4.1.1. Key Climate Impacts on Park Resources that Participants Described

Capitol Reef employees indicated that they are already experiencing climate change as projected in the Capitol Reef Climate Futures Summary report (National Park Service Climate Change Response Program, 2024). They described how these changes are affecting park resources, visitor experience, infrastructure, and operations (fig. 1). In this section, we report the number of participants who mentioned each impact; these counts represent a rough proxy for what was top-of-mind for participants. Given the small size of the sample, we only report counts in this section; other topics did not have sufficient data for similar quantitative analysis of our interview data.

Participants noted changing precipitation patterns characterized by drought conditions or water scarcity (mentioned by eight of nine interviewees) and increased frequency and severity of flash flood events (mentioned by eight of nine interviewees). Staff described flooding events impacting infrastructure by depositing large amounts of sediments and boulders onto roadways and destroying fences for grazing allotments (four of nine interviewees). Such flash floods involve search and rescue activities that include various complex tasks in the Park to protect health and safety (for example, visitors getting trapped in canyons, roads flooding, cars getting washed away, such as the 2022 incidents in Grand Wash in Capitol Gorge). As a result of such changes in the predictability and pattern of precipitation, interviewees described reduced availability of water resources in perennial water sources like the Fremont River and Sulphur Creek and impacts to aquatic species in these water bodies (mentioned by three of nine interviewees) as well as reduced availability of water for irrigation in the Fruita orchards (three of nine interviewees).

Study participants described increasing mean annual air temperatures as one of the most pressing climate change impacts (six of nine interviewees). They linked increasing temperature to a variety of heat-related impacts on visitors (for example, heat stroke, heat exhaustion) and on the native ecosystems (for example, increased rates of evapotranspiration, heat stress and die-off of grasses, shrubs, and trees). One staff member explained that they expect health declines in the orchards from increased spring and summer heat stress. Five of the interviewees pointed out how increased air temperatures in the Park will likely have cascading effects. For instance, staff described how higher temperatures mean reduced water availability for plant species throughout the year, especially creating greater stress before the monsoons, and that they expect climate change will impact the water balance, contributing to plant decline, die-off, and erosion (which will in turn affect archeological resources).

When participants were asked to describe what they think the landscape of Capitol Reef will look like in 50 years, most described increasing aridity, less water, and more frequent and severe flash floods (mentioned by 6 of 9 interviewees); however, they focused on different impacts of these changes. Four of nine staff noted that they expect less water availability for irrigation and wildlife (including reduced habitat for fish and bird species). Three out of the nine interviewees expected that changing monsoon timing will cause seasonal mismatch between water availability and species needs (in other words, migrating birds, fish, and other phenological cycles will be stressed). Three of the interviewees anticipated reduced orchards in the future in terms of fewer trees and reduced health of the current trees. Other anticipated future changes participants mentioned include fewer trees across the landscape (two of nine interviewees), less shrubs (two of nine interviewees), and more barren ground in the Park (two of nine interviewees). Also, two of the nine interviewees noted that invasive or introduced species will likely shape the future ecosystem to a greater extent than at present.

4.1.2. Timeframes for Responding to Climate Change: Immediate, Emergency Response to Long-Term Planning

Participating Capitol Reef employees discussed 3 timeframes over which they think about responding to impacts of climate change in the Park: (1) immediate term, including emergency response; (2) short and mid-term planning, between 1 and 5 years, which includes for example dealing with visitor capacity and infrastructure needs; and (3) long-term planning more than 5–7+ years out, which could include as far out as 25–100 years in the future dependent on the resource, infrastructure, and response to climate drivers (fig. 2). Emergency responses in Capitol Reef are often focused on dealing with flash flood impacts on public safety and resources (for example, roads flooding, trees washing away in the Fruita orchards). Responses include preemptively closing roads to protect public safety or when needed, working across divisions to rescue visitors trapped in canyons. Key climate impacts for the short and mid-term timeframe include deteriorated or vulnerable infrastructure such as roads or parking lots and the potential need to upgrade infrastructure (for example, paving dirt roads that have been repeatedly washed out). Capitol Reef staff described examples of short and mid-term planning as investing in infrastructure (for example, addressing parking lots located in high-risk areas) and improving localized forecasting before storms. Participants discussed longer-term planning as the timeframe over which the Park would grapple with complex, ecosystem management challenges and hopefully address legal and regulatory challenges with water rights and grazing. Specific responses mentioned by participants included shifting composition of plant species in grasslands and protecting endemic species as their ranges shift. However, they mentioned that planning for multiple climate scenarios makes such longer-term planning challenging.

4.1.3. Understanding of Ecological Transformation Among Park Staff

Interview participants reported that staff at Capitol Reef generally agree about the projected future climate conditions in the Park, but that they are less clear about how those conditions will influence future management priorities. As one interviewee described:

As in this quote, multiple participants agreed with the climate projections described in the Capitol Reef Climate Futures Summary Report (National Park Service Climate Change Response Program, 2024) but are grappling with the uncertainty of what to do in response, or how to respond in the face of what they consider to be a lack of data and information.

Such queries are driving interviewees to confront stewarding a national park in a time of change. The same staff member described how addressing the challenge of ecological transformation may require larger shifts in how park staff approach their roles:

Similarly, other participating staff suggested that it may not be possible to protect every endemic species, community, or ecosystem feature with the available time, resources, and attention. Some mentioned that the boundaries of the Capitol Reef are unique given the elongated shape of the Park, which can create challenges in terms of the need to work in concert with agencies like the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service that share boundaries. Other participants reported they were uncertain about how precipitation changes and shifting baselines for available water resources will affect the Park, in particular future water available for irrigating the orchards.

One specific issue about ecological transformation that participants discussed in the context of uncertainty was the issue of managed relocation of species. Staff mentioned species relocation in the context of broader discussions about determining the appropriate baselines for populations or targets for restoration, which might mean restoring species to historic ranges or might mean actively managing for future potential ranges (in other words, northern migration of species as climate shifts) or could even mean introducing species and genetics from other geographies. One participant explained the dilemma in this way:

One participant, talking in general terms about uncertainty, pointed out that as of yet, staff had not encountered a major disagreement or “serious management actions where we were on different sides,” but that there is variance in how staff across the Park thinks about what the available data means for planning and that staff deals with “[the] lack of information differently” (CARE, 1). This interviewee continued, “it might be more like, we’re discussing a topic and thinking about what it means, but there is some variation in how folks deal with the uncertainty.”

4.1.4. Using the Resist-Accept-Direct Framework to Think about Ecological Transformation at Capitol Reef National Park

Capitol Reef staff are early adopters of the Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD) framework. The RAD framework is a thinking and communication tool developed by an interagency group including the NPS CCRP to guide unit-level managers responding to ecosystems facing the potential for rapid, irreversible ecological change (Schuurman and others, 2020, Schuurman and others, 2022, Schuurman and others, 2025). The framework describes three options—resist, accept, and direct—that collectively encompass the entire set of possible decisions for responding to ecological transformation. It thereby aids NPS managers to make deliberative choices about ecological change (National Park Service, 2025). Capitol Reef staff are employing the RAD framework in multiple retired grazing allotments on rangelands in three different parts of the Park to guide ecosystem restoration in response to land use impacts as well as ongoing and anticipated climate change impacts (Thomas, 2024).

In the interviews, Capitol Reef staff described how they are using the RAD framework to shape restoration efforts. For example, one participant described how they think the RAD framework will shape the work they do in the future:

This quote highlights that those working in natural resource management are actively thinking about RAD and using it as a tool for adaptive management. The interviewee explained that staff understand the science, and that RAD provides a “good sort of conceptual example of that type of adaptive management” (CARE, 1) to implement in a changing landscape. In the interviews, only those with natural resource or ecological training mentioned the RAD framework.

Interviewees in other divisions described how Capitol Reef’s leadership is climate-focused, which informs all of the Park’s operations. One staff member prefaced that past leadership had not been as focused on climate but contrasted the past with the present (at the time of the interviews; CARE, 2). Another staff member repeated this point, “I think people [in the Park] are focused on climate change. I think in general it's accepted that it's going to [require] making changes to the way that we do things in the coming years” (CARE, 4).

4.2.1. Employee Backgrounds and Worldviews

Like in any NPS unit, Capitol Reef staff bring a range of personal backgrounds to their roles. Participants described how aspects of their backgrounds and worldviews (in other words, their general set of attitudes and beliefs that subtly shape how they make sense of the world) influence their perspectives about what stewardship means and their opinions about what actions the Park should take in the face of climate change (fig. 4).

One key theme was experiences with and attitudes toward agriculture and working lands. Capitol Reef has a rich history of agriculture preserved in its Fruita District orchards and maintains one active grazing allotment in the Park (Witwicki, 2020). One staff member described how this history of agriculture links to their understanding of the Park and their professional role:

Another staff member, when talking about park-level priorities for responding to climate change, emphasized they hope park management maintains the current commitment to the orchards: “I think it is absolutely critical to just the bones of this park” (CARE, 4). Multiple participants shared they have family ties to the region (some over multiple generations), grew up participating in agriculture, or are currently actively engaged in agriculture in some capacity in their personal lives.

A second theme related to employee worldviews is attitudes that participants hold about human-wildlife interactions. In the interviews, some employees considered culling to be an acceptable wildlife management option for managing outbreaks of a bacterial pathogen, Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae, in the Park’s population of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) while other employees did not agree. This quotation discusses the Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae outbreak documented in 2018 at Capitol Reef where one desert bighorn sheep was euthanized by the Park in winter of 2021–22 (Sloan and Wehtje, 2022), illustrating the tension in underlying values that shape how park staff make choices about managing wildlife:

It is worth noting that this range of views is not unique to Capitol Reef; culling wildlife tends to be a contentious and often unpopular wildlife management strategy (Martínez‐Jauregui and others, 2020; Rubino and Serenari, 2022). As the quote above suggests, one set of attitudes emphasizes the risk of disease spread. While not explicitly present in the data, the other set of attitudes may implicitly emphasize the effort invested to reintroduce desert bighorn sheep in the 1960–1990s and threats to the species from climate, domestic sheep, and predation (Struthers and others, 2022). Alternatively, resistance to culling could be more emotional, related to ideas about what Capitol Reef is like as a place with or without reintroduced desert bighorn sheep, or ideas about what the appropriate role of a manager in a National Park or protected area should be (Wright, 1999; Bath and others, 2022).

4.2.2. Professional Culture

Another internal factor that shapes how employees respond to ecological transformation and climate change is the cultures they belong to, including the professional culture of NPS at both the unit level and the wider agency level (fig. 4).

At the Park level, participants reported that Capitol Reef's internal culture is shaped by collaboration, face-to-face communication, and frequent interdivisional work. These norms are fostered out of necessity due to the relatively small size of the Park’s staff, especially when compared to the acreage of the Park. One employee described that the divisions are not as siloed as at other parks where they had worked. This interviewee likes to “view it as a system and not necessarily individual divisions and that we are [functioning] as a park unit. Everything basically meshes together like a big jigsaw puzzle” (CARE, 8). Another participant explained that they “see folks from every division...[on] a daily basis” (CARE, 3). Such frequency of interacting and communicating is another aspect that defines Capitol Reef’s park-level culture.

These norms of frequent communication and interdivisional work shape how Capitol Reef staff respond to climate change, especially in the case of flash flooding events. Staff pointed out how multiple divisions conduct search and rescue operations: “it’s interdivisional, so that’s some people from Resources and Interpretation, [also] Maintenance” (CARE, 6). Another participant explained how the size of the Park staff, the shape of the Park and its geography combine to necessitate interdivisional collaboration:

As these examples illustrate, Capitol Reef employees described working together across divisions to address challenges they encounter, which suggests a strength for the Park as it responds to climate change and ecological transformation.

Individual Capitol Reef employees work within both the structure of Capitol Reef as a unit and the larger structure of NPS as an agency. Thus, the culture of both the Park and the wider agency subtly shapes the experiences of individual employees as they go about their work. Participants described two key aspects of how the wider culture of NPS influences their approach to their roles. First, as representatives of the national park system, they emphasized that earning and keeping the public’s trust is important and often motivating on a personal level. Second, participants described how the rules and norms of NPS can sometimes create additional challenges in their efforts. For instance, one employee characterized the tension they experience between wanting to find creative management solutions and feeling constrained by NPS norms: “I think it's very easy to get completely locked into a very rigid way of thinking within the Park Service, with how many rules and regulations there are” (CARE, 4). For more on how regulatory context affects responses to ecological transformation, see section 4.2.6.

4.2.3. Data Availability, State of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Uncertainty

Scientific understanding appears in the Clifford and others (2022) model both at the individual, internal level (how a person makes sense of scientific information for decision making) and at the external level of the state of the science (the state of knowledge or availability of data to inform a decision). In the interviews, participants described their own personal understanding of the state of the scientific knowledge and uncertainty focused on the lack of data for specific species (fig. 4). Natural resource management staff emphasized that there is limited long-term data for certain species (for example, blackbrush [Coleogyne ramosissima], cheatgrass [Bromus tectorum], desert bighorn sheep [Ovis canadensis nelsoni], and Mexican spotted owl [Strix occidentalis lucida]).

Participants also mentioned general park-level challenges with data availability and obtaining relevant scientific information (fig. 5). Data availability challenges arise at Capitol Reef due to the Park’s large area, remoteness, and limited staff capacity for scientific research. Additionally, the Park has relatively few partnerships with university or outside researchers who might increase research and monitoring capacity. Capitol Reef’s main partnership is with Utah Valley University, which operates a field station in the Park and provides yearly intern support to the Park, but is primarily focused on educational endeavors.⁵ Some interviewees mentioned two key factors that they perceive to contribute to relative scarcity of long-term research partnerships in Capitol Reef. First, the Park is geographically distant from most research universities. Second, some interviewees indicated that outside institutions may perceive compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 (§ 54 U.S.C. § 306108; see table 1) as a barrier to working at the Park. The high density of cultural resources in the Park means that compliance approval for research takes time.⁶ One participant explained: “University researchers…come in [expecting it to be] real quick, wanting to do something, and we’re like, ‘Maybe you can do that in six months,’” which is seen as a barrier. This staff member continued, explaining that researchers often respond by choosing field sites elsewhere: “Oh, [I am] no longer interested. I’m going to go work with the BLM—or something.’ Yeah, that’s a challenge.” (CARE, 1). In Capitol Reef, as described by some interviewees, this relative lack of partnerships influences the availability of tailored science and data and thus ultimately the Park’s understanding of ecological transformation or climate change impacts on resources.

4.2.4. Social Feasibility

Clifford and others (2022) define social feasibility as the way that perspectives of those outside a unit or agency influence or constrain the decision making of natural resource managers. Thirty-two Tribes have ties to lands now managed by the Park and thus may desire to consult on decisions that affect its resources. The social feasibility of RAD decision making at Capitol Reef is also influenced by stakeholders' perspectives, particularly settler descendants and local communities, most of whom are heavily involved in agriculture. Given the diversity of perspectives among stakeholders and Tribes, making decisions about climate change and ecological transformation that balance these views and meet responsibilities for tribal consultation can be challenging. One interviewee described the tension: “It's a very fine balance. It's often a knife edge, it feels like.” (CARE, 5). Staff mentioned three main ways that outside perspectives influence the Park’s choices (fig. 5).

First, some interview participants shared that they see vegetation management in a changing climate as an opportunity for future collaboration with Tribes. One interviewee described this example of collaboration for climate adaptation as follows:

As this quote summarized, staff suggested that working with Tribes might be important in future climate adaptation efforts at Capitol Reef. Similarly, the Park has identified this as an area for future collaboration and potential co-stewardship (Struthers and others, 2022).

Second, participating staff described their perception of how descendants of early Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints settlers consider it important that the Park maintain the Fruita orchards and other heritage relevant to historical settlement. One employee described interacting with visitors that have ties to the families who originally planted the Fruita orchards. This interviewee linked the maintenance of the orchards to the Park’s ability to maintain community support: “I think it's really important that we keep those relationships going, so we have the blessing of folks around here, and that we honor those histories,” (CARE, 4). The employee shared that the community has recently been pleased with orchard upkeep and plantings but is sometimes frustrated by federal processes required to complete necessary work. Another staff member summarized their understanding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints community’s view: “They’re like, “Yeah. As long as you keep the orchards running, we really don’t care how you do it,” (CARE, 7). Capitol Reef is relatively unique among parks in stewarding a living orchard. Participants emphasized that the community’s desires to preserve heritage and park employees’ desires to fulfill this trust will guide future decision making in the Fruita district, even in the face of ecological and climatological change.

Finally, participants described that the Park and local ranchers have shared interests in planning for and responding to encroaching ungulates from state lands, including the Henry Mountain bison herd⁷ and elk populations on neighboring lands. One participant described the complex situation:

Another participant explained that neither park employees nor ranchers know the full extent of the bison’s impact on forage “because they are having a lot more use down there than we planned for. We didn’t plan for bison. We planned for cows,” (CARE, 7). Moreover, grazing pressure on different forage species is increased by the “state-managed game park’s 1,500 elk,” (CARE, 7). Interviewees emphasized that responding to ecological change in this setting will be important for both the health of park vegetation and for agricultural stakeholders.

4.2.5. Financial Resources and Funding Models

Clifford and others (2022) describe how institutional context influences what a manager can do, or what they assess as the most feasible or preferable option. Institutional context includes “laws, policies, and administrative procedures that require or prohibit actions, shape resource flows, and influence management decisions” (Clifford and others, 2022, p. 62). In section 4.2.5, we describe how the institutional setting of NPS determines availability of financial resources for Capitol Reef’s response to climate change and ecological transformation. Then, in section 4.2.6., we summarize participant comments about the role of specific laws or policies in shaping regulatory context.

Interviewees discussed a range of challenges that shape resource availability, including increasing visitation, the process of internal funding and grant procurement, and frequent reliance on outside technical assistance (fig. 5). While not a challenge unique to Capitol Reef, staff explained that the current budget and funding structure is not sufficient to deal with increasing visitation, emergency response, and climate adaptation needs. One interviewee explained that the deficiency is even more pronounced when acreage per park is accounted for: “There’s a lot of parks that have similar visitation numbers, but could have a budget that’s three times ours, and they might have a fraction of the acreage.” (CARE, 1). This interviewee explained how historic visitation patterns shape the Park’s budget and how rapid changes in visitation have created an issue: “Capitol Reef became a park in 1971, and we had absurdly low visitation and slow visitation growth for a long time … [current] core park budgets were set around those [visitor] numbers,” (CARE, 1). Another staff member (CARE, 7) mentioned that the Inflation Reduction Act (of 2022) money allocated for National Parks was based on the amount of money the U.S. Congress allocates for each park unit—which is related to historic visitation. At Capitol Reef, the recent increase in visitation over the last decade, combined with the large, remote acreage of the Park’s geography and the annual appropriation, shapes the speed and extent to which the Park is able to respond to emergencies like flash floods or staff search and rescue efforts in the Park, which becomes increasingly important with increasing heat levels and more frequent storms in the Park.

As a result of perceived resource shortfalls, participants explained, Capitol Reef administrators must procure money to meet certain needs through competitive NPS-wide funding requests, cost-share with other organizations, and other creative funding or hiring solutions. Due to the Park’s reliance on competitive funding mechanisms, park staff must pay attention to application timelines and the resources it takes to compete for these monies:

In Capitol Reef, in contrast, there are no planning staff or designated staff to apply for NPS-wide funds; interviewees described how this is part of other employees’ workload. Further, one interviewee noted, there is a trade-off between focusing on emergencies and solving short-term challenges versus writing proposals to address longer-term needs: “How do you get there when you’re just in the day-to-day trench trying to manage and react, manage flooding, manage cows down in the creek? (CARE, 7).

A second result of the current funding levels and structure is that the Park receives support and technical assistance from the National Park Service’s Intermountain Regional Office, particularly for technical aspects of cultural resource compliance, planning, modeling, and other regulatory issues. One participant described the ways that the Region assists the Park with compliance:

Multiple interviewees mentioned that Capitol Reef does not have specialized staff for planning functions, which means the Park relies on the regional office for assistance: “There’s a whole planning context that needs to happen, but we’re completely dependent on the Washington and regional offices because we don’t have the expertise.” (CARE, 7). Beyond the technical capacity, the interviewee mentioned that “We [at Capitol Reef] don’t have the funding either” (CARE, 7), which presumably limits capacity for climate adaptation planning.

4.2.6. Regulatory Context

The laws and policies that shape how staff manage natural or cultural resources constitute another aspect of institutional context. As at any National Park, staff at Capitol Reef must comply with relevant regulations. Table 1 briefly describes key laws mentioned by interviewees and summarizes their comments about how these laws shape efforts to address climate change and ecological transformation in Capitol Reef (also see fig. 5).