Report from the Joshua Tree Congressional Field Hearing: National Parks are the 'Canary in the Coal Mine' for Climate Change
Yesterday an oversight hearing was held at Joshua Tree National Park to better understand the affects of climate change on our National Park System and suggested remediation by witnesses in the parks and wilderness fields.
The event was hosted by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), as well as Congresswoman Grace Napolitano (CA-38). The location of Joshua Tree was chosen because of the threat posed to its namesake species by a warming climate. This subcommittee was designed to conduct a series of hearings to explore the role of federal lands in combating and adapting to climate change:
The goals of this hearing were to: examine the impacts of climate change on national parks; learn about the plans of the National Park Service and the new Administration to address these issues; highlight ideas for comprehensive landscape management programs for public lands, wildlife corridors and ecosystem planning; explore how we can implement conservation strategies across jurisdictional boundaries especially with the contradicting mandates and cultures of the federal land management agencies; and develop solutions that can be incorporated into future legislation on climate change before Congress.
The first witness was Jonathan Jarvis, the Regional Director, Pacific West Region of the National Park Service (NPS), which is part of the Department of Interior under Secretary Ken Salazar. He testified about what all the natural parks are seeing as a result of climate change (extended fire season, species migration, increased snowmelt and changes to the ocean ecosystems) and what they are doing to prevent and mitigate, as well as educate the public, of the potential impact from warming conditions.
An interesting statement that was echoed throughout the entire hearing and testimonies was the idea that our national parks are the “canary in the coal mine” for climate change. Our protected lands are a place where we can monitor and document change on our global ecosystems, without the outlying factors cause by human population and other stressors.
Another sentiment that was stressed by many who testified is the need for open corridors between federal, state and private land; literally and figuratively. There is a need for lack of barriers and boundaries to allow for species migration between federal, state, tribal and private land. And, equally as important, there is a need for transparency and cooperation to create a cohesive partnership between all the various departments (Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of Engineers, NPS, Fish and Wildlife, and more). Each person who testified acknowledged that the changes on our ecosystems are like nothing we have ever seen, therefore, they will more than likely be handled in ways we have never seen.
Let's not also forget that there is also an economic side to climate change and these parks. There are many communities that depend on the revenue generated from tourism to these parks, as well as the income generated to the federal government through permits.
“According to a 2006 study by the Outdoor Industry Association, fishing, hunting, wildlife watching, hiking and other outdoor pursuits that depend heavily on healthy ecosystems contribute $730 billion, annually, to the U.S. economy," explained Mike Cipra from the National Parks Conservation Association in his testimony. "Keeping wildlife populations, rivers, forests, deserts, and our national parks healthy will allow us to support nearly 6.5 million existing jobs and continue to generate $88 billion is state and national tax revenue.”
And, lastly, a concern asked of each of the witnesses by Grijalva was how do we balance the need to tap into ecosystems for renewable resources, without compromising the impact to those ecosystems through and alter our work at adapting, restoring and protecting those lands. Unfortunately, no one was able to answer this question. However, that may be because of the earlier statements that this is territory that no one has crossed before, so there will be a need for a limited amount of, and leniency for, some trial and error.
In the end, with the exception of one testimony (John Coleman, a meteorologist, who testified his belief that climate change was not manmade and financial resources did not need to be allocated), everyone agreed that climate change is real and present and impacting our national parks in ways that were unimagined. A question kept getting asked: what is Glacier National Park without the glaciers and what is Joshua Tree without the Joshua Tree?
Other witnesses included:
-John Harja, Co-Chair, Western Governors’ Association Wildlife Corridors Initiative Steering Committee
-Rebecca Shaw, Director of Conservation Science, The Nature Conservancy of California
-Prof. Thomas Swetnam, Director Tree Ring Laboratory, Univ. of Arizona
-Robert Keitner, Director, Wallace Stegner Center for Land, Resources and the Environment, Univ. of Utah
-Melyssa Watson, Director, Wilderness Support Center