Collaborative climate impacts work in the Carolinas

Greg CarboneDept. of Geography

University of South Carolinagreg.carbone@sc.edu

Shenandoah Valley Natural Systems Symposium

15 October 2007

The need for greater engagement

• “Another problem that often arises with environmental analysis is a failure to address key decision-relevant questions. … In short, when science is gathered to inform environmental decisions, it is often not the right science.”

Source: Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities (2005:25-26)NRC Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change Center for Economic, Governance, and International Studies

Demand: Can user benefit from research?

Supply:

Is relevant information produced?

Yes

Yes

No

No

Research agendas and user needs poorly matched

Inappropriate research agenda

Users take advantage of relevant research

•Unsophisticated or marginalized users

•Obstacles to use

Sarewitz & Pielke Jr., 2007

• Participatory approach

• Adaptive management: policies as “experiment”

• Science shops/community-based research

• Boundary organizations

The Process of Interaction

McNie, 2007

In a setting with many actors……how does science and application interact?

Complex and varied; common trait: communication

Criteria for Science Shops Clients

• No commercial objectives with their question; research results must become public (or 'the question must be for the common good').

• Clients must be able to use the results of the research to achieve their mission.

• Clients may not have the (full) financial means to acquire their research by other mean.

NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments

• The RISA program supports research that addresses complex climate sensitive issues of concern to decision-makers and policy planners at a regional level.

Carolinas Integrated Sciences and Assessments

MISSIONTo improve the range, quality, relevance, and

accessibility of climate information for decision-making and management of water resources in North and South Carolina

APPROACHInterdisciplinary and iterative approach of

interaction with stakeholders to:

• improve understanding of climate-hydrology processes

• develop analytical approaches that address stakeholders’ information needs;

• assess risks and vulnerability in decision making; and

• find the most effective means of communicating climate science to decision makers.

Drought Forecasting

Predicted drought stages using 24-month standardized precipitation index

2002

Catawba-Wateree Project

11 Interconnected Reservoirs

2 states, 14 counties, 30 municipalities

FERC Relicensing

Agencies and Interests in the FERC Relicensing Process

The Licensee

Federal Agencies

State Agencies

Non-Agency Stakeholders

Why FERC?• Our stakeholders think that FERC re-licensing is

the most significant ongoing activity involving state water resources in the Carolinas because– Heightened awareness of potential climate variability

due to recent 4-year drought– First chance to integrate federal water and

environmental laws along some rivers– 30-50 year timeframe for license agreement with

potential for flexibility or periodic adjustment– Emerging pressure on water resources– Relation to economic development initiatives– Virtually all water resources stakeholders participate

in some way

Ad hoc NC/SCwater agreement

FERC relicensingapplication review

0

50

100

150

200

250

% M

ea

n D

isch

arg

e

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

El Nino

SC Drought Act

SC Governor'sWater Law Review

FERC opencomment period

Low-inflow and other studies

Catawba-Wateree Basin

Water Scarcity In the Carolinas

• Economic and population growth are expected to place further pressures on water resource supplies and allocation

• A recent 4-year drought has heightened sensitivity to drought impacts

• Interstate water agreements do not yet exist, but policy makers are aware of the need

• FERC dams control major river basins

Dams and basins managed under Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC) licenses

Existing Low Inflow Protocol Tools

• On the Catawba-Wateree, Duke Power uses set management triggers based on streamflow levels

• Streamflow measured at 4 gages with unregulated flow

Relicensing workinggroup participants areaware of the U.S. DroughtMonitor

Stage Storage Index 1   Drought Monitor 2 (3-month average)

  Monitored USGS 3 Streamflow Gages

04 90% < SI < TSI 

0 ≤ DM 

AVG ≤ 85%

1 75% < SI ≤ 90%TSI 1 ≤ DM AVG ≤ 78%

2 57% < SI ≤ 75%TSI 2 ≤ DM AVG ≤ 65%

3 42% < SI ≤ 57%TSI 3 ≤ DM AVG ≤ 55%

4 SI ≤ 42%TSI DM = 4 AVG ≤ 40%

Catawba-Wateree ProjectSummary of LIP Trigger Points

AND

OR

1 Ratio of Remaining Useable Storage to Total Usable Storage

2 3-month numeric average of U.S. Drought Monitor

3 Sum of rolling 6-month average streamflow as percentage of period of record rolling average for same 6-month period

4 Stage 0 is triggered when any 2 of 3 trigger points are reached

Creating the Next Generation Low Inflow Protocol Tools

Stakeholder interests• Better understanding of the range of

variability and associated probabilities• Increasing the spatial resolution of the

drought monitor • Providing the ability for stakeholders to

investigate the way different drought indices represent the sensitivity of their systems – by management unit

MapNavigationTools

GIS Tools

Metadata

Comparison: spatial variabilityJuly 2002

50% PDSI and 50% PHDI

Climate Division 8-digit HUC

County

Exceptional DroughtExtreme DroughtSevere DroughtModerate DroughtAbnormally Dry

Adaptive capacity

– Ongoing learning– Flexibility– Ability to experiment and adopt novel

solutions– Potential to develop generalized responses to

broad challenges

Walker et al., 2002

Adaptive management and the low-inflow protocol

“In order to ensure continuous improvement regarding the LIP and its implementation throughout the term of the New License, the LIP will be re-evaluated and modified periodically. These reevaluations and modifications will be as determined by the Catawba-Wateree Drought Management Advisory Group (CW-DMAG).”

Institutional Adaptation and Drought Management in the Carolinas

How has FERC participation contributed to individual, organizational, and collective efforts to improve drought management?

How, and to what extent, has the capacity to manage and deal with drought improved across North and South Carolina?

Evaluating ENSO Impacts in the Carolinas

• Stakeholders’

perceptions of ENSO

impacts

• Discerning and

communicating

variability of ENSO

expression

FourGlobal Climate Model 2.5ºlat x 3.75ºlon grid

SixRegional Climate Models

50km x 50km grid

Model Coverage Over North and South

Carolina

Climate impacts assessment in the Yadkin Pee Dee watershed using the SWAT and HSPF models

Both models: - simulate stream discharge and water quality in

watersheds- driven by meteorological time series- require geospatial input dataSWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool):- daily time step- delineation by homogeneous soil and land use- originally designed to simulate ungaged basinsHSPF (Hydrologic Simulation Program-Fortran):- user defined time step- delineation to desired watershed scale- parameter intensive compared to SWAT