Grantee Research Project Results
2001 Progress Report: Impact of Climate on the Lower Yakima River Basin
EPA Grant Number: R827454Title: Impact of Climate on the Lower Yakima River Basin
Investigators: Vail, Lance , Stockle, Claudio , Branch, Kristi , Wigmosta, Mark , Scott, Mike , Leung, Lai-yung Ruby , Neitzel, Duane
Institution: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory , Washington State University
EPA Project Officer: Packard, Benjamin H
Project Period: April 15, 2000 through April 14, 2003 (Extended to September 30, 2003)
Project Period Covered by this Report: April 15, 2000 through April 14, 2001
Project Amount: $869,364
RFA: Integrated Assessment of the Consequences of Climate Change (1999) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Climate Change , Ecological Indicators/Assessment/Restoration , Water , Aquatic Ecosystems
Objective:
The objective of this research project is to develop and demonstrate a framework to assess the localized impact of climate change and climate variability on a diverse set of interdependent interests, including agriculture, water supply, water quality, fisheries, and economics. The goal of this research project is not to develop any specific new process models, but to integrate existing models to ensure that the linkages between the various models are appropriately managed. Because any such assessment is subject to considerable uncertainty, this framework explicitly considers the generation and propagation of uncertainty. This framework also communicates the tradeoffs associated with adaptation alternatives. The framework is being demonstrated on the Lower Yakima River Basin, WA.
Progress Summary:
This research project has three primary themes: horizontal integrated assessment, adaptation tradeoffs, and uncertainty. Progress is described relative to each of these three themes.
Horizontal Assessment. Any integrated assessment requires a computational and data management infrastructure to manage the diverse and disparate suite of data and models required to complete the analysis. A platform for integrated assessments of climate impacts requires several additional features. Based on discussions with stakeholders and decisionmakers, we have defined the critical requirements of a Climate Adaptation Management Platform (CAMP). The three critical requirements of CAMP are:
· Accountability - The primary goal of CAMP is to support decisionmaking. To be useful, it must ensure that the tradeoffs between multiple objectives (of interest to both decisionmaker and stakeholders) are clearly articulated. CAMP also communicates the sources and magnitude of key uncertainties.
· Accessibility - CAMP provides rapid access to models, data, and the rationale that underpin decisions. These are growing requirements of a skeptical and confused public. The ability to drill-down through data and models ensures that decisionmakers are less likely to repeat past decision errors.
· Adaptability - CAMP must be able to rapidly assimilate new data and models to ensure that decisions are up-to-date with the most current information. Specific tools to automate the calibration process and to assimilate real-time data are requirements of the framework.
While the above requirements would exist for any platform that attempts to operationalize adaptive management, several unique requirements are required. These additional requirements include:
· Scaling tools to manage the great disparity between temporal/spatial scales of global climate models and other process models (e.g., hydrology, crops).
· Bias correction techniques to overcome the limitations of climate models to realistically reproduce historical data.
· Data management tools to handle ensembles of climate predictions.
The following tasks have been conducted:
· The required models have been assembled, except for the groundwater and the air quality models. The original proposed approached to represent the groundwater proved to be inadequate to properly simulate temperature and nutrients in the groundwater; thus we are developing a modified approach.
· CAMP has been implemented as a metadata database. Integrated assessments of climate impacts involve a large amount (albeit often sparse) and diverse data. Each data set can be quite large, often involving spatial information. A credible data management system is essential for successful natural adaptation planning. CAMP does not attempt to build a single large database from the distributed databases. Instead, CAMP leaves data on their native platforms. CAMP manages the metadata and provides the pipeline linking data and models together. The CAMP metadata database will be Web-accessible through the project's Web site.
· Linking models to data and models to models often requires change in required spatial and temporal scales. CAMP provides "scale filters" to transform climate and other data to the correct scale. CAMP does not attempt to provide a complete set of "scale filters." CAMP only provides a small set of such filters to manage the climate ensembles considered, as examples of the protocols required to develop such filters.
· CAMP also addresses the problem of structural differences between models. For instance, the salmon life cycle model employed in the integrated assessment utilizes categorical statements of the habitat, whereas the physical models used to support these categorical conclusions are deterministic process models. Fuzzy logic is used to overcome these structural differences and provides a reasonably intuitive basis for the stakeholder and decisionmaker to understand the associated processes. Fuzzy methods also are being considered in managing the climate ensembles.
Adaptation Tradeoffs. Past integrated climate assessments focused on defining the changes between historic and a future-altered climate. However, the exact nature of the future climate is unknown and is unlikely to happen abruptly. The environment is already changing both as a result of climate and other forcings. Therefore, it is prudent to develop methods to incrementally but deliberately take adaptation actions, while continuing to learn more about the efficacy of the adaptation actions and the nature of the climate change. Adaptive management encourages this deliberate experimental approach by identifying the next action in a sequence of actions whose exact sequence will be conditioned by observations occurring over time.
CAMP evaluates each adaptation alternative as a sequence of actions. Each action has an associated timescale (for instance, building additional reservoir capacity takes many years; whereas, changing reservoir operating rules can be implemented immediately). This helps the decisionmaker clearly understand the priorities for allocation and scheduling resources for adaptation.
We have conducted the following tasks:
· A Web-based (Java and XML) application has been developed to allow a clear visualization of multi-objective tradeoffs resulting from the integrated assessment. The application runs through a Web browser, which provides more maximum accessibility and the ability to thoroughly drill-down through the supporting data and models.
· Assessment endpoint metrics have been discussed and modified based on stakeholder comments. Once stakeholders see the tradeoffs, it is expected that the endpoint metrics will change.
· Optimization functions within CAMP are provided with a pareto genetic algorithm. The pareto genetic algorithm was selected because of its robustness and ability to work well in distributed computing environments.
· Pattern detection functions to assist in detecting robust alternatives are provided within CAMP using artificial neural networks and simple heuristics.
Uncertainty. Uncertainty is inevitable. Climate processes are notoriously complex and chaotic. Uncertainty starts with the climate and will continue to propagate through the integrated assessment. CAMP focuses the user on the uncertainty in selecting the correct "next action" and not on the process level uncertainties. Often, the "next action" is appropriate for a large number of feasible future climate scenarios. The set of climate scenarios is captured as an ensemble of individual climate realizations.
The following tasks have been completed:
· Where appropriate, random (probabilistic) considerations have been embedded in the assessment endpoints (e.g., mean time between junior users having less than 75 percent proratable water allocation).
· Entities for narrative descriptions of uncertainties (process, model, and data) have been included within metadata database.
· The role of artificial neural networks in identifying robust alternatives has been defined.
· The metadata database includes entities for the explicit management of climate ensembles and ensembles downstream in the integrated assessment.
The following preliminary conclusions have been made:
· A computational infrastructure providing accessibility, adaptability, and accountability is essential.
· Uncertainty in climate forecasts is inevitable.
· To overcome inertia due to uncertainty against adopting adaptation
programs, it is necessary
to focus decisionmakers and stakeholders on decision uncertainty, and away from
process-model and climate-forecast uncertainty.
· Decisionmakers and stakeholders have an appreciation of the value of robust and reversible actions supported by a clear articulation of tradeoffs.
· Scale issues are difficult to communicate.
· Climate assessments do not "stand alone" and should be integrated into existing planning processes to have any real impact in the near term. Climate effects must be relative to other processes; for instance, in some settings, the impact of land-use changes may exceed the impacts of climate change.
Future Activities:
In the third and final year of this project, the framework will be thoroughly demonstrated and evaluated. The evaluation will involve local stakeholders and decisionmakers.
Journal Articles on this Report : 1 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
Other project views: | All 25 publications | 1 publications in selected types | All 1 journal articles |
---|
Type | Citation | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
Scott MJ, Vail LW, Jaksch J, Stockle CO, Kemanian A. Water exchanges: Tools to beat El Nino climate variability in irrigated agriculture. Journal of American Water Resources Association 2004;40(1):15-31. |
R827454 (2001) R827454 (2003) |
not available |
Supplemental Keywords:
water, watersheds, groundwater, land, soil, sediments, global climate, precipitation, ecological effects, ecosystem, scaling, aquatic, habitat, integrated assessment, sustainable development, decisionmaking, community-based, cost benefit, nonmarket valuation, socioeconomic, environmental assets, engineering, social science, ecology, hydrology, modeling, general circulation models, climate models, Pacific Northwest, Washington, WA, EPA Region 10, agriculture., RFA, Scientific Discipline, Air, Geographic Area, Hydrology, Environmental Chemistry, climate change, State, Ecological Risk Assessment, EPA Region, integrated assessments, environmental monitoring, fish habitat, watershed, Yakima River Basin, economic models, socioeconomic indicators, Washington (WA), climate models, agriculture, environmental stressors, water quality, Region 10, aquatic ecology, climate variability, groundwater, air qualityRelevant Websites:
http://yakimaclimate.labworks.org/ Exit
Progress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.