assessment of hydrologic response to climate change in the upper deschutes basin, oregon m. scott...
TRANSCRIPT
Assessment of Hydrologic Response to Climate Change in the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon
M. Scott WaibelMarshall W. Gannett
Heejun ChangChristina L. Hulbe
Purpose of Research
• There is broad interest on the part of resource managers and the general public regarding response of streams and groundwater to probable climate change.
• Most irrigation water in the upper Deschutes Basin comes from storage reservoirs that are supplied by streams flowing from the Cascade Range, many of which are groundwater fed.
• These interests are addressed here using coupled groundwater recharge and flow models driven by GCM output.
MODIS image, 25 November 2002, NASA Visible Earth archive Inset from Gannett et al. 2001
Upper Deschutes Basin, Central Oregon
Models and products used
• Global Climate Model (GCM) weather data downscaled to 1/16th degree using the Bias-Correction and Spatial Disaggregation method.
• The Deep Percolation Model (DPM) of Bauer and Vaccaro (1987) as applied in the upper Deschutes Basin by Boyd (1996).
• A MODFLOW regional groundwater model calibrated to the upper Deschutes Basin by Gannett and Lite (2004).
Methods
• 8 GCMs
2 IPCC emission scenarios
= 16 runs
• 2 ensembles: DPM hydrologic budget results from the eight runs are averaged for each emission scenario.
Downscaled GCMs used as ensembles for both emission scenarios
Model Name Institution CountryCCSM3 National Center for Atmospheric Research USA
CNRM-CM3 Centre National de Recherches Meteorologiques France
ECHAM5 / MPI-OM Max Planck Institute for Meteorology Germany
ECHO-G Meteorological Institute of the University of Bonn Institute of KMA Model and Data Group
Germany Korea
HadCM3 Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research UK
IPSL-CM4 Institut Pierre Simon Laplace France
MIROC 3.2 Center for Climate System Research, University of Tokyo National Frontier Research Center for Global Change Institute for Environmental Studies
Japan
PCM National Center for Atmospheric Research USA
Ensemble means and medians generally outperform any single GCM model
-adapted from Gleckler et al., (2007)
Methods (Continued)
• In-place recharge and runoff
Examined using basin-wide averaged mean monthly hydrographs and seasonal spatial maps.
• DPM recharge and evapotranspiration output used for inputs to the regional groundwater flow model.
Methods (Continued)
• Changes in groundwater discharge to select stream reaches within the three main discharge areas of the basin were examined using mean monthly hydrographs.
• Statistical testing was employed to confirm
changes between four climate periods in the 21st century for basin-wide mean monthly and mean seasonal results.
DPM
• Essential Parameters– Elevation– Long term annual
precipitation– Soil Properties– Land Cover
Elevation
DPMLong term annual precipitation (inches)
DPM
Soils Land cover
Important parameters for partitioning water
DPM Forcings
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
1961
1967
1973
1979
1985
1991
1997
2003
2009
2015
2021
2027
2033
2039
2045
2051
2057
2063
2069
2075
2081
2087
2093
2099
year
tem
per
atu
re (
deg
rees
F)
ccsm3 a1b cnrm a1b
echo g a1b echam5 a1b
hadcm3 a1b ipsl a1b
miroc a1b EMEAN a1b
pcm1 a1b
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
1961
1967
1973
1979
1985
1991
1997
2003
2009
2015
2021
2027
2033
2039
2045
2051
2057
2063
2069
2075
2081
2087
2093
2099
year
tem
per
atu
re (
deg
rees
F)
ccsm3 b1 cnrm b1
echo g b1 echam5 b1
hadcm3 b1 ipsl b1
miroc b1 EMEAN b1
pcm1 b1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
1961
1967
1973
1979
1985
1991
1997
2003
2009
2015
2021
2027
2033
2039
2045
2051
2057
2063
2069
2075
2081
2087
2093
2099
year
pre
cip
itat
ion
(in
)
ccsm3 b1 cnrm b1
echo g b1 echam5 b1
hadcm3 b1 ipsl b1
miroc b1 EMEAN b1
pcm1 b1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
1961
1967
1973
1979
1985
1991
1997
2003
2009
2015
2021
2027
2033
2039
2045
2051
2057
2063
2069
2075
2081
2087
2093
2099
year
pre
cip
itat
ion
(in
)
ccsm3 a1b cnrm a1b
echo g a1b echam5 a1b
hadcm3 a1b ipsl a1b
miroc a1b EMEAN a1b
pcm1 a1b
Temperature and precipitation: downscaled GCM time series averaged basin-wide
A1B Temp B1 Temp
B1 PrecipA1B Precip
Basin-wide average response to climate change
2 emission scenario ensemble means
4 climate periods
DPM basin-wide mean monthly change Precipitation
DPM basin-wide mean monthly change Snowpack
DPM basin-wide average changes Recharge
Runoff
A1B
A1B
B1
B1
Spatial distribution of changes in recharge and runoff 2050s relative to 1980s
MODIS image, 25 November 2002, NASA Visible Earth archive
1980s simulated recharge
SRES A1B 2050s change in recharge
1980s simulated runoff
SRES A1B 2050s change in runoff
Changes in baseflow
Odell Creek A1B emission scenario
Inflow to Lower Deschutes River A1B Emission Scenario
A1B Mean annual changes in recharge
2020s 2050s 2080s
percentchange
absolutechange
Summary• The DPM predicts a shift in timing of runoff and
recharge for both emission scenarios with a shift toward earlier runoff and recharge.
• Shifts in the timing of recharge are observed primarily in the baseflow hydrographs of high elevation streams.
• Volumetric changes in groundwater discharge to streams likely result from spatial changes in recharge.
References
Bauer, H., and Vaccaro, J., 1987, Documentation of a deep percolation model for estimating ground-water recharge: US Geological Survey Open-File Report, p. 86-536.
Boyd, T., 1996, Groundwater recharge of the middle Deschutes Basin, Oregon: Portland, Oregon, Portland State University: MS thesis, 86 p.
Gannett, M. W., Lite, K. E., Jr., Morgan, D. S., and Collins, C. A., 2001, Ground-water hydrology of the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon: United States Geological Survey, 77 p.
Gleckler, P., Taylor, K., and Doutriaux, C., 2008, Performance metrics for climate models: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 113, no. D6, p. D06104.
Range of basin-wide average recharge and runoff anomalies
winter2020s 2050s 2080s -0.1 0.7 1.01.4 2.0 2.6
spring2020s 2050s 2080s
0.0 -0.5 -0.9-1.3 -1.7 -2.2
winter2020s 2050s 2080s -0.1 0.1 0.30.6 0.9 1.1
spring2020s 2050s 2080s
0.0 -0.2 -0.4-0.6 -0.8 -1.0
Winter Spring Winter Spring
—from Bauer and Vaccaro (1987)
conceptual model of the water budget used by the DPM
Deep Percolation Model basics
SRES A1B 1980s Evapotranspiration
SRES A1B 2050s Evapotranspiration
Acknowledgments
• Thesis Committee– Christina Hulbe, Department of Geology, PSU– Marshall Gannett, USGS Oregon Water Science
Center– Heejun Chang, Department of Geography, PSU– Ken Cruikshank, Department of Geology, PSU
• Lenny Orzol, USGS Oregon Water Science Center
• Leslie Stillwater, Bureau of Reclamation
This work was funded through a Bureau of Reclamation Science and Technology Grant.