Collaborative climate impacts work in the Carolinas Greg Carbone Dept. of Geography University of South Carolina 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 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 MISSION To improve the range, quality, relevance, and accessibility of climate information for decision-making and management of water resources in North and South Carolina APPROACH Interdisciplinary 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

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

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 working group participants are aware of the U.S. Drought Monitor

StageStorage Index 1 Drought Monitor 2 (3-month average) Monitored USGS 3 Streamflow Gages % < SI < TSI 0 ≤ DM AVG ≤ 85% 175% < SI ≤ 90%TSI1 ≤ DM AVG ≤ 78% 257% < SI ≤ 75%TSI2 ≤ DMAVG ≤ 65% 342% < SI ≤ 57%TSI3 ≤ DMAVG ≤ 55% 4SI ≤ 42%TSIDM = 4AVG ≤ 40% Catawba-Wateree Project Summary of LIP Trigger Points AND AND OROR 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

Map Navigation Tools GIS Tools Metadata

Comparison: spatial variability July % PDSI and 50% PHDI Climate Division 8-digit HUC County Exceptional Drought Extreme Drought Severe Drought Moderate Drought Abnormally 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

Four Global Climate Model 2.5ºlat x 3.75ºlon grid Six Regional 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 data SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool): - daily time step - delineation by homogeneous soil and land use -originally designed to simulate ungaged basins HSPF (Hydrologic Simulation Program-Fortran): - user defined time step - delineation to desired watershed scale -parameter intensive compared to SWAT