FutureClimateConditionsinFresnoCountyandSurroundingCounties

July2010

ThisworkislicensedundertheCreativeCommonsAttribution‐Noncommercial‐ShareAlike3.0UnitedStatesLicense.Toviewacopyofthislicense,visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐nc‐sa/3.0/us/orsendalettertoCreativeCommons,171SecondStreet,Suite300,SanFrancisco,California,94105,USA.

Inordertousethecontentofthispublication,oranypartofthatcontent,youmustattributeyoursourceprominentlyasfollows:“Source:[or“SourcePartlyfrom:”]TheGeosInstitute,www.geosinstitute.org”(noquotes).

FutureClimateConditionsinFresnoCountyandSurroundingCountiesGeosInstituteMarniE.Koopman,RichardS.Nauman,andJessicaL.Leonard

Supportforthisprojectwasprovidedby:The Kresge Foundation

The MAPSS Team at the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station

Conservation Grants Program

Acknowledgements:RayDrapekandRonNeilsonattheUSDAForestServicePacific

NorthwestResearchStationprovidedclimateprojectiondataaswellaslogistical

support.PeteVandeWater,JulieEkstrom,ScottPhillips,BrianCypher,andMichelle

Selmonprovidedvaluablefeedback.WealsoappreciateinsightsprovidedbyPhilMote

withtheOregonClimateChangeResearchInstitute.Thephotosinthisreportarefrom

USFWS,otherfederalsources,andBrianCypher.

2

TABLEOFCONTENTS

Introduction 2

Modelsandtheirlimitations 3

Globalclimatechangeprojections 5

ClimateprojectionsforFresnoCountyandsurroundingcounties 6

Temperature 8

Precipitation 14

Snowpackandwateravailability 20

Vegetationandwildfire 21

Carbonstorage 24

SupportingStudies 25

Connectivity 26

Conclusions 27

LiteratureCited 28

Page2

INTRODUCTION

FresnoCountyandthesurroundingcountiesofMadera,Kings,andTularearerichinhistory,culture,andbiologicaldiversity,inadditiontobeingvitalforthenation’sfoodproduction.Thesecountiesextendfromsemi‐desertandagriculturalvalleyfloorallthewaytothecrestoftheSierras.Changestothislandscapeduetoclimatechangearelikelytoaffectlocalresidentsandthenaturalresourcestheyrelyon. ClimaticchangesarealreadyunderwayacrossCaliforniaandarelikelytoincreaseinthecomingdecades.Changestothelocalclimatearelikelytoincludemorefrequentandintensestormsandfloods,extendeddrought,increasedwildfire,andmoreheatwaves.Localcommunitieswillneedtoplanforsuchchangesinordertopreventpotentiallycatastrophicconsequences.Climatechangepresentsuswithaseriouschallengeasweplanforthefuture.Ourcurrentplanningstrategiesatallscales(local,regional,andnational)relyonhistoricaldatatoanticipatefutureconditions.Yetduetoclimatechangeanditsassociatedimpacts,thefutureisnolongerexpectedtoresemblethepast.Thisreportprovidescommunitymembersanddecision‐makersinFresnoCountyandsurroundingcountieswithlocalclimatechangeprojectionsthatarepresentedinawaythatcanhelpthemmakeeducatedlong‐termplanning

decisions.TheclimatechangemodeloutputsinthisreportwereprovidedbytheUSDAForestServicePacificNorthwestResearchStationandmappedbyscientistsattheNationalCenterforConservationScienceandPolicy.Theresultspresentedinthisreportarecomplementarytoanin‐depthstudyofclimatechangeimpactstothecityofFresnoandmuchofthesurroundingarea,completedbyresearchersatCSUFresno(Harmsenetal.2008).Together,thesereportsandanupcomingcompanionreportonthevulnerabilitiesofsocio‐economicsystemsofFresnoCountytoclimatechangeprovidethebasisforinformedplanningefforts.Manyoftheimpactsofclimatechangeareinevitableduetocurrentlevelsofgreenhousegasemissionsalreadyintheatmosphere.Preparingfortheseimpactstoreducetheirseverityiscalled“adaptation”(seeboxbelow).Preventingevenmoresevereimpactsbyreducingfutureemissionsiscalled“mitigation.”MITIGATION=Reducingemissionstopreventrun‐awayclimatechange.Run‐awayclimatechangeoccurswhenpositivefeedbackskickintosuchanextentthatemissionsreductionsarenolongereffective.

ADAPTATION=Planningfortheinevitableimpactsofclimatechangeandreducingourvulnerabilitytothoseimpacts.

MODELSANDTHEIRLIMITATIONS

Todeterminewhatconditionswemightexpectinthefuture,climatologistscreatedmodelsbasedonphysical,chemical,andbiologicalprocessesthatformtheearth’sclimatesystem.Thesemodelsvaryintheirlevelofdetailandassumptions,makingoutputandfuturescenariosvariable.DifferencesamongmodelsstemfromdifferencesincurrentunderstandingofmanyofEarth’sprocessesandfeedbacks.Takenasagroup,however,climatemodelspresentarangeoflikelyfutureconditions. Mostclimatemodelsprojectthefutureclimateatglobalscales.Formanagersandpolicymakerstomakedecisions,however,theyneedinformationabouthowclimatechangewillimpactthelocalarea.TheMAPSS(MappedAtmosphere‐Plant‐SoilSystem)TeamatthePacificNorthwestResearchStationadjustedglobalmodeloutputtolocalandregionalscales(8km).TheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)usesnumerousmodelstomakeglobalclimateprojections.Themodelsaredevelopedbydifferentinstitutionsandcountriesandhaveslightlydifferentinputsorassumptions.Fromthesemodels,theMAPSSTeamchosethreeglobalclimatemodelsthatrepresentedarangeofprojectionsfortemperatureandotherclimatevariables.ThesethreemodelsareHadley(HADCM,fromtheUK),MIROC(fromJapan),andCSIRO(fromAustralia).Whilethespecificinputsarebeyondthescopeof

HIGHCERTAINTY:Highertemperatures–Greaterconcentrationsofgreenhousegasestrapmoreheat.Measuredwarmingtracksmodelprojections.

Lowersnowpack–Highertemperaturescauseashiftfromsnowtorainatlowerelevationsandcauseearliersnowmeltathigherelevations.

Shiftingdistributionsofplants&animals–Relationshipsbetweenspeciesdistributionsandclimatearewelldocumented.MEDIUMCERTAINTY:Moreseverestorms–Changestostormpatternswillberegionallyvariable.

Changesinprecipitation–Currentmodelsshowwidedisagreementonprecipitationpatterns,butthemodelprojectionsconvergeinsomelocations.

Wildfirepatterns–Therelationshipbetweenfireandtemperaturehasbeenwelldocumented,butothercomponentsalsoplayarole(suchasvegetation,below). LOWCERTAINTY:Changesinvegetation–Vegetationmaytakedecadesorcenturiestokeeppacewithchangesinclimate.

Howcertainaretheprojections?

Page4

thisreport,theyincludesuchvariablesasgreenhousegasemissions,airandoceancurrents,iceandsnowcover,plantgrowth,particulatematter,andmanyothers(Randalletal.2007).Thethreemodelschosenincludedspecificvariables,suchaswatervapor,thatwereneededinordertoruntheMC1vegetationmodel.Modeloutputswereconvertedtolocalscalesusinglocaldataonhistorictemperatureandprecipitationpatterns.TheclimatemodeloutputwasappliedtotheMC1vegetationmodel(Bacheletetal.2001),whichprovideddataonpossiblefuturevegetationtypes,biomassconsumedbywildfire,andcarbonsequestration.Theutilityofthemodelresultspresentedinthisreportistohelpcommunitiespicturewhattheconditionsandlandscapemaylooklikeinthefutureandthemagnitudeanddirectionofchange.Becausemodeloutputsvaryintheirdegreeofcertainty,theyareconsideredprojectionsratherthanpredictions(seeinsert).Somemodeloutputs,such

astemperature,havegreatercertaintythanotheroutputs,suchasvegetationtype(seeboxonpreviouspage).However,muchuncertaintyassociatedwithmodelprojectionsarisesduetouncertaintyinfuturegreenhousegasemissions.Weurgethereadertokeepinmindthatresultsarepresentedtoexplorethetypesofchangeswemaysee,butthatactualconditionsmaybequitedifferentfromthosedepictedinthisreport.Uncertaintyassociatedwithprojectionsoffutureconditionsshouldnotbeusedasareasonfordelayingactiononclimatechange.Thelikelihoodthatfutureconditionswillresemblehistoricconditionsisverylow,somanagersandpolicymakersareencouragedtobegintoplanforaneraofchange,eveniftheprecisetrajectoryorrateofsuchchangeisuncertain.

ClimateprojectionAmodel‐derivedestimateofthefutureclimate.

ClimatepredictionorforecastAprojectionthatishighlycertainbasedonagreementamongmultiplemodels.

ScenarioAcoherentandplausibledescriptionofapossiblefuturestate.Ascenariomaybedevelopedusingclimateprojectionsasthebasis,butadditionalinformation,includingbaselineconditionsanddecisionpathways,isneededtodevelopascenario.

Page5

GLOBALCLIMATECHANGEPROJECTIONS

TheIPCC(2007)andtheU.S.GlobalChangeResearchProgram(2009)agreethattheevidenceis“unequivocal”thattheEarth’satmosphereandoceansarewarming,andthatthiswarmingisdueprimarilytohumanactivitiesincludingtheemissionofCO2,methane,andothergreenhousegases,alongwithdeforestation.Averageglobalairtemperaturehasalreadyincreasedby0.7°C(1.4°F)andisexpectedtoincreaseby2°‐6.4°C(11.5°F)withinthenextcentury(Figure1).TheIPCCemissionscenariousedinthisassessmentwasthe“business‐as‐usual”trajectory(A2)thatassumesthatmostnationsfailtoacttoloweremissions.IftheU.S.andotherkeynationsdrasticallyandimmediatelycutemissions,someofthemoresevereimpacts,likerun‐awayclimatechange,canstillbeavoided.

Duetoclimatesysteminertia,restabilizationofatmosphericgaseswilltakemanydecadesevenwithdrasticemissionsreductions.Reducingemissions(called“mitigation”)isvitaltopreventtheEarth’sclimatesystemfromreachingcertaintippingpointsthatwillleadtosuddenandirrevocablechanges.Inadditiontoemissionsreductions,planningforinevitablechangestriggeredbygreenhousegasesalreadypresentintheatmosphere(called“adaptation)willallowresidentsofFresnoCountyandthesurroundingareatoreducethenegativeimpactsofclimatechangeand,hopefully,maintaintheirquality‐of‐lifeasclimatechangeprogresses.Throughoutthisreportwepresentmid­andlate­centurymodeloutputs.Mid­centuryprojectionsarehighlylikely,duetogreenhousegasesalreadyreleased,butlate­

centuryprojectionsmaychange,dependingonfutureemissions.

Figure1.Thelast1,000yearsinglobalaveragetemperatures,incomparisontoprojectedtemperaturesthrough2100.Drasticcutsingreenhousegasemissions(bestcasescenario)wouldleadtoanincreaseofabout2°Cby2100,whilethecurrenttrajectory(business‐as‐usual)willleadtoanincreasecloserto4.5°Candashighas6°C(adaptedfromIPCC2007).

Page6

CLIMATEPROJECTIONSFORFRESNOANDSURROUNDINGCOUNTIES VariablesmodeledusingHADCM,CSIRO,MIROC,andthevegetationmodel(MC1)includetemperature,precipitation,vegetationtypeanddistribution,wildfire,andcarbonstorageinbiomass.Thesevariableswerecalculatedbasedonhistoricaldataformakingbaselinecomparisons,andwereprojectedoutto2100.TheseprojectionsrepresentalikelyrangeofpossiblefutureconditionsinFresnoCountyandthesurroundingcounties.Asclimatechangeplaysout,wemaybeabletomakemorecertainprojections.Wemayalsoexperiencesurprisesandunforeseenchainsofcause‐and‐effectthatcouldnothavebeenprojected.

Climatechangeprojectionsareprovidedhereinthreedifferentformats–asoverallaverages,asgraphsthatshowchangeovertime,andasmapsthatshowvariationacrosstheregion,butaveragedacrossyears.Wemappedclimateandvegetationvariablesforthehistoricalperiod(1961‐1990)andfortwofutureperiods(2035‐45and2075‐85).BecauseofthedifferenceinclimatebetweentheSierrasandthevalleyfloor,wecalculatedmodeloutputforeasternareasover1,000feetinelevationseparatelyfromotherareas(Figure2).Welabelthesetwoareasthe“Upper”and“Lower”FresnoCountyRegion.

Figure2.Areasreferredtointhisreportas“Upper”and“Lower”FresnoCountyregion.TheUpperFresnoCountyRegionisgenerallyabove1,000feetinelevationandisfoundintheeasternportionsofFresno,Madera,andTularecounties,whiletheLowerFresnoCountyRegionisgenerallybelow1,000feetinelevationandencompasseswesternportionsofFresno,Madera,andTularecountiesaswellasallofKingsCounty.

Page7

Figure3.LandownershipinFresnoCountyandsurroundingcounties.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!"99

!"#5

!"99

Fresno

Merced

Turlock

Modesto

Visalia

118°W

118°W

119°W

119°W

120°W

120°W

121°W

121°W

37°N 37°N

36°N 36°N

!"#$%&"#"'()(#*%+,*-,#%*-(%./(0#1%2(',1#Data Source: ESRI National Atlas, ESRI Data Resource Center,Bureau of Land Management: www.blm.gov/ca/gis/

Kings CanyonNational Park

SequoiaNational Park

SierraNational

Forest

SequoiaNational Forest

Fresn

o Cou

nty

Kings

Coun

ty

Monterey County

San Luis Obispo County

DI A

BL

O R

AN

GE

SA

N J

OA

QU

I N V

AL

LE

Y

INY

O M

OU

NT

AIN

S

OW

EN

S V

AL

LE

Y

W H I T EM O U N T A I N S

SA

NT

A L

UC

I A

RA

NG

E

Tulare County

Kern County

Inyo County

Mar

ipos

a Cou

nty

Mad

era

Cou

nty

San Benito County

Fresn

o Cou

nty

Fresno County

Tulare County

Inyo County

Mono County

0 10 20 305 mi

0 10 20 305 km

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Managing Group

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

Homeland Security

Local Government

Military

National Park Service

Other Federal

State

US Fish and Wildlife

US Forest Service

Counties

Page8

TEMPERATURETheprojectionsfromallthreemodelsagree,withhighcertainty,onawarmerfutureforFresnoCountyandsurroundingcounties(Table1).TheupperFresnoCountyregionisprojectedtowarmslightlymorethanthelowerFresnoCountyregion.Otherstudiesindicateanincreaseinnighttimelowtemperatures.Daytimehighsarecurrentlybufferedbyhumidityfromirrigation.

Table1.ProjectedincreaseinaveragetemperatureintheupperandlowerFresnoCountyregions(seeFig.2fordetails),fromthreedifferentglobalclimatemodels.FutureprojectedtemperatureisshownaschangeindegreesFahrenheit,ascomparedtohistoricaverages(1961‐1990). Historic 2035‐45 2075‐85 Season Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Annual 46.4°F 62.3°F +2.5‐4.8°F +2.3‐4.3°F +5.2‐8.9°F +4.7‐8.2°F Summer 61.3°F 78.0°F +2.2‐6.0°F +2.0‐5.4°F +5.8‐11.0°F +5.2‐10.0°F Winter 33.9°F 47.0°F +2.2‐4.1°F +2.0‐3.8°F +4.1‐7.9°F +3.7‐7.4°F

Figure5.AverageannualtemperatureforthelowerFresnoregion,basedonhistoricdataandmodelprojectionsfromthreeglobalclimatemodels.

Figure4.AverageannualtemperaturefortheupperFresnoCountyregion,basedonhistoricdataandmodelprojectionsfromthreeglobalclimatemodels.

UpperFresnoCountyRegion

LowerFresnoCountyRegion

Page9

Figures6and7.Averagehistoricandfuturemonthlytemperaturesinareasabove1000feetinelevation(top)andbelow1000feet(bottom).Bluebarsshowhistoricaveragetemperaturewhiletheorangeshaperepresentstherangeofprojectionsfromthethreeglobalclimatemodels.Theaverageforthetwofuturetimeperiodsisinpurple(2035‐45)andred(2075‐85).

UpperFresnoCountyRegion

LowerFresnoCountyRegion

Page10

Figure8.Januarytemperature(top)andchangeintemperature(bottom),indegreesF.

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

January Change in Temperature

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

0 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

Change in Temperature in Degrees Celsius

0 - 1

1.1

- 2

2.1

- 3

3.1

- 4

4.1

- 5

5.1

- 6

6.1

- 7

7.1

- 8

LimitedChange

Increase

19

61

-19

90

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

JanuaryTemperature

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

0 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

Monthly Mean Temperature in Degrees Celsius

-10 - -8

-7 - -5

-4 - -3

-2 - 0

1 - 2

3 - 5

6 - 7

8 - 10

11 - 12

13 - 15

16 - 17

18 - 20

21 - 22

23 - 25

26 - 27

28 - 30

31 - 32

33 - 35

36 - 37

38 - 40

14 – 18.5

18.6 – 23

23.1 – 27.5

27.6 – 32

32.1 – 36.5

36.6 – 41

41.1 – 45.5

45.6 – 50

50.1 – 54.5

54.6 - 59

59.1 – 63.5

63.6 – 68

68.1 – 72.5

72.6 – 77

77.1 – 81.5

81.6 – 86

86.1 – 90.5

90.6 – 95

95.1 – 99.5

99.6 - 104

DegreesFahrenheit

0-1.8 1.9-3.4 3.5-6.2 6.3-7.8 7.9-9.6 9.7-11.3 11.4-13 13.1-14.4

ChangeindegreesFahrenheit

Page11

Figure9.Apriltemperature(top)andchangeintemperature(bottom),indegreesF.

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

April Change in Temperature

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

0 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

Change in Temperature in Degrees Celsius

0 - 1

1.1

- 2

2.1

- 3

3.1

- 4

4.1

- 5

5.1

- 6

6.1

- 7

7.1

- 8

LimitedChange

Increase

19

61

-19

90

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

AprilTemperature

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

0 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

Monthly Mean Temperature in Degrees Celsius

-10 - -8

-7 - -5

-4 - -3

-2 - 0

1 - 2

3 - 5

6 - 7

8 - 10

11 - 12

13 - 15

16 - 17

18 - 20

21 - 22

23 - 25

26 - 27

28 - 30

31 - 32

33 - 35

36 - 37

38 - 40

14 – 18.5

18.6 – 23

23.1 – 27.5

27.6 – 32

32.1 – 36.5

36.6 – 41

41.1 – 45.5

45.6 – 50

50.1 – 54.5

54.6 - 59

59.1 – 63.5

63.6 – 68

68.1 – 72.5

72.6 – 77

77.1 – 81.5

81.6 – 86

86.1 – 90.5

90.6 – 95

95.1 – 99.5

99.6 - 104

DegreesFahrenheit

0-1.8 1.9-3.4 3.5-6.2 6.3-7.8 7.9-9.6 9.7-11.3 11.4-13 13.1-14.4

ChangeindegreesFahrenheit

Page12

Figure10.Julytemperature(top)andchangeintemperature(bottom),indegreesF.

19

61

-19

90

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

JulyTemperature

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

0 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

Monthly Mean Temperature in Degrees Celsius

-10 - -8

-7 - -5

-4 - -3

-2 - 0

1 - 2

3 - 5

6 - 7

8 - 10

11 - 12

13 - 15

16 - 17

18 - 20

21 - 22

23 - 25

26 - 27

28 - 30

31 - 32

33 - 35

36 - 37

38 - 40

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

July Change in Temperature

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

0 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

Change in Temperature in Degrees Celsius

0 - 1

1.1

- 2

2.1

- 3

3.1

- 4

4.1

- 5

5.1

- 6

6.1

- 7

7.1

- 8

LimitedChange

Increase

14 – 18.5

18.6 – 23

23.1 – 27.5

27.6 – 32

32.1 – 36.5

36.6 – 41

41.1 – 45.5

45.6 – 50

50.1 – 54.5

54.6 - 59

59.1 – 63.5

63.6 – 68

68.1 – 72.5

72.6 – 77

77.1 – 81.5

81.6 – 86

86.1 – 90.5

90.6 – 95

95.1 – 99.5

99.6 - 104

DegreesFahrenheit

0-1.8 1.9-3.4 3.5-6.2 6.3-7.8 7.9-9.6 9.7-11.3 11.4-13 13.1-14.4

ChangeindegreesFahrenheit

Page13

Figure11.Octobertemperature(top)andchangeintemperature(bottom)indegreesF.

19

61

-19

90

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

OctoberTemperature

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

0 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

Monthly Mean Temperature in Degrees Celsius

-10 - -8

-7 - -5

-4 - -3

-2 - 0

1 - 2

3 - 5

6 - 7

8 - 10

11 - 12

13 - 15

16 - 17

18 - 20

21 - 22

23 - 25

26 - 27

28 - 30

31 - 32

33 - 35

36 - 37

38 - 40

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

October Change in Temperature

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

0 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

Change in Temperature in Degrees Celsius

0 - 1

1.1

- 2

2.1

- 3

3.1

- 4

4.1

- 5

5.1

- 6

6.1

- 7

7.1

- 8

LimitedChange

Increase

14 – 18.5

18.6 – 23

23.1 – 27.5

27.6 – 32

32.1 – 36.5

36.6 – 41

41.1 – 45.5

45.6 – 50

50.1 – 54.5

54.6 - 59

59.1 – 63.5

63.6 – 68

68.1 – 72.5

72.6 – 77

77.1 – 81.5

81.6 – 86

86.1 – 90.5

90.6 – 95

95.1 – 99.5

99.6 - 104

DegreesFahrenheit

0-1.8 1.9-3.4 3.5-6.2 6.3-7.8 7.9-9.6 9.7-11.3 11.4-13 13.1-14.4

ChangeindegreesFahrenheit

Page14

PRECIPITATIONProjectionsforfutureprecipitationvariedamongthethreemodels(Fig.13‐14),butallthreemodelsagreedondrierconditions,onaverage,bylatecentury,especiallyinthespring(Fig.15‐16).InaseriesofreportsreleasedbytheCaliforniaEnergyCommission,asetofsixmodelsshowedconsensusonadrierclimateforCentralCalifornia(Westerlingetal.2009).Further,evenwithsubstantialincreasesinprecipitation,soilmoistureisexpectedtodeclineduetoincreasedairtemperatureandevaporation,effectivelycausingincreaseddroughtconditions.

Figure13.AverageannualprecipitationacrosstheupperFresnoregion(above1000feet),basedonhistoricaldata(blackline)andthreeglobalclimatemodelsprojectedoutto2100(averagesarefoundonthenextpage).

Figure14.AverageannualprecipitationacrossthelowerFresnoregion(below1000feet),basedonhistoricaldata(blackline)andthreeglobalclimatemodelsprojectedoutto2100(averagesarefoundonthenextpage).

UpperFresnoCountyRegion

LowerFresnoCountyRegion

Page15

Table2.Averagehistorical(1961‐1990)precipitation,ininches,andchangesinprojectedprecipitationfortwotimeperiods(2035‐45and2075‐85)basedonprojectionsfromthreeglobalclimatemodels.Timeperiod Averageprecipitation(%changefromhistoric)

LowerFresnoregion UpperFresnoregionHistoric 9.4in. 29.9in.2035‐45 6.9‐10.6in.(‐27%to+13%) 21.7–33.6in.(‐28%to+12%)2075‐85 6.8‐8.8in.(‐28%to‐7%) 20.5–28.2in.(‐32%to‐6%)

Figure15.Monthlyhistoric(1960‐1991)andfutureprecipitationintheupperFresnoCountyregion(above1000feet),fortwotimeperiods(2035‐45and2075‐85).Averagefutureprecipitationwasderivedfromthreeglobalclimatemodels,andisexpectedtofallwithintheorangeandredareas.

Figure16.Monthlyhistoric(1960‐1991)andfutureprecipitationinthelowerFresnoCountyregion(below1000feet),fortwotimeperiods(2035‐45and2075‐85).Averagefutureprecipitationwasderivedfromthreeglobalclimatemodels,andisexpectedtofallwithintheorangeandredareas.

UpperFresnoCountyRegion

LowerFresnoCountyRegion

Page16

Figure17.Januaryprecipitation(top)andchangeinprecipitation(bottom),inmm.

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

January Change in Precipitation

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

0 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

Change in Precipitation in Millimeters

-105

- -8

2

-81

- -58

-57

- -35

-34

- -11

-10

- 12

13 -

36

37 -

59

60 -

83

84 -

106

107

- 130

LimitedChange IncreaseDecrease

19

61

-19

90

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

JanuaryPrecipitation

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

Monthly Mean Precipitation in Millimeters

197 - 216

217 - 235

236 - 255

256 - 274

275 - 294

295 - 314

315 - 333

334 - 353

354 - 372

373 - 392

0 - 20

21 - 39

40 - 59

60 - 78

79 - 98

99 - 118

119 - 137

138 - 157

158 - 176

177 - 1960 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

Page17

Figure18.Aprilprecipitation(top)andchangeinprecipitation(bottom),inmm.

19

61

-19

90

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

AprilPrecipitation

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

Monthly Mean Precipitation in Millimeters

197 - 216

217 - 235

236 - 255

256 - 274

275 - 294

295 - 314

315 - 333

334 - 353

354 - 372

373 - 392

0 - 20

21 - 39

40 - 59

60 - 78

79 - 98

99 - 118

119 - 137

138 - 157

158 - 176

177 - 1960 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

April Change in Precipitation

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

0 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

Change in Precipitation in Millimeters

-105

- -8

2

-81

- -58

-57

- -35

-34

- -11

-10

- 12

13 -

36

37 -

59

60 -

83

84 -

106

107

- 130

LimitedChange IncreaseDecrease

Page18

Figure19.Julyprecipitation(top)andchangeinprecipitation(bottom),inmm.

19

61

-19

90

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

JulyPrecipitation

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

Monthly Mean Precipitation in Millimeters

197 - 216

217 - 235

236 - 255

256 - 274

275 - 294

295 - 314

315 - 333

334 - 353

354 - 372

373 - 392

0 - 20

21 - 39

40 - 59

60 - 78

79 - 98

99 - 118

119 - 137

138 - 157

158 - 176

177 - 1960 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

July Change in Precipitation

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

0 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

Change in Precipitation in Millimeters

-105

- -8

2

-81

- -58

-57

- -35

-34

- -11

-10

- 12

13 -

36

37 -

59

60 -

83

84 -

106

107

- 130

LimitedChange IncreaseDecrease

Page19

Figure20.Octoberprecipitation(top)andchangeinprecipitation(bottom),inmm.

19

61

-19

90

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

OctoberPrecipitation

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

Monthly Mean Precipitation in Millimeters

197 - 216

217 - 235

236 - 255

256 - 274

275 - 294

295 - 314

315 - 333

334 - 353

354 - 372

373 - 392

0 - 20

21 - 39

40 - 59

60 - 78

79 - 98

99 - 118

119 - 137

138 - 157

158 - 176

177 - 1960 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

October Change in Precipitation

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

0 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

Change in Precipitation in Millimeters

-105

- -8

2

-81

- -58

-57

- -35

-34

- -11

-10

- 12

13 -

36

37 -

59

60 -

83

84 -

106

107

- 130

LimitedChange IncreaseDecrease

Page20

SnowpackandWaterAvailabilityAstemperatureswarm,precipitationisexpectedtoincreasinglyfallasraininsteadofsnow.Inaddition,snowmeltisexpectedtooccurearlier(Hayhoeetal.2004).Historicaldataindicatesthatpeaksnowmassoccursfivedaysearlierthanitdidpriorto1930,andthatspringtemperaturesare1.2°Fwarmerthanpriorto1948(KapnickandHall2009).ProjectionsforfuturesnowpackthroughouttheSierraNevadarangeindicateapotentiallossof80%ofsnowpackbytheendofthecentury(Fig.21)underamoderatewarmingscenario.Snowpackisexpectedtobeevenlowerunderahighwarmingscenario(thecurrenttrajectory).Asincreasingtemperaturesleadtoshiftsfromsnowtorain,higher,butearlier,peakrunoffisexpected.Combinedwiththelikelihoodofmoreintenseprecipitationeventsandincreasingrain‐on‐snowevents,scientistspredictmoreintenserunoffandflooding(CANaturalResourcesAgency2009;Heetal.Inreview).TheCaliforniawatersystemisespeciallyvulnerabletoglobalwarmingduetoitsdependenceonmountainsnowaccumulationandthesnowmeltprocess(VicunaandDracup2007).Projectionsshowlowerstreamflow,lowerreservoirstorage,anddecreasedwatersupplydeliveriesandreliability,expectedtobeespeciallypronouncedlaterinthe21stCentury(Vicunaetal.2007).Groundwaterisalsoexpectedtodeclineduetoincreaseddemandandloweredrecharge.Earlierpeakrun‐off,moreintensestormsthatquicklywashthroughthesystem,andlowersnowpacklevelsallcontributetodeclininggroundwaterrecharge. Figure21.Current(left)andfuture(right)snowpackforCaliforniaonApril1(fromHayhoeetal.2004).Reductionsinsnowpackareafunctionofdecliningprecipitation,greaterproportionofprecipitationasraininsteadofsnow,andearlierspringsnowmelt.

Page21

VEGETATIONandWILDFIREThevegetationmodel(MC1)providedprojectionsforpredominantvegetationtypes(Figure22)andaverageannualbiomassconsumedbywildfire(Figure23).TheMC1vegetationmodelonlymakesprojectionsfornativevegetationtypesanddoesnotaccountforlandusechange(i.e.agricultureanddevelopment)orintroducedspecies(i.e.non­nativegrasses).Projectionsforchangesinvegetationtypesincludeashiftfromtemperategrasslandtosubtropicalgrasslandatlowerelevations.Becausethevalleyfloorisdominatedbynon‐nativegrasses,thisshiftmaynotberealized.Alossoftemperateshrublandonthevalleyfloorbymid‐centuryisalsoprojected,althoughmuchofthisvegetationtypehasalreadybeenlosttoagricultureanddevelopment.Athigherelevations,vegetationchangeisapparentinareasthatarecurrentlydominatedbysequoiaandmixedconifer(currentlysugarpine,whitefir,incensecedar,etc.).Lowerelevationconifers,suchasgraypine,mayspreadtohigherelevations,whilehighelevationspeciescouldbelost.Despitechangedgrowingconditions,vegetationcantakedecadesorcenturiestoadjust,especiallyathigherelevationswhereconditionswillbecomemorehospitabletoforestbutsoilwilltakedecadesorcenturiestodevelop.Mechanismsforvegetationchangeatlowerelevationsarelikelytobedrought,fire,invasivespecies,insectsanddisease.Westerlingetal.(2009)projectedsubstantialincreasesintotalaverageareaburnedbywildfire,withtheeasternportionsofFresno,Tulare,andMaderaCountiesexpectedtoexperience300‐400%greateracreageburnedby2085ascomparedtothehistoric(1961‐1990)amount(Figure24).Similarly,theMC1modelprojects2‐4timesgreaterbiomassconsumedbywildfire(Figure23)athigherelevationsbytheendofthecentury.

Page22

Figure22.TheMC1modelshowssuitablegrowingconditionsfornativetypesofvegetation,butnotactualvegetationornon‐nativevegetation.Land‐usechanges,suchasagricultureorhousing,arealsonotreflectedinthisoutput.Actualvegetationinthefuturewilldependnotonlyonclimateconditions,butalsoonlanduse,non‐nativespecies,andresponsetimeneededforchangesfromonetypetoanother(newforesttypesdonotoccurovernight,forexample,astheymayneeddecadesorcenturiestobecomeestablished).

19

61

-19

90

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

VegetationType

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

0 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

MC1 Vegetation Classification

Subalpine Forest

Maritime Evergreen Needleleaf Forest

Temperate Evergreen Needleleaf Forest

Temperate Evergreen Needleleaf Woodland

Temperate Shrubland

Temperate Grassland

Temperate Desert

Subtropical Mixed Forest

Subtropical Mixed Savanna

Subtropical Shrubland

Subtropical Grassland

Subtropical Desert

Mixed High Elevation

High Elevation Grasslands

Page23

Figure23.AverageannualbiomassconsumedbywildfireinFresnoCountyandsurroundingcounties,shownforthehistoricalperiod(1960‐1991)andprojectedfortwofutureperiods(2035‐45and2075‐85),usingthreeglobalclimatemodels.

Figure24.Predictedchangeinburnedareain2085comparedtohistoricalperiod.Avalueof100%indicatesnochangewhileavalueof400%indicatesa4‐foldincrease.Resultsareshownfromtwoglobalclimatemodels.FigureadaptedfromWesterlingetal.(2009).

CNRM CM3 GFDL CM21

19

61

-19

90

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

AnnualBiomass Consumed

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

0 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

Consumed Biomass

0 - 11

12 - 23

24 - 34

35 - 46

47 - 57

58 - 69

70 - 80

81 - 92

93 - 103

104 - 115

116 - 126

127 - 138

in grams per square meter

Page24

CARBONSTORAGEAllthreeglobalclimatemodelsindicatealossofcarbonstoragebylate‐century(2075‐85),primarilyintheSierraNevadarange.Alossofcarbonstorageresultsfromvegetationdie‐backorwildfire.ThisindicatesthatportionsoftheSierraNevadarangecouldbecomeacarbonsource,ratherthansink,withinthenextcentury.ThisresultissupportedbyaUSDAForestServicestudyonforestmanagementstrategiesformaintainingcarbonstoresonnationalforestlandsinthisregion(USDA2009).Figure25.AverageannualcarbonstorageinvegetationinFresnoCountyandsurroundingcounties,shownforthehistoricalperiod(1960‐1991)andprojectedfortwofutureperiods(2035‐45and2075‐85),usingthreeglobalclimatemodels.

19

61

-19

90

20

35

-20

45

20

75

-20

85

MIROC HADCM CSIRO

AnnualVegetation Carbon

Data provided by the US Forest Service Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System Study

Fresno Region

0 40 80 120 16020

Kilometers ´

Carbon Stored in Vegetation

0 - 2,250

2,251 - 4,500

4,501 - 6,750

6,751 - 9,000

9,001 - 11,250

11,251 - 13,500

13,501 - 15,750

15,751 - 18,000

18,001 - 20,250

20,251 - 22,500

22,501 - 24,750

24,751 - 27,000

in grams per square meter

Page25

SUPPORTINGSTUDIES

TheCaliforniaEnergyCommission(CEC)sponsoredalargebodyofresearchintothepotentialimpactsofclimatechangeacrossthestate.Manyofthereportsfromthiseffortwerereleasedin2009.Forconsistency,authorsofthesereportsallusedthesamesetofglobalclimatemodelsformakingtheirprojections.Thesemodelsweredifferentthanthethreeusedinthisreport,whichwerechosenbyresearchersatthePacificNWResearchStationtorepresentarangeoffutureconditions.Evenwithdifferentmodels,however,theresultsfrommanyCECreportsagreewithorcomplementtheresultsinthisreport,providinggreaterconfidenceintheresultspresentedhere.Usingthesamevegetationmodel(MC1)butdifferentclimatemodelsthanours,Shawetal.(2009)alsoprojectsadeclineinconiferousforestintheeasternportionsofFresno,Madera,andTularecounties,withexpansionofhardwoodforest.Shrublandsarealsoexpectedtoexpand,attheexpenseofgrasslands.Inaddition,theirstudyprojectedsteepdeclinesinforageproductioninthefoothillsoftheSierrasinthesamethreecounties(Figure25).Inanotherstudy,Loarieetal.(2008)modeledpotentialrangeshiftsofendemicplantspeciesthroughoutCalifornia.Themodelingexerciserevealedthatupto1/3ofallspecieswillbeextirpatediftheyareunabletomovetonewareas.Speciesdiversityisexpectedtoremainhigherathigherelevationsandalongthecoast.Kueppersetal.(2005)modeledshiftsinrangefortwospeciesofoak,blueoakandvalleyoak,throughoutthestate,usingtwodifferentclimatemodels(oneregionalandoneglobal).BothoaksexperiencedrangecontractionsintheFresnoregionby2080‐2099,accordingtothemodels,butthegeographiccomplexityoftheareamayresultinrangeexpansionaswell.

Figure25.Netchangeinforageproductionby2070‐2099,basedontwoclimatemodelsundertheA2emissionsscenario.Orangeorbrownrepresentadeclineinforageproduction,whilebluerepresentsanincreaseinforageproduction.(FigurefromShawetal.2009)

Page26

CONNECTIVITY

Astheclimatechanges,animalsandplantsareexpectedtorespondinvariousways.Mostspecieswillneedtomovetonewareaswheretheclimateissuitable.Somespeciesareonlyabletomoveshortdistancesduetonaturallimitationssuchaslowdispersalrates,inhospitableterrain,oralackofdispersalagents.Otherspeciesmaybelimitedbydevelopment,roadplacement,orlossofhabitatinnewareas.Incontrast,weedyorinvasivespeciesareexpectedtoeasilymoveinresponsetothechangingclimateandcouldincreaseinabundanceandrange.InordertominimizethedeclineandpotentialextirpationofmanyofCalifornia’snativespecies,threeprimaryapproachestothedispersalproblem(outlinedabove)havebeenrecommended.Byfarthemostimportantapproachistomaintainandincreasehabitatconnectivityandcorridorsacrosscounties,regions,states,andeventheentirewesternU.S.Thisapproachrequiresalevelofcollaborationandcommunicationacrosslandownershipthatiscurrentlynon‐existent.AreasofFresnoCountyandthesurroundingcountieshavebeenidentifiedasespeciallyimportantforlong‐termmovementofanimalsandplantsamongnaturalareas(Figure26).Facilitateddispersal(translocation)isrecommendedforspecieswithlimitedabilitiesandopportunitiesfornaturaldispersal.Facilitateddispersalwillneedtobecarefullyconsideredandplanned,astherearemanypotentiallyundesirableconsequences.Inaddition,costandfailurerateareoftenhigh.Finally,aggressivecontrolofundesirableinvasiveandweedyspecieswillbeneededtoallowmoredesirablenativespeciestheopportunitytodisperseandbecomeestablishedinnewareas.Figure26.AreasimportantforhabitatconnectivityintheFresnoregion.Greenareasarelargelynaturalareaswhileyellowandredareasareimportantconnectorsthatwouldbemorecostlytoconserve(adaptedfromSpenceretal.2010).

Page27

CONCLUSIONS

Thepurposeofthisreportistoprovideup‐to‐dateclimateprojectionsforFresno,Madera,Kings,andTulareCountiesatascalethatcanbeusedincommunityplanningefforts.Byprovidingtheinformationthatlocalmanagers,decision‐makersandcommunitymembersneedtomakeday‐to‐daydecisionsandlong‐termplans,wehopetospurproactiveclimatechangeadaptationplanning.Manyoftheimpactsofclimatechangearealreadyprogressingandwillcontinuetoacceleratethroughoutthenextfewdecades,regardlessoffutureemissions.Forinstance,projectionsforthetimeperiodof2035­2045arehighlylikelytobecomereality.Whetherwelimitclimatechangetothislevelorcontinuetoprogresstowardsthelevelprojectedfor2075­2085andbeyondwilldependonwhethertheU.S.andotherkeynationschoosetoloweremissionsdrasticallyandimmediately.Theprojectionsprovidedinthisreportareintendedtoformthefoundationforcity,county,andregionaladaptationplanningforclimatechange.Ourprogram,calledtheClimateWise®program,strivestobuildco‐beneficialplanningstrategiesthatarescience‐based,aredevelopedbylocalcommunitymembers,andincreasetheresilienceofbothhumanandnaturalcommunitiesinacohesivemanner.Thisprocesswilltakeplaceinaseriesofworkshopsinvolvingexpertsinthefollowingsectors:naturalecosystems(terrestrialandaquatic),built(infrastructure,culverts,etc.),human(health,emergencyresponse,etc.),economic(agriculture,business,etc.)andcultural(NativeAmericantribalcustomsandrights,immigrantcommunitiesandcustoms,etc.).TheClimateWise®programisstructuredtobegintheplanningprocessinlocalcommunities,andto“scaleup”managementstrategiestothestateandfederallevelbyidentifyingneededchangesinpolicyandgovernancestructure.Duringthelocalplanningprocess,expertsfromdifferentsectorswillidentifybarrierstosoundmanagement,allowingustoaddresstheselimitingfactorsbycollaboratingwithlawmakers.PleasecontactMarniKoopmanattheNationalCenterforConservationScienceandPolicyformoreinformationortobecomeinvolvedinthisprocess(marni@nccsp.org;541‐482‐4459x303).

Page28

LITERATURECITED

Bachelet,D.,J.M.Lenihan,C.Daly,R.P.Neilson,D.S.Ojima,andW.J.Parton.2001.MC1:Adynamicvegetationmodelforestimatingthedistributionofvegetationandassociatedcarbon,nutrients,andwater‐atechnicaldocumentation.Version1.0.GTR‐508.Portland,OR:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.Harmsen,F.,D.Hunsaker,P.VandeWater,andY.V.Luo.2008.MitigationandAdpatationStrategiesforClimateChangeinFresno,California.InstituteofClimateChangeOceansandAtmosphere,CollegeofScienceandMathematics,CSUFresno.Hayhoe,K.,D.Cayan,C.B.Field,P.C.Frumhoff,E.P.Maurer,N.L.Miller,S.C.Moser,S.H.Schneider,K.N.Cahill,E.E.Cleland,L.Dale,R.Drapek,R.M.Hanemann,L.S.Kalkstein,J.Lenihan,C.K.Lunch,R.P.Neilson,S.C.Sheridan,andJ.H.Verville.2004.EmissionsPathways,ClimateChange,andImpactsonCalifornia.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica101:12422–27.He,Z.,Z.Wang,C.J.Suen,andX.Ma.Inreview.ClimatechangeimpactsonwateravailabilityintheUpperSanJoaquinRiverwatershed,California.IPCC.2007.ClimateChange2007:SynthesisReport.ContributionofWorkingGroupsI,IIandIIItotheFourthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.CambridgeUniversityPress.Kapnick,S.andA.Hall.2009.ObservedchangesintheSierraNevadasnowpack:Potentialcausesandconcerns.CaliforniaClimateChangeCenter.CEC‐500‐2009‐016‐F.Kueppers,L.M.,M.A.Snyder,L.C.Sloan,E.S.Zavaleta,andB.Fulfrost.2005.ModeledregionalclimatechangeandCaliforniaendemicoakranges.PNAS102:18281‐18286.Loarie,S.R.,B.E.Carter,K.Hayhoe,S.McMahon,R.Moe,C.A.Knight,andD.D.Ackerly.2008.ClimatechangeandthefutureofCalifornia’sendemicflora.PloSONE3:1‐10.Randall,D.A.,R.A.Wood,S.Bony,etal.2007.ClimateModelsandTheirEvaluation.InClimateChange2007:ThePhysicalScienceBasis.ContributionofWorkingGroupItotheFourthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.Solomon,S.,D.Qin,M.Manning,etal.,Eds.CambridgeUniversityPress.Shaw,M.R.,L.Pendleton,D.Cameron,B.Morris,G.Bratman,D.Bachelet,K.Klausmeyer,J.MacKenzie,D.Conklin,J.Lenihan,E.Haunreiter,andC.Daly.2009.TheImpactofClimateChangeonCalifornia’sEcosystemServices.CaliforniaClimate

Page29

ChangeCenter.CEC‐500‐2009‐025‐F.Spencer,W.D.,P.Beier,K.Penrod,K.Winters,C.Paulman,H.Rustigian‐Romsos,J.Strittholt,M.Parisi,andA.Pettler.2010.CaliforniaEssentialHabitatConnectivityProject:AStrategyforConservingaConnectedCalifornia.PreparedforCaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation,CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,andFederalHighwaysAdministration.Accessed:http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/connectivity/CANaturalResourcesAgency.2009.CaliforniaWaterPlanUpdate2009:IntegratedWaterManagement.Dept.ofWaterResources.Accessed07/27/2010athttp://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/cwpu2009/index.cfmUSDA.2009.NationalForestCarbonInventoryScenariosforthePacificSouthwestRegion(California).Goines,B.andM.Nechodom,Eds.USGCRP.2009.GlobalClimateChangeImpactsintheUnitedStates.T.R.Karl,J.M.Melillo,andT.C.Peterson,Eds.CambridgeUniversityPress.Vicuna,S.,andJ.A.Dracup.2007.TheevolutionofclimatechangeimpactstudiesonhydrologyandwaterresourcesinCalifornia.ClimaticChange82:327–350.Vicuna,S.,E.P.Maurer,B.Joyce,J.A.Dracup,andD.Purkey.2007.TheSensitivityofCaliforniaWaterResourcestoClimateChangeScenarios.JournaloftheAmericanWaterResourcesAssociation43:482–498.Westerling,A.L.,B.P.Bryant,H.K.Preisler,T.P.Holmes,H.G.Hidalgo,T.Das,andS.R.Shrestha.2009.ClimateChange,Growth,andCaliforniaWildfire.CaliforniaClimateChangeCenter.CEC‐500‐2009‐046‐F.