Team #9889

Page 1

Moodys Mega Math Challenge 2017: From Sea

to Shining Sea
Looking Ahead with the National Park Service

February 26, 2017

 Team #9889
Page 2

Summary of Results
In evaluating the issue of global factors negatively affecting National Parks, we wished to
assess a variety of aspects of the question so as to mathematically devise the optimal solutions to
the problems at hand. We specifically analyzed elevation, shoreline erosion, and the trends
regarding historical events (natural disasters, visitation numbers, etc.) . Examining all of these
topics enabled us to ascertain conclusive results in regards to all parts of the question.
For part one, we decided that our definition of risk regarding sea level change would be
the probability that a given park is significantly affected by rise in sea level, significantly
meaning the likelihood that changing sea level would submerge and damage a larger portion of
area according to a trend calculated by the regression of known data points. We found that at the
present time, the only national park with high risk is Cape Hatteras; however, after ten years,
Padre Island also takes on this status. By the end of 50 years, Both Cape Hatteras and Padre
Island are at an increasingly high risk, with Olympic National Park following close behind. For
this reason, we suggest that action be taken upon these three parks foremost. With considerable
funding, barriers can be constructed to hold of rising sea level damage in these parks.
In order to evaluate other risk factors besides sea level change, we considered events that
were more climate-related. We took into account both data for forest fires and hurricanes,
namely the frequency of different intensities of each of these natural disasters. Using this data,
we found probabilities for the occurrences of these natural disasters and consolidated it all into a
single volatility index. Padre Island proved to be the most prone to climate-related natural
disasters. This fact, along with the high risk for sea level change-related disaster Padre takes on
after ten years, reaffirms that NPS should note Padre Island as a park that should be acted upon
foremostly. Cape Hatteras, which had a high risk for sea level change-related disaster, has a low
risk for climate change-related disaster; for this reason, we suggest that NPS focuses primarily
on Padre Island. Olympic Park has a medium risk for both factors, and thus should be acted upon
after Padre Island and Cape Hatteras.
Finally, we were prompted to reevaluate our previous suggestions while taking in the
amount of funds each park will need to be preserved. Knowing this trend, we can see whether or
not it is worth it sustain a park. All parks show no loss for an extended amount of time; however,
after years, Padre Island begins to lose money. Taking into account the high risk Padre Island has
for both sea level change-related disaster and climate change-related disaster, negating our
previous suggestions, we now suggest for NPS to allow nature to take its course. The Padre
Island Park is simply not worth the money of the NPS. Therefore, our concluding suggestion is
that the NPS works to preserve Cape Hatteras Park and Olympic Park first while leaving Padre
Island to its own devices. The other parks, with their relatively lower risk factors, are not
necessary to consider.
 Team #9889
Page 3

Table of Contents:

SUMMARY OF RESULTS......2

INTRODUCTION4
1.1 The Situation....4

TASK ONE..........5
2.1 Analysis of the Problem.4
2.2 Assumptions.......5
2.3 Design of the Model.......5
2.4 Justification and Testing the Model.......10

TASK TWO.........11
3.1 Analysis of the Problem.11
3.2 Assumptions...11
3.3 Design of the Model.....12
3.4 Justification and Testing the Model....14

TASK THREE...14
4.1 Analysis of the Problem....14
4.2 Assumptions.15
4.3 Design of the Model.15
4.4 Justification and Testing of the Model....17

CONCLUSION....17

WORKS CITED...19
 Team #9889
Page 4

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Situation

National Parks serve to preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and
values of the National Parks System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and
future generations. National Parks are being continuously impacted by both natural processes
and processes elicited by human influence. Rivers and glaciers carve out canyons and valleys
while fluctuating water temperatures split cliffs and boulders. Earthquakes and the movement of
tectonic plates affect terrain. Windstorms blow down trees and plants and create new areas for
growth. However, global change factors are becoming more destructive than renewing over time.
These factors include climate change and sea level change. Climate change propagates the
possibility of forest fires and the melting of glaciers which in turn can cause flooding. Flooding
is also bolstered by the global factor of sea level change. In order to combat these destructive
forces, it is important to create a model in order to allow the National Parks System to strategize
and prioritize the measures that will be taken to preserve the parks.
To combat an overarching factor such as global warming, there are many personal
measures people can take. If the National Parks System is allowed to see the effects of global
warming over time, they will be able to calculate the facilitation of measures larger in
magnitude. If provided with models regarding revenues from visitors, they will also be able to
factor in the amount of available money to implement said measures. Multiple models will
suggest a methodology, or sequential process, for the preservation of the nations greatest
natural, historical, and cultural treasures and analyze the effectiveness of certain conservation
efforts.

TASK ONE: TIDES OF CHANGE

2.1 Analysis of the Problem

In order to create a mathematical model to determine sea level change risk with a rating
of high, medium, or low for the next 10, 20, and 50 years, the culmination of the effects of
geography, history, and erosion must be analyzed and consolidated into a risk index.
Geography will be defined by the component of elevation. Erosion will concern energy of waves
using its relation to wave height and its interactions with different soil types. History will deal
with trends in sea level and precipitation. Each of these three factors equally affect the risk
index; higher scores mean there is a higher risk of the sea-level being a destructive force on the
National Park. In the analysis of the problem, it was decided to create an index which is
representative of the risk index. To make this scaled index easy to navigate, a scale from 1-10
 Team #9889
Page 5

was chosen. Additionally, this scale would follow the standard bell curve so that the index of a
certain national park could be identified, and the extent to which this differs from the US
average.

2.2 Assumptions
The major assumption made in this area is that the factors of geography, erosion, and
history all have an equal influence on the risk index. Without the ability to conduct experiments
to determine the exact implication of each part of the index, it must be assumed that each
variable is accounted for equally in the final mathematical model. But within each index several
components are represented. These component factors are made to affect the index unequally.
For example, the elevation has greater weight in geography than coastal slope. Elevation is also
made to be a constant value and only averages are utilized. Lastly, three significant figures is
assumed for the majority of our calculated values. This reduces the accuracy of the solution.

2.3 Design of the Model

Model: Geography= 8.057376287(0.999895423)x where x is the elevation and y is the scaled

index
Erosion= (0.4 wave height) + (0.4 soil type) + (0.2 tidal range)
Wave height, soil type, and tidal rage were all given a scaled value on 1-10, whose values all
make up the scaled index of Erosion.
History = mean change in sea level + 3.2
To achieve a mean of 5.
 Team #9889
Page 6

Geography - Elevation
The elevation scale, which goes from 1 through 10, was made to be representative of the
entire U.S. to account for the geographic locations of all five parks contained in the U.S. The
maximum score of 10, which indicates high-risk and thus low elevation, corresponds to the
absolute minimum elevation of the U.S of -282 meters while the minimum score of 1
corresponds to the highest elevation of 20,237 meters. The average elevation of the United States
is 2,500 meters, denoted as the index value of 5. The points (20237, 1), (-282, 10), and (2500, 5)
were plotted and found a befitting exponential equation, which produced the smallest r2 value,
using regression. This equation is y = 8.0573762(0.999895422)x . By plugging in values
researched for mean elevation in each national park, an elevation risk index for each park was
assigned.

Table 1.1: National Park vs. Assigned Elevation Risk Index

National Parks Actual Mean Elevation (m) Assigned Risk Index

Acadia 6190.0 4.21

Cape Hatteras 1.8 8.06

Kenai Fjords 1970.0 6.55

Olympic 2427.0 6.25

Padre Island 1.0 8.05

Erosion - Soil Type

It was decided that the greater susceptibility to erosion meant that a particular park was
more vulnerable to sea level change, denoting a higher risk index. By analysing soil types, index
values were assigned to each park on a scale of 1 through 5.

Table 1.2: National Park vs. Assigned Erosion by Soil Type Risk Index
National Parks Soil Type Assigned Risk Index

Acadia Ashy 1

Cape Hatteras Clay 1

Kenai Fjords Volcanic Ash, Medium Loam 3

Olympic Sandy 3
 Team #9889
Page 7

Padre Island Black Clay 2

Erosion - Tidal Range

A lower tidal range results in greater erosion, as the tide is exposed to a more
concentrated area. The minimum tidal range out of all the national parks is 0.21 meters in Padre
Island; this value was denoted the value of 5 on a scale of 1 to 5. The maximum tidal range is
2.54 meters in Kenai Fjords, which denotes a value of 1. The average tidal range in the U.S is 0.6
meters, which denotes an index of 2.5. Using exponential regression once again with the points
(0.21, 5), (2.54, 1) and (0.6, 2.5), the equation y = 4.6401798 (0.537698694)x. was found. The
tidal range values were then plugged into this equation to compute risk indexes.

Table 1.3: National Park vs. Assigned Erosion by Tidal Range Risk Index
National Parks Tidal Range (m) Assigned Risk Index

Acadia 1 2.495
Cape Hatteras 0.83 2.772
Kenai Fjords 2.54 0.96
Olympic 1.89 1.463
Padre Island 0.21 4.073

Erosion - Wave Height

Due to the equation concerning the energy of waves, E = pgH 2/8 , we can derive that
there is a positive correlation between the energy of a wave and the height of the wave. Since p
and g are both constants (p= density of water, g= acceleration due to gravity), the wave height
resultantly correlates to the energy produced by the waves. This energy is what results in erosion.
Based on this theory, the higher wave height results in more erosion. Referring back to the
original statement concerning erosion, it is explained that increases in erosion lead to a higher
risk of sea level change. Thus, the higher wave height leads to higher risk of sea level change. To
make this scale representative of data in the USA, a scale was created using the average,
maximum, and minimum of the USA sample. This provides the average, maximum, and
minimum for the scale (out of 10). A model of the data was then produced. Once this model was
created, the different values found in the data were plugged into the model. This model presented
the scaled value, which was used in the final equation.
 Team #9889
Page 8

Table 1.4: National Park vs. Erosion by Wave Height Risk Indexes
National Parks Assigned Risk Indexes

Acadia 0.61
Cape Hatteras 1.37
Kenai Fjords 1.52
Olympic 2.13
Padre Island 0.30

Consolidation of Erosion Indexes

The wave height, soil type, and geography components were combined into one erosion
index, the factors influencing the single erosion index by 40%, 40%, and 20% respectively.

Table 1.5: National Park vs. Final Erosion Indexes

National Parks Wave Height Tidal Range Soil Type Final Index

Acadia 0.61 2.495 1 1.4218

Cape Hatteras 1.37 2.772 1 2.9284
Kenai Fjords 1.52 0.96 3 1.8948
Olympic 2.13 1.463 3 2.9182
Padre Island 0.3 4.073 2 2.27172

Sample Calculations (for Acadia):

Erosion Index= (0.4 wave height) + (0.4 soil type) + (0.2 tidal range)
Erosion Index= (0.4 0.61) + (0.4 1) + (0.2 2.495)
Erosion Index= 1.4218

History - Mean Sea Level Over Time

From the mean sea level data from the past 30 years (NPS), a weighted History Index
was calculated. The average rate of sea level change in the US was found to be 0.18 mm/yr.
Therefore, the data was standardized from the NPS by adding a constant to vertically shift the
values upward so that the middle of the data would have a value of 5. To do this, 3.2 mm/yr was
added to each of the mean sea level increases for the five cities studied, using Equation A:
 Team #9889
Page 9

Equation A: History index = mean change in sea level + 3.2

Table 1.6: National Park vs. Assigned History Risk Index
National Parks Mean Sea Level Change (mm/yr) Assigned Risk Index

Acadia 2.178 5.38

Cape Hatteras 3.84 7.04
Kenai Fjords - 2.62 0.58
Olympic 0.14 3.34
Padre Island 3.48 6.68

Consolidation of Various Indexes

In order to combine the three component indexes of geography, erosion, and history, the
average of all three indexes for each park was taken. It was then determined the qualifications for
low, medium, and high risk of sea level change to fit the following ranges based on their relative
magnitude on a scale from 1-10:

Table 1.7: Qualitative Risk Assessment vs. Final Risk Index Range
National Parks Final Risk Indexes

Low 1 - 4.5

Medium 4.5 - 6.5

High 6.5 - 10

The Final Risk Indexes calculated are as follows:

Table 1.8: National Park vs. Final Risk Indexes

National Parks Final Risk Indexes Risk Assessment

Acadia 4.14 low

Cape Hatteras 6.98 high

Kenai Fjords 3.64 low

Olympic 5.15 medium

 Team #9889
Page 10

Padre Island 6.42 medium

The final risk values were then manipulated to account for time so that the risk
assessments could be predicted for 10, 20 and 50 years in the future. Equation B was used to
calculate this value, where an is the final risk assessment for the park at present as given in Table
1.8, t is the amount of time passed in years, and a(t) is the risk index for t years in the future.
t +1
Equation B: an375 = a(t)
In the exponent, t was divided by 375 because the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 375
ppm. CO2 concentration contributes to sea level change because, as a greenhouse gas, it traps
heat in the atmosphere, leading to rising temperatures and melting ice caps. The value of 1 was
added to this quantity so that the risk index at time 0 would equal the initial indexes calculated in
Table 1.9.

Table 1.9: National Park vs. Final Risk Indexes Over Time
National Park 10 Years 20 Years 50 Years

Index Rating Index Rating Index Rating

Acadia 4.29 low 4.47 low 5.00 medium

Cape Hatteras 7.35 high 7.74 high 9.04 high

Kenai Fjords 3.77 low 3.90 low 4.32 low

Olympic 5.37 medium 5.61 medium 6.39 medium

Padre Island 6.75 high 7.09 high 8.23 high

From Table 1.9, it is clear that within 10 years, Padre Island and Cape Hatteras will become
areas of high risk, and within 50 years, Acadia will also become an area of medium risk. The risk
indexes of all the parks increase over time as the effects of global warming continue to
accumulate.

2.4 Justification and Testing the Model

As explained above, the exponent t was divided by 375 and then added to 1 in order to
account for the concentration of carbon dioxide found in the atmosphere and produce this value
as a standard on the risk index with a rating of 0. It is important to model the scale based off this
index of zero to create a relative mode of comparison that is understandable by the viewer. It is
important to note that the values and statistics relating to carbon dioxide are used to represent the
 Team #9889
Page 11

occurrence of all greenhouse gases, and could be further improved with the incorporation of
other prominent gases. The model is also justified qualitatively by the locations of the high risk
parks on a map. Cape Hatteras and Padre Island are small land masses surrounded by water, and
Kenai Fjords is composed of fragmented island pieces. These parks would be assumed to be the
most dramatically impacted by sea level changes as they are composed of the lowest land area
and contain the larger relative shore lines. This model can be extended to predict the effects of
sea level changes on the national parks even farther in the future, although it is important to note
that modifications of the model with more chronologically relevant data would make it better
suited to these extenuated extrapolations, as the data would more closely match the conditions
surrounding the parameters of the prediction.

TASK TWO: THE COAST IS CLEAR?

3.1 Analysis of the Problem

This task asked to consider environmental catastrophes such as storms and use this data
to analyse the risk each National Park faces for destruction due to violent weather patterns. The
natural phenomena chosen to be considered were: hurricanes, wildfires, and coastal floods. A
high risk was interpreted to mean that a large land area would be damaged to the point where it
was uninhabitable by people or animals or where a significant ecological change would be made
to the system.

3.2 Assumptions
It was assumed that the past years of recorded data were sufficient enough to calculate
the risk of a region experiencing a certain natural phenomenon. However, there may have been
storm patterns from before the provided recorded history that could have contributed to or
affected the conclusions. In addition, it was assumed that each class of storm (wildfires,
hurricane, etc.) had the same level of impact as the other types, while in reality, one type of
storm may cause more damage than another in a particular region due to the frequencies of storm
occurrences and that areas level of preparedness against the specific kind of storm. Finally, we
assumed that Kenai did not experience any forest fires since there was no data available for
forest fires in this park.
 Team #9889
Page 12

3.3 Design of the Model

In order to design a model, we created a separate table for both hurricanes and forest
fires.

Table 3.1: National Park vs. Forest Fires By Class

Class (*intensity increases from A-G)

National A B C D E F G Total
Parks

Acadia 57 11 3 1 0 0 0 72
Cape
Hatteras 59 22 3 2 0 0 0 86
Kenai
Fjords 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Olympic 342 39 5 3 6 3 0 398
Padre
Island 5 14 5 4 6 3 4 41

We used these values to calculate the probability of each kind of forest fire occurring in each
park.

Table 3.2: National Park vs. Probability of Each Type of Fire

Probability

National A B C D E F G
Parks
Acadia 0.7916666667 0.1527777778 0.0416666666 0.0138888888 0 0 0
Cape
Hatteras 0.6860465116 0.2558139535 0.0348837209 0.0232558139 0 0 0
Kenai
Fjords n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Olympic 0.8592964824 0.0979899497 0.0125628140 0.0075376884 0.0150753768 0.0075376884 0
Padre
Island 0.1219512195 0.3414634146 0.1219512195 0.0975609756 0.1463414634 0.0731707317 0.0975609756
 Team #9889
Page 13

We calculated the average number of forest fires per year by dividing the total number over the
20 year period over which the data was recorded. We found the probability that a given forest
fire was classified within each severity class A through F. In addition, we assigned a severity
index to each class of fires with 1 being the least severe and 7 being the most severe. We did the
same process for hurricanes with classes ET through H5. These values are shown with their
classes below.

Table 3.3 Severity Index by Class of Hurricane

Class of Fire Severity Index

ET 1
TD 2
TS 3
H1 4
H2 5
H4 7

From these, we found the expected combined severity of all the forest fires in the park in one
year by multiplying the average number of fires per year by the average severity of those fires.
The expected values from this calculation are shown below.

Table 3.4 Expected Combined Severity Per Year vs. National Park
National Park Expected Combined Severity Per Year

Acadia 5.058
Cape Hatteras 14.273
Kenai Fjords 0
Olympic 25.790
Padre Island 58.784

We converted the expected severities to a scale of 1-10 by dividing by 6. These gave the values
below. The values 1-2 were taken to be low risk, 2-8 medium risk, and 8-10 high risk.
 Team #9889
Page 14

Table 3.5 Standardized Expected Combined Severity Per Year vs. National Park
National Park Standardized Expected Combined Severity Per Year

Acadia 0.843 (low)

Cape Hatteras 2.379 (low)
Kenai Fjords 0 (low)
Olympic 4.300 (medium)
Padre Island 9.797 (high)

3.4 Justification and Testing the Model

The model accurately portrays the disasters per national park as it was tested for at least a
decade of data for that particular region. By finding the probability of the type of storm that may
occur, we took into account the previous storm history of the region. It is also important to note
that as global temperatures rise with the progression of global warming, the probability of the
occurrence of natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires that feed off of heat will follow the
progression and increase in frequency. This model accounts for that progression through its
accumulation of all past storms, thereby creating a record of the past culmination of storms and
their conditions. It is important to note the model will become less accurate with the occurrence
of more recent storms, as the model can not account for future disasters. However, the model can
be used to predict storms that may occur in a closer proximity, helping park services to predict
courses of action to prevent severe damage and large storm clean-up costs. This preventative
knowledge will help avoid extreme budget deficits by helping authorities create well-though and
cost-effective storm plans before they occur, not only increasing the safety and accountability of
their national parks but minimizing negative impacts of unavoidable disasters.

TASK THREE: LET NATURE TAKE ITS COURSE?

4.1 Analysis of the Problem

The NPS is tasked with implementing the best solution which provides the most cost
effective reaction to climate related events. This entire task encompasses deciding where to
allocate money by considering the costs versus benefits. For example, a national park with a high
likelihood of being affected by climate related events would need more money to remain
 Team #9889
Page 15

functional. This could occur because the extensive damage that occurs from more frequent and
severe storms leaves the parks in an unviewable state. Thus, they would require lots more
funding to maintain and to generate a profit. On the other hand, if we let nature take its course
and completely overrun a particular national park, then the NPS could avoid spending money
and its limited resources on a hopeless situation. This scenario would obviously not appeal to
the mass population, but sometimes the sacrifice of one national park can be worth it if it means
the welfare of many others. We also need to consider the amount of people being served. If there
is a large amount of people who frequently visit a specific national park, then it would make
sense to invest more money in the protection of that specific national park. This controversial
topic is one we have to study, discuss, and eventually, find a solution.

4.2 Assumptions
To solve this issue, we must approach the problem from a fairly objective perspective and
consider the fact that in order for the best decision to be made, we might have to deal with lots of
human emotion. To help decide a model for this issue, we have to assume that human emotion
plays a minimal role in the decisions made by the NPS. This will allow the NPS to make the best
decision in terms of providing the best opportunity for the welfare of other national parks. The
emotional aspect of this problem is not easily modelled and deters from the NPS instating the
best possible solution. Additionally, we have to assume that the increase in sea level would
decrease the amount of visitors. This is due to the reduced amount of total area present in the
park, which leads to less people being able to explore the national park. Similarly, if the national
park is extremely susceptible to natural disasters from climate change, then we have to assume
that in order for the national park to continue to exist, a massive amount of money must be
invested in the repair of that particular national park. The last assumption is that if there is
enough funding and an average index of vulnerability and risk of sea level, then the population
of the national park will remain the same as last year

4.3 Design of the Model

An effective model would combine all the different factors that would affect the outcome
of the problem. These factors include, but are not limited to, the amount of people who annually
visit the national park, the volatility of a national park (how susceptible the national park is to
disaster), the sea level change risk, and total revenue gained. Since the end goal of this issue is to
allow the NPS to maintain their goal, we prioritized financial balance before satisfying human
emotions. We realized that for the NPS to function as an organization, they need to make money
to be able to continue to exist. This is more important than the factor of human emotion. Thus, I
decided that a model that emphasizes preventing a deficit. This would be a model where the goal
is for each to have a small amount of profit so that each national park can continue to sustain.
Thus, the three part model is below:
 Team #9889
Page 16

Since the number of people visiting in the future depends on how safe the national park
is, and the amount of land available, people visiting is a function of sea level risk index (SI) and
vulnerability index (VI):
F (x) = x 1(1.1 (SI + V I)/100)
Where x1 is
the people from the previous year
The average for SI and VI is 5 for the USA, so if this was the average national park in the USA
the equation would be F (x) = x 1(1.1 (5 + 5)/100) , which simplifies to x1(1) or just x1.
Thus, at the average national park, the population of people stays the same.

Then, we find an equation which determines the amount of funding the park receives.
This is also a function of people, the more people the more funding:
F (x) = cx + operational costs
Where c is the amount given to the national park per person (can be determined by NPS)
and the operational costs are a fixed value the park annually gets to continue to operate. This is
the money given to the park to continue to exist.

The last equation in this model has to do with the cost the NPS has to pay for the
reparation of a national park due to damage. This would be a function of the VI only. Only the
VI causes damage which then need to be repaired by the NPS. This function can be modelled by:
F (x) = a(V I)
Where a is a constant that expresses the cost of reparation per one on the vulnerability
index, this models the cost of repairing damages

To find the revenue, use a simple equation which is the cost per person multiplied the
amount of people:
F (x) = bx
Where b is the cost per person

Final Model:
Since we are adopting a cost versus expense approach, we will calculate the difference
between revenue and expense by the NPS:

c(x 1(1.1 (V I + SI)/100)) + operational costs + a(V I) = expenses

bx = income

Final Plan:
If the inequality bx c(x 1(1.1 (5 + 5)/100)) + operational costs + a(V I) 0 then the national
park can stay in.
 Team #9889
Page 17

On the other hand, if the inequality bx c(x 1(1.1 (5 + 5)/100)) + operational costs + a(V I) < 0
then the national park is not profitable and the park should be shut down.
4.4 Justification and Testing the Model
This model takes a very financial heavy approach to the actions of the NPS. We
understand that certain national parks will not be able to function if the NPS cannot sustain the
actions of all the national parks. Therefore, we proposed that any national park which might not
be able to sustain growth and maintain money should be shut down. This is part of the effort by
the NPS to provide an ability to fund and allow other national parks to grow. I can justify my
model with data. For example, to find whether Cape Hatteras would be profitable, I plug in
values to the model:
bx c(x 1(1.1 (5 + 5)/100)) + operational costs + a(V I)
And I got that the final result was $6,745,000. (I assumed the b=10, c=7, and a=50,000)
In fact, I got the final result using my model, and all of them turned up positive. Thus, we can
say that all the national parks are a valuable investment and that the NPS should maintain all of
these five national parks. However, the Padre Island does have a large VI + SI and over time, the
park will lose money. This is shown by the function where you substitute the x-value with a
function of time. This way we can extrapolate the data to show how profitable the national park
will be over time. The graph showed a negative value over time, indicating the NPS should cut
ties with this park.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we were able to assign sea level change risk values of high, medium, and low to
the five National Parks after considering variables such as erosion, historical data, and elevation.
After standardizing all these variables across the parks, we determined that Kenai Fjords had the
least risk of sea level change and the Cape Hatteras had the highest. The model attempted to
account for greenhouse gases, and hence the effects of global warming will continue to affect sea
levels, and over time the risk indexes in all parks will continue to rise.

Further, for Task 2, we determined the risk each Park experiences for geological disaster caused
by storms. By assigning severity indexes for each successive level of intensity of the storms and
multiplying by the frequency of each type, we were able to calculate an expected value for the
severity of weather in that area. Padre Island had the highest chance of harmful weather, and
Kenai Fjords had the lowest probability. It was assumed that the higher the severity of storms in
a given year, the more funding would be required for upkeep of those parks.
 Team #9889
Page 18

Finally, in Task 3, it was determined that income all Parks was positive for the next couple years.
However, over time it was discovered that income for Padre Island would drop and eventually
become negative over time. This is because maintenance costs for the park would be too high,
and population growth not large enough to sustain income for this area due to its high rate of
storms. Therefore, over time the Padre Island park was not as strong an investment as the other
parks, which were all still gaining revenue.
 Team #9889
Page 19

Works Cited

1 Meter Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) - USGS National Map 3DEP Downloadable Data
Collection. U.S. Geological Survey (Point of Contact), 26 Feb. 2017. Accessed 26
Feb. 2017.

Crouch, Fenimore. National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). 2015. Accessed
26 Feb. 2017.

Environmental Factors. https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/environmentalfactors.htm.

Accessed 26 Feb. 2017.

Fisichelli, Nicholas A., et al. Protected Area Tourism in a Changing Climate: Will Visitation at
US National Parks Warm up or Overheat? PLOS ONE, vol. 10, no. 6, 17 June 2015,
p. e0128226, 10.1371/journal.pone.0128226.

LoveToKnow. Padre Island National Seashore Topography, Elevation, Lat, Long, Maps &
More. 2017. Accessed 26 Feb. 2017.

Networks2017Sandbox. Highest, Lowest, and Mean Elevations in the United States. 2000,
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001792.html. Accessed 26 Feb. 2017.

Peakbagger. U.S. National Park High Points. 1987,

http://www.peakbagger.com/list.aspx?lid=1821. Accessed 26 Feb. 2017.

Programs That Protect. https://www.nationalparks.org/our-work/programs/programs-protect.

Accessed 26 Feb. 2017.