alan f. hamlet andrew w. wood dennis p. lettenmaier
DESCRIPTION
Observed Climate and Streamflow Variability in the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Colorado River Basins and Projections for the 21 st Century. JISAO Center for Science in the Earth System Climate Impacts Group and Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Washington - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Alan F. HamletAndrew W. Wood
Dennis P. Lettenmaier
JISAO Center for Science in the Earth System Climate Impacts Group
and Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Washington
November, 2003
Observed Climate and Streamflow Variability in the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Colorado
River Basins and Projections for the 21st Century
![Page 2: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Observed Trends in Basin Average Temperature and Precipitation in the
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Water Year 1916-1997)
Note: Data is adjusted for topographic variations, and corrections for spurious trends associated with heat island effects, station moves, instrumentation changes, different groupings of stations, etc. have been applied.
![Page 3: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Winter (O-M)
y = 0.0094x + 5.47672
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
Tem
per
atu
re (
C)
Summer (A-S)
y = 0.0097x + 15.65813
14
15
16
17
18
19
16
19
20
19
24
19
28
19
32
19
36
19
40
19
44
19
48
19
52
19
56
19
60
19
64
19
68
19
72
19
76
19
80
19
84
19
88
19
92
19
96
Tem
per
atu
re (
C)
Observed Temperature Trends over the Sacramento San Joaquin Basin 1916-1997
![Page 4: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Winter (O-M)
y = 1.2532x + 506.560
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
19
16
19
21
19
26
19
31
19
36
19
41
19
46
19
51
19
56
19
61
19
66
19
71
19
76
19
81
19
86
19
91
19
96
To
tal P
reci
pit
atio
n
(mm
)
Summer (A-S)
y = 0.1874x + 106.610
50
100
150
200
250
19
16
19
21
19
26
19
31
19
36
19
41
19
46
19
51
19
56
19
61
19
66
19
71
19
76
19
81
19
86
19
91
19
96
To
tal P
reci
pit
atio
n
(mm
)
Observed Precipitation Trends over the Sacramento San Joaquin Basin 1916-1997
![Page 5: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Streamflow Reconstructions from the Paleoclimatic Record
Thanks to:
Hugo Hidalgo, Scripps Institution of OceanographyDave Meko, Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of ArizonaConnie Woodhouse, Paleoclimatology Branch, NOAA National Climatic Data Center
![Page 6: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Sacramento River Flow Reconstructed from Tree Rings
(6-year running mean)
Source: Meko et. al, 2001, J. Amer. Water Res. Association, 37(4) 1029-39 (Fig 5)
![Page 7: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Sacramento and Upper Colorado Annual Flow Reconstructions
Concurrent periods of low flow are indicated by pink bands
Meko, D.M. and C.A. Woodhouse, in review. Tree-ring footprint of joint hydrologic drought in Sacramento and Upper Colorado river basins, western USA. Journal of Hydrology
![Page 8: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Overview of Streamflow Reconstructions for Water Managers:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/streamflow/study.html
Sacramento River Reconstructions:Meko, D.M., Therrell, M.D., Baisan, C.H., and Hughes, M.K., 2001, Sacramento River flow reconstructed to A.D. 869 from tree rings: J. of the American Water Resources Association, v. 37, no. 4, p. 1029-1040.
Meko, D.M. and C.A. Woodhouse, in review. Tree-ring footprint of joint hydrologic drought in Sacramento and Upper Colorado river basins, western USA. Journal of Hydrology
Colorado River Reconstructions:Water Resources Bulletin, 31(5) (Special Issue on climate variability and drought in the Colorado River Basin)
Stockton, C.W. and Jacoby Jr., G.C. 1976. Long-term surface-water supplyand streamflow trends in the Upper Colorado River Basin based on tree-ringanalysis. Lake Powell Research Project Bulletin 18, Institute of Geophysicsand Planetary Physics, University of California, Los Angeles.
![Page 9: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Some Selected Results from the Accelerated Climate Prediction Initiative (ACPI)
![Page 10: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Accelerated Climate Prediction Initiative (ACPI) – NCAR/DOE Parallel Climate Model (PCM) grid over western U.S.
A hydrologic simulation model and a reservoir operations model were run in each portion of the domain.
Both sensitivity and adaptive response capability were evaluated.
![Page 11: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Bias Correction
from NCDC observations
from PCM historical runraw climate scenario
bias-corrected climate scenario
month mmonth m
Note: future scenario temperature trend (relative to control run) removed before, and replaced after, bias-correction step.
![Page 12: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Downscaling
observed mean fields
(1/8-1/4 degree)
monthly PCManomaly (T42)
VIC-scale monthly simulation
interpolated to VIC scale
![Page 13: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
![Page 14: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Reductions in Pacific Northwest Snowpack for PCM Scenarios(low sensitivity)
The Main Impact Pathway in the West:Loss of Snowpack.
![Page 15: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Results for the Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins
Van Rheenen, N.T., A.W. Wood, R.N. Palmer and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2004, Potential Implications of PCM Climate Change Scenarios for Sacramento - San Joaquin River Basin Hydrology and Water Resources, Climatic Change (accepted)
![Page 16: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
PCM Business-as-Usual scenarios
California(Basin Average)
control (2000-2048)
historical (1950-99)
BAU 3-run average
![Page 17: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
PCM Business-as-Usual Scenarios
Snowpack ChangesCaliforniaApril 1 SWE
![Page 18: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
PCMBusiness-As-Usual
Mean MonthlyHydrographs
Shasta Reservoir Inflows
1 month 12 1 month 12
![Page 19: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Lake Shasta Storage: 4552 taf
Sacramento River Basin
Trinity
Whiskeytown
Shasta
Oroville (SWP)
Folsom
Clear Creek
American River
Feather River
Trinity River
Sac
ram
ento
Riv
er
Dam
Power Plant
River
Transfer
Delta
![Page 20: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Delta & San Joaquin R Basin
Dam
Power Plant
River/Canal
Transfer
Eastman, Hensley, & Millerton
New Don Pedro & McClure
Delta
New Hogan
Pardee & Camanche
Stanislaus River
Tuolumne & Merced Rivers
Delta Outflow
Mokelumne River
Calaveras River
San
Joaquin
River
Pardee/CamancheReservoir
Storage: 615 taf
New Melones ResStorage: 2420 tafDon Pedro/McClureStorage: 3055 taf
Millerton LakeStorage: 761 taf
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Area: 1200 mi2
Delta
New Melones
San Luis
![Page 21: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Central Valley Water Year Type Occurrence
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Critically Dry Dry Below Normal Above Normal Wet
Water Year Type
Per
cen
t G
iven
WY
Typ
e
hist (1906-2000) 2020s 2050s 2090s
![Page 22: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Storage Decreases• Sacramento
Range: 5 - 10 %Mean: 8 %
• San Joaquin Range: 7 - 14 %Mean: 11 %
Current Climate vs. Projected Climate
![Page 23: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Current Climate vs. Projected Climate
Central Valley Hydropower Production
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
OctNov
Dec Jan
Feb Mar Apr
May Ju
nJu
lAug
Sep
Meg
awat
t-H
ou
rs
Ctrl mean
2000-2019
2020-2039
2040-2059
2060-2079
2080-2098
Hydropower Losses• Central Valley
Range: 3 - 18 %Mean: 9 %
• Sacramento System Range: 3 – 19 %Mean: 9%
• San Joaquin System Range: 16 – 63 %Mean: 28%
![Page 24: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Results for Colorado River Basin
Christensen, N.S., Wood, A.W., Voisin, N., Lettenmaier, D.P. and R.N. Palmer, 2004, Effects of Climate Change on the Hydrology and Water Resources of the Colorado River Basin, Climatic Change, (accepted)
![Page 25: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Period 1 2010-2039 Period 2 2040-2069 Period 3 2070-2098
hist. avg.
ctrl. avg.
PCM Projected Colorado R. Basin Termperature
![Page 26: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
hist. avg.
ctrl. avg.
PCM Projected Colorado R. Basin Precipitation
Period 1 2010-2039 Period 2 2040-2069 Period 3 2070-2098
![Page 27: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Changes to Seasonal Hydrograph
Simulated Historic (1950-1999) Period 1 (2010-2039)Control (static 1995 climate) Period 2 (2040-2069)
Period 3 (2070-2098)
![Page 28: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Deliveries to Central Arizona Project & Los Angeles Metro. Water District
1 BCM = 810,832 acre-ft
![Page 29: Alan F. Hamlet Andrew W. Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062804/56814b1c550346895db82f79/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Conclusions and Comparative Analysis
• 1) California system operation is dominated by water supply (mostly ag), the reliability of which would be reduced significantly by a combination of seasonality shifts and reduced (annual) volumes. Partial mitigation by altered operations is possible, but complicated by flood issues.
• 2) Colorado system is sensitive primarily to annual streamflow volumes. Low runoff ratio makes the system highly sensitive to modest changes in precipitation (in winter, esp, in headwaters). Sensitivity to altered operations is modest, and mitigation possibilities by increased storage are nil (even if otherwise feasible).
• 3) These potential impacts highlight the need for contingency planning to cope with reductions in water supply and flexible demand management strategies for the future.