Core Activities
The activities of the Core Management Team are essential to fulfilling the WWA mission. Jeff Lukas (Senior Researcher) will continue to lead and coordinate stakeholder interactions and research focused around the Ecological Vulnerabilities, Impacts, and Adaptation theme. Udall will lead the Colorado River Decision Support Theme, and Averyt will coordinate the Emerging Initiatives Theme. The Core Management Team is responsible for maintaining and fulfilling obligations relating to outreach and education, and promoting communication with the other RISAs and with other federal partners.
WWA has extensive relationships with stakeholders, and consequently our researchers are often asked to serve as board members, representatives, and advisors for many projects and organizations across the Intermountain West. WWA researchers are often asked to present and lecture to other scientists, stakeholders, and the public. Last year, WWA team members delivered over 100 presentations.
CURRENT RESEARCH & ASSESSMENTS
Informing the Responsible Use of Climate Models & Projections by Stakeholders
Intermountain West Climate Summary
WWA Website & Communication Materials
WWA Speakers Bureau
State Drought Planning in the Western U.S.A: Multi-RISA–Agency–NIDIS Collaboration
Best Practices for Identifying Quality Observational Datasets
Informing the Responsible Use of Climate Models & Projections by Stakeholders
Primary Investigators: J. Barsugli
Contributors:
L. Brekke, L. Mearns, I. Rangwala
Coordination of climate information for the State of Colorado
Several projects that use climate change information are under way or nearing completion. These include the Colorado River Water Availability Study (CRWAS), and a climate change adaptation study by the Division of Wildlife. The question arises whether the methods in these studies are consistent with the findings of the “Climate Change in Colorado” report prepared by WWA in 2008 for the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). While that report did not prescribe a specific methodology, certain general principles can be gleaned from it. Activities will include preparation of a short document that presents a “30,000-foot” view of methodologies that are consistent with that report, including anticipatory guide to including new sources of climate information from CMIP5/IPCC AR5.
Climate and hydrologic change for scenario planning
This will include development of hydrologic change scenarios in collaboration with Linda Mearns (NCAR) for the Bear River, UT climate change adaptation workshop sponsored by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). This is a follow-on to the successful Gunnison River workshop in December 2009 for which we developed linked, quantitative climate and hydrologic change scenarios. These workshops were led by Gregg Garfin (CLIMAS) and constitute a cross-RISA collaboration. Similar scenario-based climate change adaptation activities for other regional stakeholders may also be developed, as was discussed at the recent meeting hosted by Denver Water (Marc Waage) and the National Park Service (Leigh Welling).
Collaborative research on methodologies for “end-to-end” climate change adaptation planning
We, with Levi Brekke and others, are working on a paper that outlines many of the issues faced in the use and interpretation of downscaled climate change information. Continued work with Reclamation, in conjunction with their Basin Study (Jim Prairie) including work with Imtiaz Rangwala, Linda Mearns, and Levi Brekke on bringing NARCCAP climate change through the same analysis as will be done for the statistically downscaled data to evaluate the impact of downscaling methodology on decision-relevant metrics of system performance. (This latter task would involve hydrologic modeling using VIC, performed with the guidance of Jeff Deems).
Continued Evaluation of Downscaled Climate Projections
Beyond the basic evaluation of temperature and precipitation climatologies, additional evaluation criteria may need to be developed in conjunction with the stakeholders, as the metrics applied by climate scientists are not always seen as the most relevant to stakeholder concerns. We will extend work done in collaboration with Jason Neff (CU) and PACE Post-Doc Imtiaz Rangwala on the process-oriented evaluation of the surface energy budget in the Colorado River Basin. We will also help guide the work of Galina Guentchev (PACE post-doc) to completion, including relating precipitation variability to streamflow. In addition, we will develop the potential for co-location of data on climate change with data related to societal vulnerability (e.g. providing geospatial data overlays for infrastructure, socioeconomic land use, and other variables).
Back to Top
Intermountain West Climate Summary
Primary Investigators: J. Lukas, C. Alvord, E. Gordon, K. Averyt
Contributors:
K. Wolter, G. Bates, A. Ray
In 2008-09 a user survey and subsequent redesign and shift of the IWCS from print-format (PDF) to web-based (HTML) format led to a dramatic reduction in the time and cost commitment for WWA in producing the IWCS, with a modest decrease in service to users. Given that WWA has still been unsuccessful in transferring production of the IWCS to an operational climate entity (e.g., WRCC, state climate offices), largely because of cost issues, we propose to again explore ways to streamline production of the IWCS without diminishing user service, e.g. by automating some of the “harvesting” of images and text from climate websites to populate the IWCS content. If none of these new ideas or methods proves feasible, then our default will be to continue production using the revised format that was rolled out in March 2009.
Back to Top
WWA Website & Communication Materials
Primary Investigators: E. Gordon, J. Lukas
Contributors:
C. Alvord, K. Averyt
We will update the “Current Projects” section of the website to reflect the 2010-11 activities outlined in this proposal. Some projects will have dedicated web pages developed for them as indicated elsewhere in this proposal. The new Team Manager (Gordon) will periodically survey WWA team members as needed to update content on research and outreach activities. We will also fully implement the “Tools & Products” section, developed in 2009, that provides guidance on where to find different web resources related to climate. The WWA publications database and presentations database, compiled in 2009, will be transferred to a user-searchable format.
Back to Top
WWA Speakers Bureau
Primary Investigators: B. Udall, K. Averyt, J. Lukas, E. Gordon
Contributors:
K. Wolter
Stakeholders frequently request speakers on a variety of climate-related topics. Last year WWA provided over 100 of these talks. We will continue to provide speakers for important stakeholder events.
Back to Top
State Drought Planning in the Western U.S.A: Multi-RISA–Agency–NIDIS Collaboration
Primary Investigators: A. Steinemann
Contributors:
B. Udall, G.M. Garfin, D. Cayan, E. Miles, D. White, M. Finucane
Our work will bring together the western RISAs, agency partners (including NIDIS, NDMC, and WRCC), and WGA state drought decision-makers, as well as other agencies and stakeholders identified by the core group. We will conduct group meetings and a workshop (through teleconferences and web-based techniques) to understand user needs for drought decision-making and the potential of climate and drought information. While the specific timing and types of meetings may evolve, we expect to hold early group meetings with the RISAs, partners, and water managers; conduct individual interviews with each state drought manager in the WGA states; then convene the RISAs, partners, water managers, and other identified stakeholders for a Drought Workshop. To gain a deeper understanding of drought issues and stakeholder needs in each state, before the workshop, the PI will interview each of the WGA state drought managers, using a survey instrument (with input from RISAs and partners), to explore the following dimensions, among others, which will also be explored in our workshops:
- Use of drought information: To what extent do states incorporate drought information, such as that developed by the RISAs and partners, into their drought plans and programs? What information do they use, and find most useful? Do they incorporate climate change and climate variability into decision-making? What types of information would be needed and useful for making drought decisions?
- Value of information: How do states evaluate the importance of drought information to help prepare for and adapt to drought? What are the metrics of value? What is the role of uncertainty? What types of information are needed for early warning, or for longer-term adaptations? What are the relative risks of false assurance (forecast of no drought, but drought develops) or false alarm (forecast of drought, but no drought develops)?
- Indicators and triggers: Which ones are currently used? How were they developed? What are their temporal scales, spatial scales, and sectoral emphases? Are they linked with drought management goals? How can they provide early warning? Are they evaluated; how do states know if they work?
- Responses and adaptations: What are the actions in the drought plan, and how are they linked with drought information? Have climate adaptation plans been useful for drought adaptation? What are the tradeoffs between short-term adjustments and long-term adaptation? Do short- term responses promote or impair the ability to reduce long-term vulnerability?
- Interstate and intrastate drought planning: Do states coordinate with other states on regional drought planning activities? What is the potential or need for an interstate or basin-wide drought plan? Within each state, how do regional and local drought plans mesh with state-level drought plans?
- Underserved populations: Do state drought planning activities provide specific interactions with underserved groups, such as tribes? What about areas without equal access to climate and other information?
- Effectiveness: How do states know if drought information and plans are effective, and what are the metrics of “effectiveness”? What constitutes “preparedness”?
- Lessons: What broader lessons have been learned? What can each state share with other states? What’s needed?
Back to Top
Best Practices for Identifying Quality Observational Datasets
Primary Investigators: N. Doesken
Contirbutors:
R. Gillies, K. Wolter K. Averyt
The group will develop a publication of findings and recommendations on best practices for developing and interpreting historic records and time series and it will be submitted to the American Association of State Climatologists’ online Journal of Service Climatology. This paper will also document our selection process of the best station records in Colorado and Utah in order to facilitate similar analyses in neighboring states. We will attempt to extend this type of analysis and products to neighboring states. If we succeed in enlarging the scope of this project beyond Colorado, the Western Regional Climate Center would be a logical next webhost for western US products of this type. This feeds directly into support of a NOAA Climate Service.
Back to Top
Current Projects home
