the Midwest, Alaska
and Northeast where precipitation and stream-flow have increased over the past 50 years (Murdoch et
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 5
al. 2000). As moisture flows northward, arid areas like the Southwest will receive even less precipitation.
The differences in warming between the Pacific Ocean and the continental United States in conjunction
with the amplification and northward displacement of the sub-tropical anticyclone will also contribute
to decreasing precipitation in the Southwest (Murdoch et al. 2000).
Figure 1 Changes in precipitation throughout the US indicate that wet regions are getting wetter while dry regions get drier.
Source: US EPA
Increased floods and droughts will require additional resources from public management and response
teams to handle the increased incidence of emergencies such as forest fires and flooded cities. In
addition, negative consequences are predicted to affect insurance rates, deductibles and the profits of
businesses and individuals (Bachelet et al. 2007).
Snowpack Melt
In areas where snowpack dominates surface water systems, the timing of runoff will progressively shift
earlier into the spring with consequent reductions in runoff in the late summer. This shift will affect
cities that depend on watersheds supplied by the snowmelt. For example, 25 million people and millions
of acres of farmland in California depend on the Sierra snowpack for more than half of their total water
supply (CDWR 2010). Altered timing of the snowpack melt will also impact the reproductive cycle of
plants and the timing of resource availability for wildlife (Karl et al. 2009).
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 6
Mountainous regions of the western United States and Alaska will experience a reduction in ice,
mountain glaciers, and permafrost. Ice cover on rivers and lakes will decrease along with the length of
the snow season and snow depth. In addition, reduced snowfalls in the southern United States suggest a
northward shift in snowstorm occurrence (Karl et al. 2009; Bates et al. 2008). The International Panel on
Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report suggests increased runoff in the Northeast and
Midwest in winter and spring, and large decreases in annual runoff in the Interior West, especially the
Southwest (IPCC 2007b).
Detrimental Effects on Water Quality
Surface water quality and groundwater quantity will be affected by a changing climate. Increased
precipitation intensity will result in more surface runoff and relatively less infiltration into the
groundwater. This situation increases the potential for the runoff to carry sediment and pollutants to
lakes, estuaries, rivers and the coastal ocean, resulting in harmful algal and bacterial blooms (Karl et al.
2009). Changes in the distribution of water are likely to put a strain on the country’s infrastructure,
affecting the agricultural, municipal, hydropower, and recreational sectors. Intense downpours may lead
to greater sewer overflows resulting in the discharge of untreated wastewater into surface waters.
Water supply conflicts are likely to increase in areas of decreasing water availability (Bates et al. 2008).
These increased damages are reflected through the high cost of flood damage, which was estimated at
$14 billion for all floods in the United States in 2004 (Hydrologic Information Center 2009).
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 7
Case Study: Climate Change and the Colorado River Basin
Figure 2 Map of Colorado River Basin from America.gov; photo of bend in Colorado River by Mila Zinkova.
The Colorado River supplies nearly 30 million people with water and provides irrigation
water to seven states and Mexico. It is the lone water supply for most of the arid southwestern
United States and the Mexicali Valley of Mexico. The Colorado River Basin water supply,
hydroelectric generation, reservoir levels, and salinity will all be affected by climate change. An
increase in temperature will decrease the proportion of precipitation falling as snow., with a
consequent reduction in snowpack, which is the major water reservoir. Higher temperatures will
also delay the onset of the snow season and accelerate the rate of snowmelt. It is also expected
that significant losses in soil moisture will occur during the summers due to the accelerated
snowmelt runoff. Given the importance of the Colorado River Basin for regional irrigation, these
projected changes are a major concern for farmers and land managers (Kiparsky & Gleick 2003).
As water supplies in the region decrease, policy makers must negotiate where limited
water resources should be allocated. Compromise between states in the form of leases and sales,
will likely increase animosity between Western municipalities. Furthermore, water demands in
growing urban areas will likely compete with agricultural needs, causing friction between sectors
(NRC 2007).
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 8
Wildlife
Wildlife in the United States is already being impacted by climate change (Burns et al. 2003). Threats
include “range shifts, habitat loss, changes in food resources, phenological changes, or changes in
ecological communities and species interactions” (McRae et al. 2008). Under these rapidly changing
circumstances, habitats will be altered and animal populations will either adapt to the new conditions in
a relatively short period of time or move to an area with conditions that suit their needs. Conservation
efforts in the United States have focused on setting aside protected areas as habitat for certain species.
Unfortunately, these protected areas have fixed boundaries, but the habitats that species will require in
order to adapt to climate change will shift (Burns et al. 2003).
Migration as an adaptation strategy for wildlife
Some species will be forced to migrate to new areas which, in a changed climate, are similar to their
native habitats. The likely direction of these migrations is poleward, which means American species will
move north (Parmesan et al. 1999). Some species will have difficulty migrating without assistance from
humans because fragmentation of their habitat does not allow them to move easily to new, more
suitable habitats (Green et al. 2001).
Extinction as a result of inability to adapt
The IPCC has released the sobering estimate that a quarter of the world’s mammals are at a risk of
extinction because of climate change (2007b), with most extinctions resulting from anthropogenic
changes in land use (Karl et al. 2009). Historically, changes in climate have resulted in habitat shifts, but
those shifts were not hampered by human development (Green et al. 2001). Fragmentation of habitats
has isolated populations by limiting their interaction with other populations; this isolation diminishes
genetic variation, which can hamper a species’ ability to adapt to new environments (Green et al. 2001).
Patterns of growth and reproduction in many species are synchronized to resources available at certain
times of the year, climate change affects resource availability at those times (Karl et al. 2009).
Additionally, certain pests and pathogens will expand into new areas as warmer temperatures favor
their growing conditions (Karl et al. 2009).
Vegetation
The impacts of climate change on vegetation in the United States are far-reaching and diverse, spanning
changes in biodiversity and invasive species, forestry, insect pests, fire events, and tourism and
recreation. While these categories are discussed separately here, the overlap between them is
significant.
Biodiversity and Invasive Species
An ecosystem is an interdependent system of plants, animals and microorganisms in which life forms
depend on other organisms for their survival. Climate patterns influence the distribution of biodiversity,
and organisms have adapted to their regional climates over time. However, the IPCC has concluded that
20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species assessed in a recent study may be at risk of extinction due
to climate change impacts within this century (IPCC 2007b). Some organisms will go extinct, either
locally or globally, if they are unable to migrate to and establish populations in new areas.
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 9
Forestry
Forests cover about one-third of the United States and provide habitat for plants, animals and
microorganisms. They also perform many ecological services that include cleansing the air and water,
storing carbon, providing timber and recreational activities, and satisfying both cultural and aesthetic
values (Joyce et al. 2001). The effects of climate change on forests may include changes in forest health
and productivity as well as shifts in the geographic range of certain species of trees (Karl et al. 2009;
Iverson & Prasad 1998). Trees are expected to migrate northward or to higher altitudes in response to
increased temperatures (Shugart et al. 2003), including regionally important trees such as sugar maples
in New England and spruce and fir in Alaska (Karl et al. 2009).
Insect Pests
Warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons will
increase the range of many pest species, and more
frequent droughts will weaken the ability of plants to
withstand pest attacks. The native bark beetle provides an
illustration. Since 1990, the bark beetle has killed trees
across millions of hectares of forest from Alaska to
southern California (Bentz 2008). Climate change is one
factor that appears to be driving at least some of the bark
beetle outbreaks, as it accelerates the beetle’s
reproductive cycle and reduces low-temperature-induced
mortality. At the same time, shifts in precipitation patterns
and increases in the number and intensity of droughts
have weakened trees, resulting in increased susceptibility
to bark beetle attacks (Bentz 2008). Although bark beetles
are a native species and occasional outbreaks are typical of
these forests, the increased intensity of bark beetle attacks
brought on by climate change has led U.S. Secretary of the
Interior Ken Salazar to call the bark beetle outbreak the
“Katrina of the West” (Robbins 2009).
Figure 3 A forest attacked by the bark beetle.
Trees killed by the beetle appear in brown.
Source: US Forest Service
Frequency and Severity of Fire Events
Reductions in moisture create more dry fuel, and a longer fire season contributes to the increasing
frequency and intensity of fire events (Van Mantgem et al. 2003). Pervasive warming also leads to
chronic stress on vegetation, resulting in higher sensitivity to fire-induced damages (Van Mantgem et al.
2003). With a mean temperature increase of 4˚F (expected by the mid-21st century), the annual area
burned by wildfire is expected to increase by a factor of 1.5 to 5 (Peterson & McKenzie 2008). In 2009,
wildfires burned nearly 6 million acres in the U.S., representing an increase of 115% over the 20-year
average for acres burned (Robertson 2010). Fire events already have a significant impact on the nation’s
economy. Since 2000, the cost of fighting wildfires every year has exceeded $1 billion (Robertson 2010).
The Western Forestry Leadership Council estimates that the Hayman fire of 2002 in Colorado had a total
direct cost of almost $1.4 billion. Furthermore, insurers paid out an estimated $1.6 billion to
policyholders following California’s wildfires in 2007 (Robertson 2010). In addition to the impact fire
events have on economic and recreational activities, increasing home construction in areas adjacent to
wildfire zones will continue to raise the potential for personal property loss (Gorte 2009).
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 10
Tourism and Recreation
Approximately 30% of the nation’s land, almost 700 million acres, is owned by the public. Over 80
million acres of this land are managed by the National Park Service for the “enjoyment of future
generations” (National Park Service 2009). These parks and other protected areas reserved for tourism
and recreation are susceptible to events influenced by climate change (IPCC 2007b). At Canyon de Chelly
National Monument and Mesa Verde National Park, flooding and fires have damaged historic structures
and are threatening the loss of archaeological sites. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that
Glacier National Park will lose its namesake glaciers to global warming by 2030 (USGS 2010). In general,
warmer air and water temperatures will affect recreational choices in unpredictable ways. If fish
populations decrease due to increased algae concentrations and decreases in dissolved oxygen, fishing
will be eliminated as a recreational activity in many places where it now takes place (IISD 1997). Tourists
and the businesses which cater to them will need to adapt to the changing environmental conditions.
Relevance of the Problem
Threats to our natural resources pose direct and indirect threats to Americans using those resources.
These threats are multi-faceted, vary with geographic region, and impact humans through different
aspects of our society.





Effects on human and livestock health: The health of humans and livestock will be affected by
increased exposure to water-borne diseases (as a result of floods) and increases in the intensity
of extreme and potentially catastrophic weather events including hurricanes, earthquakes and
tsunamis (Karl et al. 2009; Bates et al. 2008).
Impact on energy production: Increasing demand for energy will follow peoples’ need to cool
their homes with air-conditioning as they attempt to counter temperature increases. In places
like the Tennessee Basin, Colorado River Basin, and the Pacific Northwest, dependency on
hydropower energy will be negatively impacted by decreased water availability (Kiparsky &
Gleick 2003; National Atlas 2009).
Stress on water management systems: Increases in precipitation will eventually lead to dam
failures and severe flooding in humid areas, while increased drought in already dry regions will
likely necessitate water diversions from potentially diminished watersheds. Consequently,
increases in water conflict in regions of scarcity may call for significant reduction of water
consumption. Specifically, California and Texas find themselves with increased risk of water
conflict by 2050 because of their rapid population growth. (Kiparsky & Gleick 2003; Covich 2009;
Karl et al. 2009; Bates et al. 2008).
Impacts on agriculture: Effects on the agricultural industry include pest infestations and poor
harvests from rot or other physical damages brought on by extreme weather events (Karl et al.
2009).
Ecological impacts in aquatic environments: The biodiversity of aquatic ecosystems is
threatened by increasing temperature extremes, as seen in the case of coral reef bleaching,
where elevated surface water temperatures result in the death of both corals and the
communities they support (Goldberg et al. 1973). Eutrophication, when overwhelming amounts
of nutrients in the water kill off aquatic species, can result from increased runoff from intense
precipitation and early snow-melt (Karl et al. 2009; Bates et al. 2008).
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 11

Salt-water intrusion: As glaciers and ice caps continue to melt, sea levels will rise, contaminating
ground water in coastal aquifers with salt water. These aquifers are the main source of
municipal water for dense coastal populations (Karl et al. 2009; Bates et al. 2008).
THE SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS OFFERED BY THE ACT
We cannot stop climate change in the foreseeable future, but we can find ways to buffer our
ecosystems from the most extreme effects of climate change. This will require a wide range of
management approaches aimed at changing our interactions with ecosystems and the species within
them.
Featured Solutions to the Problems
The stability of an ecosystem is maintained both by its ability to withstand disturbances and its ability
recover from negative impacts caused by disturbances. A resistant system exhibits little change in
response to perturbations and a resilient system recovers quickly to a functional state after a
disturbance (Townsend et al. 2008). Examples of natural disturbances include hurricanes, floods, and
droughts, and examples of manmade disturbances are human-ignited fires and the introduction of nonnative invasive species. As environmental pressures persist and intensify, the ability of ecosystems to
resist change will weaken. The decline of resistance in an ecosystem only becomes apparent when it
begins to change in response to a disturbance (Palumbi et al. 2008).
 Resistance: To increase resistance to disturbances, we should manage ecosystems in ways that
minimize anthropogenic habitat degradation. By reducing anthropogenic stressors, ecosystems
will be better able to withstand increasing climate stressors. In addition, conserving an
ecosystem’s biodiversity can improve the ability of the system to adapt to disturbances, thereby
minimizing changes to the system. Areas with higher biodiversity show more stable maintenance
of the pre-existing structure (Palumbi et al. 2008). For example, in a river with multiple
competing species of spawning fish, the response to a disturbance may not be uniform among all
species. Thus, when one species’ population declines due to a disturbance, those species less
affected would take the place of the diminished population (Palumbi et al. 2008). Therefore,
conserving an ecosystem’s diversity will help maintain its stability.
 Resilience: An ecosystem’s ability to cope with the effects of a disturbance is largely affected by
the frequency and extent of the disturbances (Palumbi et al. 2008). Some increasingly persistent
disturbances that negatively affect ecosystem resilience include the introduction of invasive
species, deforestation, wildfires, sediment loading in streams, and overfishing. The ecosystem
must have time to fully recover from a disturbance before being able to handle a subsequent
one. Thus, to enhance an ecosystem’s resilience to climate change, its exposure to other
potential disturbances should be reduced. Improving the physical, chemical, and ecological
integrity of the ecosystem will increases rates of recovery from both natural and human-induced
disturbances.
We will now focus on specific ways to manage natural systems so as to render them more resistant to
change and better able to rebound from perturbations.
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 12
Increase Connectivity
Increasing connectivity between separated habitats and
communities can mitigate the impacts of habitat
fragmentation.
By providing landscape connections
between habitats, connective corridors enable migration,
colonization and interbreeding of plants and animals.
Conservation biologists view the installation of new
ecological corridors as an increasingly important means
through which to promote genetic variability among
populations (DEC 2004). Although there has been some
debate as to the effectiveness of wildlife corridors, new Figure 4 Banff Wolverine overpass. Photo used
with permission from Kari Gunson of Eco-Kare
studies show that they have an overall positive impact on International.
biodiversity (Nabe-Nielsen et al. 2010). Habitat corridors
best serve their intended purpose by conforming to the
regional topography, flora, and the needs of the species
they are designed to serve. To this end, they can be constructed as continuous linear strips of
vegetation and habitat, such as riparian strips and ridgelines or as a sequence of stepping stones or
small patches of discontinuous areas of suitable habitat across the landscape, such as paddock trees
(DEC 2004). Underpasses and overpasses can also serve as a habitat corridors, enabling the movement
of animals across busy roads. Underpasses have been found to be more successful than overpasses
because animals often resist crossing over a bridge in sight of traffic and prefer to be less visible (Dole et
al. 2004). These examples of habitat corridors can provide linkages between communities, enabling
species migration.
Assisted Migration
Many organisms survive in very specific ranges of environmental conditions, such as temperature,
salinity, and the availability of water. Thus, as climate change alters organisms’ habitats, many species
will be forced to migrate to new areas with more suitable conditions. Species that are unable to either
withstand the pressures of the changed climate or migrate quickly enough will face extinction. One
management strategy that scientists are considering is the practice of assisted migration, or assisted
colonization, which is the deliberate introduction of a species to a new habitat with the environmental
conditions necessary to its survival. Advocates of assisted migration argue that it is necessary to
preserve biodiversity and to mitigate the effects of climate change on organisms. This practice involves
the physical transport and release of organisms or dispersal of plant seeds or spores in the effort of
expanding the species’ natural range (McLachlan et al. 2007). However, many scientists are skeptical of
using assisted migration, arguing that there is insufficient understanding of the ecological impact on the
recipient community (McLachlan et al. 2007).
The escalating problem of invasive species has
demonstrated that the unintended consequences may have severe impacts on the community and be
enormously costly and difficult to reverse (Pimentel et al. 2000).
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 13
Tools for Ecosystem Protection
To more fully understand the types of preventative and restorative activities possible to fortify natural
resources, we will examine two types of ecosystems: forests and wetlands.
Forest Ecosystems
Forests are very important as they provide goods (e.g., timber, pulp, and firewood) and recreational
services to humans and provide habitat for a variety of organisms. They also provide ecological services,
such as the prevention of soil erosion, maintenance of soil quality, and regulation of water and nutrient
cycles (Bryant et al. 1997). However, conversion to agriculture and other land uses, industrial logging,
fire suppression, and road construction have greatly compromised the integrity of the nation’s forests
(Bryant et al. 1997). In light of climate change, the need to protect the forests is urgent and crucial, as
protected forests ensure continued provision of such ecological goods and services, especially carbon
sequestration.

Fire Management The fire regime at a given location is the result of interaction between fuel,
topography, ignition sources and weather (Flannigan et al. 2000). Fire management practices
deal with controlling the fuel levels in a forest ecosystem. These practices, when properly
administered, can lead to an increase in resistance of forest ecosystems. The three common fire
management practices are prescribed fire, non-native species control, and thinning treatment.
o Prescribed Fire – Historically, forest fires have been an integral part of almost all forest
ecosystems. Fires regulate fuel levels in forest systems and promote the growth and
reproduction of fire dependent species (Fernandes & Botelho 2003). For much of the
past century, however, humans have regularly suppressed fires as a matter of policy,
which has lead to an accumulation of high levels of fuels in forests. High fuel levels
increase the likelihood of high intensity fire events which can cause increased tree
mortality and damage to ecosystems and human structures. Prescribed fire utilizes
controlled burning techniques to reduce fuel levels. The goal of this approach is to
reduce the frequency and size of high intensity fire events and their associated damages
(Heikkila et al. 2010).
o Non-Native Species Control – This practice involves managing the size, spread and
persistence of populations of highly flammable non-native species (Heikkila et al. 2010).
This may be achieved through fire treatment or other control methods.
o Thinning treatments – Thinning treatments reduce fuel load through the removal of
biomass such as dead trees or branches. Biomass can act as a ladder for flames to
spread from the ground surface to the forest canopy. When the flame reaches the
canopy, it can rapidly propagate throughout the forest. Thus, the removal of biomass
also reduces the frequency of catastrophic fires in a forest. In certain cases this biomass
can even be used to create forest products and chipped fuel for electrical energy
generation (Heikkila et al. 2010). Burning excess fuels in a co-generation plant is
beneficial when compared to prescribed fires because it produces lower carbon
emissions (Malmsheimer et al. 2008).
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 14

Pest Control Climatic conditions have a direct effect on the population dynamics of forest pests.
Some massive outbreaks of forest pests may be due to climate drivers (Allen 2009), and climate
change is expected to increase the intensity and the frequency of these events (Karl et al. 2009).
Several measures can be taken to increase the resistance of forests to pest infestations (Seybold
et al. 2008):
o Prevention - Healthy trees are better able to withstand pest attacks. The resistance of
trees can be increased by (1) protecting them from physical damage and by managing
the abiotic conditions in their environment and by (2) thinning dense stands of
susceptible trees to increase the remaining trees’ vigor and ability to withstand attack.
Taking preventative measures is the most effective method of controlling pest
outbreaks.
o Pruning - Proper pruning of infested limbs and the removal of dead trees controls the
spread of pests to neighboring trees.
o Biological Control – Two main groups of natural enemies that control pest populations
are predators and parasites. The release of predators and parasites into sites infested
with pests can reduce the pest population size.
o Behavioral Control – Attractant pheromones can be used to reduce the pest populations
by luring pests to traps. Repellent pheromones as well as other behavioral chemicals can
be used to deter pests from trees.
o Chemical Control – Chemicals can be used to control pests before they infect the trees
by killing them when they land on the treated trees.

Conservation of Biodiversity The rapid conversion of forests into agricultural land, the
introduction of invasive species, and the fragmentation of habitat collectively play a role in
reducing the biodiversity of forests in the United States (Manley 2008). Climate change and its
impacts will further exacerbate the stresses on forests. The biodiversity of forests will likely be
reduced as species composition changes in response to these environmental changes.
Furthermore, many species will face population declines or extinctions, especially those with
restricted physiological tolerances, small geographical ranges (e.g., endemic species), or limited
dispersal abilities (Manley 2008). Projections for 2050 indicate that temperature changes alone
may result in the extinction of 18-24% of forest species (Manley 2008). The tolerance of the
forests to environmental stress will decrease as reductions in biodiversity ensue (Kremen &
Ostfeld 2005).
Systems with high biodiversity are more likely to have multiple species performing similar
ecological processes, such as the regulation of biogeochemical cycles (e.g. the water or nitrogen
cycle), pollination or seed dispersal, or trophic interactions (Peterson et al. 1998). Redundancy
reinforces ecological functions; with multiple species performing similar functions, a disturbance
that eliminates one species will less negative consequences on the forest as a whole.
Furthermore, the distribution of ecological functions by a host of species enables the
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 15
regeneration of forests after a disturbance (Peterson et al. 1998). As the frequency of forest
disturbances (e.g., fires) increase due to climate change, the conservation of biodiversity is
essential to preserving the ecological processes and resilience of the forests.

Reforestation and Restoration As forest ecosystems face a suite of stresses from rapid climate
change, they are already facing many human-induced non-climate stresses such as
deforestation and habitat fragmentation. Therefore, forests are weakened and less able to cope
with additional environmental disturbances. Attempts to restore forests to pre-disturbance
conditions will enable them to once again perform ecological services and be more resilient in
the face of additional disturbances. Reforestation can help restore the health of forest
ecosystems by promoting biodiversity. Increased genetic variation can play a major role in this
process (Ledig & Kitzmiller 1992, Millar et al. 2007). For example, seed sources from lower
elevations or latitudes can be introduced to places where genetic diversity has been reduced, or
species that are known to be more resilient to impacts in a given landscape can be specifically
selected for replanting (Hansen et al. 2003). Furthermore, reforestation efforts which focus on
forests with improved fire and drought resilience are consistent with efforts to prepare for the
increased likelihood of fires and drought outbreaks (Brown 2008). Allowing forests to return to
native conditions (i.e., prior to the onset of human management) may increase their resilience
to environmental stresses.
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 16
Case Study: Giant Forest Restoration Project
Figure 5 Map of Kings Canyon National Park and Sequoia National Park in the Sierra National Forest ©2006 Publications
International; (Before) A wastewater treatment facility and (After) the recovering hillside after restoration.
An example of an attempt to restore a forest ecosystem to pre-disturbance conditions is
the Giant Forest Restoration Project, undertaken by the National Park Service in Sequoia and Kings
Canyon National Parks. The Giant Forest contains one of the largest groves of giant sequoia trees in
California. However, over a century of human activity had compromised the ecological integrity of
the forest. Structures were built to accommodate high numbers of visitors. Groups of mature trees
were cleared and portions of wetland and riparian areas were filled in order to build visitor
structures. Utility systems leaked waste into meadows and streams and soils were degraded by
extensive vehicle and foot traffic, preventing the germination of plants. The result was a degraded
forest more vulnerable to future environmental stresses.
In response, the National Park Service initiated an effort in 1997 to restore the ecological
health of a 231 acre area within the Giant Forest (ASLA 2007). The Service assisted the recovery of
the forest by removing all commercial activity and development. Then park managers implemented
a twofold approach: 1) restoration of soils, and 2) restoration of vegetation. Where natural
landforms had been altered, original contours and drainage patterns were reestablished. Soil
properties were also restored by recognizing original topsoil layers at the bottom of fill slopes and
placing them at the top layer of the restored surfaces. The seeds and cuttings used for
reforestation were all collected within the Giant Forest to preserve genetic integrity and bar the
entrance of non-native species as much as possible.
Ecological restoration of the Giant Forest was largely completed by 2005 at a cost of $85
million (Wilkison 2009). Early results indicate that vegetative recovery will be successful.
Ultimately, the restored natural ecological functions of the forest will enhance the forest’s
resilience in the face of the additional environmental stresses that will come from climate change.
(This case study was based on information from the National Park Service 2007.)
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 17
Wetland Ecosystems
Wetlands are transitional systems that occur at the boundary between water and dry land, and are
periodically or permanently inundated with water (Stedman & Dahl 2008). They include some of the
most biologically productive systems on Earth, providing an important link for the cycling of nutrients
between aquatic and terrestrial environments. One third of the wetland habitats in the continental
United States are coastal wetlands. They provide services such as improving the water quality of
downstream river flows by filtering nutrients, sediments and water contaminants. Wetlands also reduce
the risk of erosion from floods and damage from storm surges and waves by absorbing and storing
floodwater.
Dredging, the removal of natural debris, or the reshaping of natural rivers systems for the building of
dams or to facilitate river navigation impact wetlands. Logging, mining, construction and pollution from
agricultural runoff and urbanization in surrounding terrestrial ecosystems provide additional
anthropogenic stressors. The introduction of invasive species into wetlands is a growing concern when
they are able to out-compete native species for space, nutrients and light. Natural threats to wetland
areas, which will increase as a result of climate change, include effects from floods, droughts, and
increased storm intensity (Yuhas 2003). Climate change will also impact wetlands by causing sea level
rise, increasing erosion rates, and increasing runoff (Yuhas 2003). Coastal wetlands, including salt
marshes and mangroves that are within a few feet of sea level, are particularly vulnerable to increases in
sea level (EPA 2010). The IPCC predicted that by the year 2080, 33 percent of the world’s wetlands will
be converted to open water as a result of sea level rise (IPCC 2007c).
Wetland restoration projects attempt to reinstate the original ecological conditions of wetlands, which
will improve their ability to withstand and recover from disturbances. This will help maintain
biodiversity within the ecosystem and strengthen its resistance against perturbations. The following
processes can increase the resistance and resilience of wetlands:



Retention of sediment and erosion control Improving the retention of sediment carried from
upstream sources mimics the geological and hydrological processes that create and sustain
wetlands. Improved sediment retention increases protection against storm surges and rising sea
levels by limiting erosion. Supplemental erosion control measures improve the likelihood that
the physical characteristics of the wetland will remain following a disruptive event and increase
the ability of the wetland to recover to its former condition (Farris et al. 2007).
Restoring natural water flow Restoration of the natural water flow allows the wetland to
recover faster following a disturbance by emulating the original conditions of that wetland. This
process can be facilitated in areas where water flow is dam-controlled, or areas that had
previously been polluted dumping grounds.
Reducing nutrient and pollution discharges Increased levels of pollutants and nutrients often
flow into estuarine waterways following storm surges and floods. Reducing the runoff of
pollutants and nutrients, such as agricultural fertilizers, into a wetland lowers the resultant
stressor on the ecosystem, thereby increasing its ability to recover from disturbances.
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 18
Two main processes can be used to restore a wetland: passive restoration and active restoration.


Passive restoration Passive restoration seeks to restore wetlands by reducing the causes of
degradation. For example, if a wetland is being stressed as a result of cattle grazing, then the
removal of the cows may be sufficient to restore the wetland to its original state. This process is
most appropriate when the degraded site retains most of its original characteristics and the
source of degradation can be identified and eliminated. The benefits of this approach include
low cost and a high degree of certainty that the resulting wetland will function within the
surrounding landscape (IWWR 2003).
Active restoration Active restoration involves the use of physical intervention. In this approach,
humans directly manipulate the various aspects of the restoration project. This process is
appropriate in situations where the wetland is severely degraded and restoration cannot be
achieved using the passive approach (IWWR 2003). Methods of active restoration include the
following approaches:
o Re-contouring recreates the physical characteristics of the historical wetland by
changing it to the desired topography.
o Modification of water flow through a variety of methods, including the use of weirs and
culverts, establishes the appropriate water flow pattern.
o Providing substrate, or soil, to a deficient site is a fundamental step in the process of
reestablishing native plant species.
o Seeding/planting establishes vegetative communities at the site.
o Invasive species control targets and seeks to limit the spread of invasive species in order
to reduce competition with native plants.
SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTIES IN MITIGATING THE EFFECTS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE
There are a number of scientific uncertainties about the effects climate change will have on natural
resources in the United States. Many of these uncertainties stem from the relatively coarse-scale
understanding of the magnitude, time frame, and spatial distribution of climate change effects over the
coming decades. The IPCC has made major advances developing climate change projections based on a
broad range of models, yet different models provide different projections of climate change on global,
national and regional scales (IPCC 2007a). Given these uncertainties, policy-makers may find difficulties
in deciding on appropriate courses of action. For example, a wildlife manager in a place with
considerably different climate projections will have difficulty deciding on the appropriate timing and
extent of the management response.
Within the context of uncertainty surrounding the potential impacts of climate change, a number of
possible actions have been suggested to protect natural resources. Yet many of these specific measures
include uncertainties as well. We will look at two ways to support natural resources proposed by the
legislation: assisted migration and wetlands restoration. While these are only two examples among
many possible solutions included in the Act, they are representative of the types of scientific issues
facing the many response strategies.
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 19
Assisted Migration
As climate change will likely disrupt the habitat of many wildlife species, animals will need to migrate to
new suitable habitats. However, in the face of widespread habitat fragmentation as the result of urban
and agricultural development, species may not be able to migrate on their own. One solution is assisted
migration, wherein wildlife managers physically transport vulnerable species from current habitats to
new ranges (see, for example, Shirey & Lamberti 2009).
A number of controversies surround the concept of assisted migration. There are unanswered scientific
questions over the plausibility of moving a species independent of its entire ecosystem, for the new
habitat may not provide adequate resources or a habitat structure to enable the transported species to
establish. Furthermore, there are controversies surrounding the question of whether all species are
equally important for biodiversity, whether some species are redundant (and therefore less important)
for biodiversity, and which species require the greatest intervention. Concerns about unintended
consequences are also a major consideration, as wildlife managers may unknowingly introduce invasive
species, pests or pathogens to a new habitat (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2008). These considerations make
assisted migration a controversial response strategy.
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 20
Case Study: Assisted Migration for the American Pika
Figure 6 Current and projected suitable pika habitat based on IPCC climate change projections (Scott R. Loarie, Carnegie
Institute, Department of Global Ecology, Stanford University).
The American pika is a small mammal that inhabits rocky fields fringed by grasses and herbs in
alpine and subalpine mountain areas extending from the Sierra Nevada mountains in California and
the Rocky Mountains up into portions of British Columbia (FWS 2010, WWF 2010). A key
characteristic of the American pika is its temperature sensitivity; death can occur after brief
exposures to ambient temperatures greater than 77.9 °F (25.5°C) (FWS 2010). Therefore, pikas live
at higher and cooler elevations. However, the impact of temperature increases is likely to force
pikas into smaller, disconnected habitat islands in numerous mountain ranges with limited
potential for migration to new habitats (WWF 2010). A strategy to ensure the long-term survival of
the American pika is assisted migration, in which wildlife managers would physically transport
individual animals into new habitable areas. Yet there is much controversy over whether assisted
migration is the appropriate response, or even necessary in this case. Comprehensive surveys have
revealed gaps in scientific knowledge concerning climate stresses facing pika populations, including
a lack of data about microclimates in mountain habitats and uncertainties in climate projections
(Ray et al. 2010). Other studies have suggested that the pika may be able to independently adapt
to changing climate changes and populate new locales, such as low elevation sites, outside of the
species’ previously described bio-climatic envelope (Galbreath et al. 2009, Simpson 2009). These
uncertainties become increasingly urgent as wildlife managers with limited resources try to
determine the best responses to the wide range of climate-driven changes.
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 21
Wetland Restoration
Ecological restoration is a potential solution to improve, protect, and increase the services provided by
wetlands,. However, the restoration of wetlands is a complex and expensive process that requires
considerable planning and management, and the process comes with many scientific uncertainties of its
own.
Scientists have not yet determined a single successful formula for wetlands restoration. Some
restoration efforts have been successful, while others have failed. A study of ten tidal wetland
restoration projects in San Francisco over the last 25 years, for example, has shown that the results of
wetland restoration are variable, for while most of the wetlands under study showed an improvement in
wetland functions, a number of cases revealed wetlands that developed in unanticipated ways (Williams
& Faber 2001). What this really points to is that there is no single formula for successful wetlands
restoration, as wetlands vary in hydrology, topography, soil, and other characteristics. Long-term,
intensive management is also required during the process of restoration, especially in the early stages.
Mitsch and Wilson (1996) have suggested that it generally takes at least 10 to 15 years to determine
whether wetlands restoration projects will be successful, which makes it difficult to replicate
experiments in the field. So while the concept of wetlands restoration is laudable, the science and
practice required for successful restoration is still being developed.
Implications for Policymakers
Policy-makers are generally suspicious of uncertainty, and there may be claims based on gaps in
scientific knowledge that some of the proposed solutions are infeasible, that the consequences and
related costs are not fully understood, and that solutions may have to wait for the right political climate
or timing. However, these scientific uncertainties can be addressed through continued application of the
scientific process. Scientists must continue collecting data and performing improved analysis of the
potential impacts of climate change. Just as there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that
anthropogenic sources have led to rapid climate change (IPCC 2007a), we must work toward developing
a similar scientific consensus about the appropriate responses. Federal agencies in conjunction with
state and tribal partners must incorporate adaptive management strategies into their climate
adaptation plans to continually test hypotheses about ecosystem processes and the suitability of
different actions. The entire community of natural resource managers must define clear and
quantifiable measures of success to determine the effectiveness of response strategies.
MEASURING ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
Ecosystem Integrity: Maintaining Resistance and Resilience
As climate change reshapes our ecosystems, predictions hold that dry areas will become drier
and wet areas will become wetter. Increasingly variable weather patterns will further stress our
ecosystems by prolonging periods of drought and intensifying precipitation events. Additionally, factors
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 22
such as increasing impacts of human development and pollution change disturbances that were once
pulse events into chronic stressors on the environment (Bengtsson et al. 2003). Maintaining the
functionality of an ecosystem in the face of compound perturbations depends on our ability to protect
the groups of organisms available to renew and regenerate that ecosystem (Lundberg & Moberg 2003).
Thus, our best defense against climate change will be to increase the resilience of our ecosystems. Many
different methods have been suggested to improve the health of our ecosystems, but the metrics to
assess the results of these efforts are not well established. It is important to define clear ways to
measure ecosystem health and functioning in order to gauge the effectiveness of our management
practices.
Ecological Indicators
Ecological indicators provide quantitative and qualitative measures that inform us about the status of
natural, cultural, and economic aspects of an ecosystem (Ecosystem Indicator Partnership 2010).
Ecological measurements are essential tools for both the implementation of the Act and measuring its
success. Some important ecological indicators include biodiversity, functional diversity, umbrella species
and biomass. Implementation of this Act will be challenging considering the size and spatial complexity
of natural resources within the United States and the uncertainties related to climate change. Success
will be contingent on the efficient incorporation of science and technology as well as our ability to
translate data on the complexities of ecosystems into understandable information which can be
delivered to policy makers (Karr 1981).
Functional Diversity
Functional diversity is the diversity and range of functional traits possessed by the biota of an ecosystem
(Wright et al. 2006). In other words, there may be many species within an ecosystem that possess
similar traits and are thus functionally redundant, whereas there may be other species that perform
unique services. The loss of a species that performs a unique service will affect the functional capacity of
the ecosystem greater than the loss of a species whose functional capacity strongly overlaps with other
species (Diaz & Cabido 2001).
Whereas many studies of ecosystem health have focused on species richness, functional diversity looks
at the components of biodiversity that influence how an ecosystem operates (Tilman et al. 1997). A few
different methods for measuring functional diversity exist that take into account such factors as species
richness or functional group richness (Schmera et al. 2009). Species richness assumes that all species
are equally different (Petchey et al. 2004), whereas functional group richness assumes that all species
within the same group are identical in function (Lawton & Brown 1993). Highlighting the limitations of
these different metrics illustrates the complexities of quantifying the attributes of an ecosystem and the
challenges associated with gauging the effectiveness of the Act. Furthermore, because functional traits
will vary by ecosystem, each type of system will require specific metrics. However, there are certain
generalizations that will facilitate the development of these methods (Naeem & Wright 2003). For
example, species that acquire and process carbon are likely to influence primary and secondary
productivity, decomposition rates, and nutrient cycling (Naeem & Wright 2003). Generalizations will
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 23
ultimately help us to develop management strategies that we can use to ameliorate the functioning of
various ecosystems.
Next Steps
All these techniques can be used to assess the integrity of the ecosystems and are also important
indicators for determining which ecosystems might take priority over others for active management. A
general approach to ecosystem management will include identifying important ecosystems, identifying
stabilizing agents, identifying key environmental factors and services, and measuring the special scales
over which these services operate (Kremen 2005). One of the most important concepts in this process is
that of functional diversity. Systems where entire functional groups become extinct or ecologically
insignificant as a result of environmental change are going to show low functional diversity and poor
resilience. This is of particular importance when these groups affect ecosystem services that are
essential for human well-being (Elmqvist et al. 2003). Future investigations should focus on traits that
buffer against detrimental changes, such as habitat fragmentation, increased temperature, changes in
precipitation, biological invasions, and functions fundamental to ecosystems.
Although our understanding of the functioning of ecosystems continues to improve, there is still a lot
more work to be done. The uncertainties associated with climate change will make this work harder but
even more important. Unfortunately the celerity with which climate change is occurring means the
scientific community must act quickly in hopes of ensuring that American ecosystems continue to
provide goods and services for future generations.
CONCLUSION
The goals of the proposed Natural Resources Climate Adaptation Act are far-reaching and flexible
enough to adapt to progress in scientific understanding and the ability to project future conditions.
While the solutions to the problems this bill addresses involve uncertainty, they are far superior to doing
nothing to protect the ecosystems that provide so many critical goods and services to this Nation. As the
methods to measure success of the solutions are more thoroughly developed, this Act will set us on a
path to increasingly refine and readjust our approaches to preserving ecosystem resistance and
improving resilience. In the words of one of the sponsoring senators of this bill, Sen. Max Baucus of
Montana, “We have a moral obligation to leave this world a better place than we inherited it, and
legislation like this will go a long way to achieving this noble goal.”
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 24
REFERENCES
Allen, C. D. 2009. Climate-induced forest dieback: an escalating global phenomenon? Unasylva
231/232 60: 43-49.
[ASLA] American Society of Landscape Architects. 2007. The restoration of Giant Forest, Sequoia
National Park. Retrieved from http://www.asla.org/awards/2007/07winners/ 161nps.html
Bachelet, D., J. M. Lenihan, and R. P. Neilson. 2007. The importance of climate change for future
wildfire scenarios in the western United States. Pages 28-42 in K. L. Ebi, G. A. Meehl, D. Bachelet et
al., R. R. Twilley and D. F. Boesch. Impacts of climate change – four case studies in the United States.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Bates, B., Z. W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu, and J. Paultikof, editors. 2008. Climate change and water. Technical
Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland.
Bengtsson, J., P. Angelstam, T. Elmqvist, U. Emanuelsson, C. Folke, M. Ihse, F. Moberg, and M. Nystrom.
2003. Reserves, resilience, and dynamic landscapes. Ambio 32: 389-396.
Bentz, B. 2008, May 20. Western U.S. bark beetles and climate change. Retrieved from http://www.fs
.fed.us/ccrc/topics/bark-beetles.shtml
Brown, R. 2008. The implications of climate change for conservation, restoration and management of
national forest lands. Defenders of Wildlife and National Forest Restoration Collaborative.
Burns, C. E., Johnston, K. M., Schmitz, O. J. 2003. Global climate change and mammalian species diversity
in U.S. national parks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100: 11474-11477.
Bryant, D., Nielsen, D., and L. Tangley. 1997. The last frontier: forests ecosystems and economies on the
edge. Retrieved from http://pdf.wri.org/lastfrontierforests.pdf
[CDWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2010, June 25. Climate change. Retrieved from
http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/
Covich, A. P. 2009. Emerging climate change impacts on freshwater resources: a perspective on
transformed watersheds. Resources for the Future, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
[DEC] Department of Environment and Conservation. 2004. Wildlife corridors. Retrieved from
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/landholderNotes15WildlifeCorridors.pdf
DellaSala, D. A., A. Martin, R. Spivak, T. Schulke, B. Bird, M. Criley, C. van Daalen, J. Kreilick, R. Brown,
and G. Aplet. 2003. Ecological Restoration 21: 14-23.
Diaz, S., and M. Cabido. 2001. Vive la difference: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem
processes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 646-655.
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 25
Dole, J. W., S. J. Ng, and R. M. Sauvajot. 2004. Use of highway undercrossings by wildlife in southern
California. Biology Conservation 115: 499-507.
Ecosystem Indicator Partnership. 2010. Information on change in the Gulf of Maine. Retrieved from
http://www.gulfofmaine.org/esip/
Elmqvist, E., C. Folke, M. Nyström, G. Peterson, J. Bengtsson, B. Walker, and J. Norberg. 2003. Response
diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1: 488-494.
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. 2010, July 22. Wetlands. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/
wetlands/awm/#status
Farris, G. S., G. J. Smith, M. P. Crane, C. R. Demas, L. L. Robbins, and D. Lavoie. 2007. Science and the
storms: the USGS response to the hurricanes of 2005. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1306.
Fernandes, P. M., and H. S. Botelho. 2003. A review of prescribed burning effectiveness in fire hazard
reduction. International Journal of Wildland Fire 12: 117-128.
Flannigan, M. D., B. J. Stocks, and B. M. Wotton. 2000. Climate change and forest fires. The Science of
Total Environment 262: 221-229.
[FWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. American pika. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/
mountain-prairie/species/mammals/americanpika/
Galbreath, K. E., D. J. Hafner, and K. R. Zamudio. 2009. When cold is better: climate-driven elevation
shifts yield complex patterns of diversification and demography in an alpine specialist (American
pika, Ochotona princeps). Evolution 63: 2848-2863.
Goldberg, W. M. 1973. The ecology of the coral-octocoral communities off the southeast Florida coast:
geomorphology, species composition, and zonation. Bulleting of Marine Science 23: 465-488.
Gonzalez, A., and E. J. Chaneton. 2002. Heterotroph species extinction, abundance and biomass
dynamics in an experimentally fragmented microecosystem. Journal of Animal Ecology 71: 594-602.
Gorte, R. W. 2009. Wildlife fuels and fuel reduction. CRS Report for Congress, R40811. Congressional
Research Service, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Green, R. E., M. Harley, M. Spalding, and C. Zockler, editors. 2001. Impacts of climate change on
wildlife. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Sandy, United Kingdom.
Hansen, L. J., J. L. Bringer, and J. R. Hoffmann, editors. 2003. Buying time: a user’s manual for building
resistance and resilience to climate change in natural systems. World Wildlife Fund.
Heaney, L. 1984. Mammalian species richness on islands on the Sunda shelf, Southeast Asia. Oecologia
61: 11-17.
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 26
Heikkila, T. V., R. Gronqvist, and M. Jurvelius. 2010. Wildland fire management: handbook for trainers.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Helsinki, Finland.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., L. Hughes, S. McIntyre, D. B. Lindenmayer, C. Parmesan, H. P. Possingham, and C.
D. Thomas. 2008. Assisted colonization and rapid climate change. Science 321: 345-346.
Hydrologic Information Center. 2009, March 19. Flood loss: compilation of flood loss Statistics.
National Weather Service. Retrieved from http://www.weather.gov/oh/hic/flood_stats/
Flood_loss_time_series.shtml
[IISD] International Institute for Sustainable Development. 1997. The effects of climate change on
recreation and tourism on the prairies: a status report. International Institute for Sustainable
Development, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
[IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007a. Climate change 2007: the physical science
basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, M. Marquis, K. Averyt, M. B. Tignor, H. L.
Miller and Z. Chen, editors. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
New York, USA.
[IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. 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. Canziani, J. Palutikof, P va.n der Linden
and C. Hanson, editors. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
New York, USA.
[IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007c. Climate change 2007: mitigation of climate
change. Contribution of Working Group III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, L. A. Meyers, editors.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, New York, USA.
Iverson, L. R., and A. M. Prasad. 1998. Predicting abundance of 80 tree species following climate change
in the eastern United States. Ecological Monographs 68: 465-485.
[IWWR] Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration. 2003. An introduction and user’s guide to
wetland restoration, creation, and enhancement. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Joyce, L., J. Aber, S. McNulty, V. Dale, A. Hansen, L. Irland, R. Neilson, and K. Skog. 2001. Potential
consequences of climate variability and change for the forests of the United States. Pages 489-524
in National Assessment Synthesis Team, editors. Climate change impacts on the United States.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Karl, T. R., J. M. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson, editors. 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United
States. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA.
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 27
Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6: 21-27.
Kremen, C. 2005. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology?
Ecology Letters 8: 468-479.
Kremen, C., R. S. Ostfeld. 2005. A call to ecologists: measuring, analyzing, and managing ecosystem
services. Frontiers in Ecology Environment 3: 540-548.
Kiparsky, M., and P. H. Gleick. 2003. Climate change and California water resources: a survey and
summary of the literature. Pacific Institute, Oakland, California, USA.
Lawton, J. H., and V. K. Brown. 1993. Redundancy in ecosystems. Pages 255-270 in E. Schulze, H. A.
Mooney, editors. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.
Ledig, F. T., and J. H. Kitzmiller. 1992. Genetic strategies for reforestation in the face of global climate
change. Forest Ecology and Management 50: 153-169.
Lundberg, J., and F. Moberg. 2003. Mobile link organisms and ecosystem functioning: implications for
ecosystem resilience and management. Ecosystems 6: 87-98.
Malmsheimer, R. W., P. Heffernan, S. Brink, D. Crandall, F. Deneke, C. Galik, E. Gee, J. A. Helms, N.
McClure, M. Mortimer, S. Ruddell, M. Smith, and J. Stewart. 2008. Forest management solutions
for mitigating climate change in the United States. Journal of Forestry 106: 115-118.
Manley, P. N. 2008, May 20. Biodiversity and climate change. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/
ccrc/topics/biodiversity.shtml
McLachlan, J. S., J. J. Hellmann, and M. W. Schwartz. 2007. A framework for debate of assisted
migration in an era of climate change. Conservation Biology 21: 297-302.
McRae, B. H., N. H. Schumaker, R. B. McKane, R.T. Busing, A. M. Solomon, C.A. Burdick. 2008. A multimodel framework for simulating wildlife population response to land-use and climate change.
Ecological Modelling 219: 77-91.
Millar, C. I., N. L. Stephenson, and S. L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future:
managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17: 2145-2151.
Mitsch, W. J., and R. F. Wilson. 1996. Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration with
know-how, time, and self-design. Ecological Applications 6: 77-83.
Murdoch, P. S., J. S. Baron, and T. L. Miller. 2000. Potential effects of climate changes on surface‐water
quality in North America. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36: 347–366.
Nabe-Nielsen, J., R. M. Sibly, M. C. Forchhammer, V. E. Forbes, C. J. Topping. 2010. The effects of
landscape modifications on the long-term persistence of animal populations. PLoS One 5: e8932.
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 28
Naeem, S., and J. P. Wright. 2003. Disentangling biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning: deriving
solutions to a seemingly insurmountable problem. Ecology Letters 6: 567-579.
National Atlas. 2009, September 17. Renewable energy sources in the United States. Retrieved from
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_energy.html
National Park Service. 2007. Giant Forest Restoration Overview. Retrieved from http://www
.nps.gov/seki/historyculture/gfmain.htm
National Park Service. 2009. NPS Overview. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/aboutus
[NRC] National Research Council. 2007. Colorado River Basin Water Management: Evaluating and
Adjusting to Hydroclimatic Variability. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, US.
Palumbi, S. R., K. L. McLeod, and D. Grunbaum. 2008. Ecosystems in action: lessons from marine
ecology about recovery, resistance, and reversibility. Bioscience 58: 33-42.
Parmesan, C., N. Ryrholm, C. Stefanescu, J. K. Hill, C. D. Thomas, H. Descimon, B. Huntley, L. Kaila, J.
Kullberg, T. Tammaru, W. J. Tennent, J. A. Thomas, and M. Warren. 1999. Poleward shifts in
geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming. Nature 399: 579-583.
Petchey, O. L., A. Hector, and K. J. Gaston. 2004. How do different measures of functional diversity
perform? Ecology 85: 847-857.
Peterson, D. L., and D. McKenzie. 2008, May 20. Wildland fire and climate change. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/
ccrc/topics/wildland-fire.shtml
Peterson, G., C. R. Allen, and C. S. Holling. 1998. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale.
Ecosystems 1: 6-18.
Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of
nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience 50: 53-65.
Ray, A. J., J. J. Barsugli, K. Wolter, and J. Eischeid. 2010. Rapid-response climate assessment to support
the FWS status review of the American pika. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NOAA Earth
System Research Laboratory.
Robertson, K. 2010, June 8. A forest fire’s price tag. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/06/08/investopedia44643.DTL
Robbins, J. 2009, July 7. Some see beetle attacks on western forests as a natural event. New York
Times, p. D3.
Schmera, D., T. Eros, and J. Podani. 2009. A measure for assessing functional diversity in ecological
communities. Aquatic Ecology 43: 157-167.
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 29
Seybold, S. J., T. D. Paine, and S. H. Dreistadt. 2008. Bark beetles: integrated pest management for
home gardeners and landscape professionals. UC Statewide IPM Program, University of California,
Davis, California, USA.
Shirey, P. D., and G. A. Lamberti. 2009. Assisted colonization under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.
Conservation Letters 3: 45-52.
Shugart, H., R. Sedjo, and B. Sohngen. 2003. Forests and global climate change: potential impacts on
U.S. forest resources. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Simpson, W. G. 2009. American pikas inhabit low-elevation sites outside the species’ previously
described bioclimatic envelope. Western North American Naturalist 69: 243-250.
Stedman, S., and T. E. Dahl. 2008. Status and trends of wetlands in the coastal watersheds of the
Eastern United States 1998 to 2004. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/_documents/
gSandT/NationalReports/StatusTrendsWetlandsCoastalWatershedsEasternUS1998to2004.pdf
Tilman, D., J. Knops, D. Wedin, P. B. Reich, M. Ritchie, and E. Siemann. 1997. The influence of functional
diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 277: 1300-1302.
Townsend, C. R., M. Begon, and J. L. Harper. 2008. Essentials of Ecology (3rd ed.). Blackwell Publishing,
Malden, Massachusetts, USA.
[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2010. Monitoring and assessing glacier changes and their associated
hydrologic and ecologic effects in glacier national park. Retrieved from
http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/ glaciers.htm
Van Mantgem, P. J., N. L. Stephenson, L. S. Mutch, V. G. Johnson, A. E. Esperanza, and D. J. Parsons.
2003. Growth rate predicts mortality of Abies concolor in both burned and unburned stands.
Canadian Journal for Restoration 33: 1029-1038.
Wilkison, B. 2009, December 1. Giant Forest restoration in Sequoia National Park balances tourism,
preservation. Visalia Times-Delta. Retrieved from http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/
20091201/NEWS01/111300001/Giant-Forest-restoration-in-Sequoia-National-Park-balancestourism-preservation
Williams, P., and P. Faber. 2001. Salt marsh restoration experience in San Francisco Bay. Journal of
Coastal Research 27: 203-211.
Wright, J. P., S. Naeem, A. Hector, C. Lehman, P. B. Reich, B. Schmid, and D. Tilman. 2006. Conventional
functional classification schemes underestimate the relationship with ecosystem functioning.
Ecology Letters 9: 111-120.
[WWF] World Wildlife Fund. 2010. American pika. Retrieved from http://www.worldwildlife.org/
species/finder/americanpika
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 30
Yuhas, R. 2003. Loss of wetlands in the southwestern United States. Retrieved from http://geochange
.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/hydrology/wetlands/
POLICY ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES CLIMATE ADAPTATION ACT
Pg. 31