Post on 13-Feb-2018
11
World Bank World Bank Climate Change WorkshopClimate Change Workshop
What Water Managers Need to Know about What Water Managers Need to Know about Climate Change and Variability for Climate Change and Variability for
Water Resources Management Water Resources Management ::Adapting to UncertaintyAdapting to Uncertainty
Eugene Z. StakhivEugene Z. StakhivInstitute for Water ResourcesInstitute for Water ResourcesUS Army Corps of EngineersUS Army Corps of Engineers
22
Recent StudiesRecent StudiesHundreds of studies, thousands of papersHundreds of studies, thousands of papersIPCC I, II, III (IV in press)IPCC I, II, III (IV in press)US National Climate AssessmentUS National Climate AssessmentInternational Joint CommissionInternational Joint Commission--Lake OntarioLake Ontario--St. Lawrence StudySt. Lawrence Study--Upper Lakes StudyUpper Lakes StudyCorps studiesCorps studies--Upper Miss R. Flow Freq studyUpper Miss R. Flow Freq study--Ohio R. Climate Forecasting StudyOhio R. Climate Forecasting Study--8 River Basin climate assessments under 8 River Basin climate assessments under various IPCC climate scenarios/ GCM transient various IPCC climate scenarios/ GCM transient modelsmodels
33
Climate Time Scales and Water Resources Climate Time Scales and Water Resources Management UncertaintiesManagement Uncertainties
Use of Forecasts in Reservoir Operations
Flood Frequency Analysis and Levee Certification
Operations and Vulnerability Assessments
8 River Basins
IPCC- Climate Change
Upper Mississippi R.
InterdecadalClimate VariabilityCLIVAR
Seasonal to Interannual GCIPOhio River Basin
44
Corps IPCC Climate Corps IPCC Climate Impact AssessmentImpact Assessment
TacomaColumbia
Missouri
UpperRio Grande
Great Lakes
AC
Savannah
Potomac
Boston
55
ENSO FloodsENSO FloodsMississippi River at Hannibal, Missouri
10000
100000
1000000
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Cumulative Probability (in Units of Standard Deviation)
Dis
char
ge (c
fs)
Log Pearson III Other Floods El Nino Floods
66
IPCC Lexicon of AdaptationIPCC Lexicon of Adaptation
Precautionary PrinciplePrecautionary Principle (Anticipatory (Anticipatory AdaptationAdaptation--prevent uncertain damages)prevent uncertain damages)Adaptation/Adaptive managementAdaptation/Adaptive management““Proactive Proactive ‘‘No RegretsNo Regrets’’ Adaptation.Adaptation.””
(strategic planning, justifiable under current (strategic planning, justifiable under current criteria; efficient, costcriteria; efficient, cost--effective; serves effective; serves multiple purposes; adaptable to changing multiple purposes; adaptable to changing circumstances, technically feasible, etc. )circumstances, technically feasible, etc. )
““Autonomous AdaptationAutonomous Adaptation”” (ad hoc (ad hoc cumulative, tactical incremental adjustments to cumulative, tactical incremental adjustments to demands, needs, demographic patterns and demands, needs, demographic patterns and technology)technology)
77
Factors to considerFactors to considerThe history of water management is one of The history of water management is one of continuous continuous adaptionadaption to uncertainties; water to uncertainties; water engineering is about learning from mistakes engineering is about learning from mistakes Various rules, procedures, design safety factors have Various rules, procedures, design safety factors have evolved to accommodate R&U evolved to accommodate R&U There is a significant turnover in water management There is a significant turnover in water management infrastructure: ~ every 30 yrs capacity can be infrastructure: ~ every 30 yrs capacity can be upgraded/ reconfigured to adapt upgraded/ reconfigured to adapt -- rehabilitationrehabilitationThe discount rate, BCA procedures, IRR The discount rate, BCA procedures, IRR vsvs max net max net NED benefits is more relevant than climate NED benefits is more relevant than climate uncertainty in determining modes of adaptation.uncertainty in determining modes of adaptation.‘‘OptimalOptimal’’ solutions are often solutions are often ‘‘brittlebrittle’’ (not robust, (not robust, resilient to unexpected circumstances.resilient to unexpected circumstances.
88
Conventional Mechanisms for Conventional Mechanisms for Adapting to UncertaintiesAdapting to Uncertainties
Planning Planning new investmentsnew investments, or for capacity , or for capacity expansion (reservoirs, irrigation systems, levees)expansion (reservoirs, irrigation systems, levees)Operation & regulationOperation & regulation of existing systems: of existing systems: accommodating new uses or conditions (e.g. accommodating new uses or conditions (e.g. ecology, climate change, population)ecology, climate change, population)Maintenance and Maintenance and majormajor rehabilitationrehabilitation of of existing systems (e.g. dam safety, levees, etc.)existing systems (e.g. dam safety, levees, etc.)Modifications in Modifications in processes and demandsprocesses and demands(water conservation, pricing, regulation, legal)(water conservation, pricing, regulation, legal)Introduce new Introduce new efficient technologiesefficient technologies(desalting, biotechnology, drip irrigation, reuse, (desalting, biotechnology, drip irrigation, reuse, recycling, solar, etc.)recycling, solar, etc.)
Functions/Elements of Water Resources Management
99
Planning/Design PerspectivesPlanning/Design PerspectivesConventional BCAConventional BCA –– decision rule: select decision rule: select design level that maximizes net benefits design level that maximizes net benefits (requires frequency of events) (requires frequency of events) –– discount rate ?discount rate ?StandardsStandards--based approachbased approach: pre: pre--select design select design level (e.g. PMP, PMF, PMH, 100level (e.g. PMP, PMF, PMH, 100--yr) arbitrary yr) arbitrary levels or physicallylevels or physically-- basedbasedDecision Rules:Decision Rules: minmin--max; min riskmax; min risk--cost; riskcost; risk--cost effectiveness; NOAEL, etc.cost effectiveness; NOAEL, etc.Most Most water mgmt is a combinationwater mgmt is a combination of the of the threethree-- all require better hydrologic data, all require better hydrologic data, excedanceexcedance frequencies, frequencies, PDFPDF’’ss ((e.ge.g dam design)dam design)What is a safe/reliable/affordable level of What is a safe/reliable/affordable level of protection?protection? How to determine?; who decides?How to determine?; who decides?
1010
Corps Focus is on Corps Focus is on Climate VariabilityClimate Variability ––expanded use of traditional methods for risk, expanded use of traditional methods for risk,
reliability and uncertainty analysisreliability and uncertainty analysisAll design, operations, rehabilitation require All design, operations, rehabilitation require ‘‘planningplanning’’
Corps works on combined basis of standards & riskCorps works on combined basis of standards & riskDam safety (convert PMP/PMF to riskDam safety (convert PMP/PMF to risk--based designs)based designs)Levee design criteria ( SPF to riskLevee design criteria ( SPF to risk--based designs)based designs)Shore erosion, coastal protection (PMH)Shore erosion, coastal protection (PMH)Reservoir operating criteria, improved forecastingReservoir operating criteria, improved forecastingReservoir/system water allocation changesReservoir/system water allocation changesDelineation of 100Delineation of 100--year floodplains/NFIPyear floodplains/NFIPDrought & Flood Contingency Mgmt (reservoir, urban)Drought & Flood Contingency Mgmt (reservoir, urban)Emergency Operations/Advanced Measures Emergency Operations/Advanced Measures (seasonally anticipated snowmelt flooding, hurricanes)(seasonally anticipated snowmelt flooding, hurricanes)
Need new methods for flood/drought frequency analysis Need new methods for flood/drought frequency analysis under nonunder non--stationary climate, with trends.stationary climate, with trends.
1111
Uncertainty and Flood Uncertainty and Flood Damage CalculationDamage Calculation
Floo
d St
age
(S)
Floo
d St
age
(S)
Flood Discharge (Q)
Flood Discharge (Q)
Freq
uenc
y
Freq
uenc
y
Flood Damage (D)
Flood Damage (D)
Q
S
P
Q
P
D
S
D
UEB - Upper Error Bound
LEB - Lower Error Bound
UEB
LEB
1212
Katrina Path from August 23 Katrina Path from August 23 -- 31, 200531, 2005
Mon. Aug 29
August 23Sat. Aug 27
Tropical depressionTropical stormCategory 1Category 2Category 3Category 4Category 5
Sun. Aug 28
1313
Data and InformationIntegrated Data Base Vertical Datum
Input Response Output
StormEnvironment
Structural Response
Interior Flooding
Pump Response
Consequences
Risk andReliability
Interagency Performance Evaluation Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force (IPET)Task Force (IPET)
Rain
StormForces
Structure Performance
1 Jun 06
1 May 06
1414
Risk and Reliability MethodologyRisk and Reliability Methodology
1515
Surge and WavesSurge and Waves
Static & DynamicStatic & DynamicForcesForces
Physical Performance AnalysisPhysical Performance AnalysisWhat forces were the structures What forces were the structures designed and built to withstand?designed and built to withstand?
Design & IntentDesign & Intent
AsAs--built andbuilt andConditionCondition
ExpectedExpectedPerformancePerformance
ObservedObservedPerformancePerformance
BehaviorBehaviorInsightsInsights FloodingFlooding
1616
Storm Surge and Wave ModelingStorm Surge and Wave ModelingWhat surge and waves did the levees and What surge and waves did the levees and
floodwalls experience from Katrina?floodwalls experience from Katrina?
High resolution coupledHigh resolution coupledstorm surge and wave modelsstorm surge and wave models
11.412.7 10.511.7
12.4
13.415.5
12.8
9.7
13.5
15.0
15.3 17.2
18.3
17.4
Wave Height = 10.5 ftWave Period = 9 sec
Wave Height = 8.2 ftWave Period = 6.7 sec
Storm Surge = 20.8 ftWave Height = 10.8 ftWave Period = 16 sec
1717
1818
Most Damaging HurricanesMost Damaging HurricanesYear Cat DamagesYear Cat Damages
Katrina (FL, LA, MS) 2005 3+ $ 100.0 B +Katrina (FL, LA, MS) 2005 3+ $ 100.0 B +Andrew (FL, LA) 1992 5 43.6 BAndrew (FL, LA) 1992 5 43.6 BCharley (FL) 2004 4 15.0 BCharley (FL) 2004 4 15.0 BIvan (AL, FL) 2004 3 14.2 BIvan (AL, FL) 2004 3 14.2 BHugo (SC) 1989 4 12.2 BHugo (SC) 1989 4 12.2 BAgnes (FL, GA, SC, PA) 1972 2 11.3 BAgnes (FL, GA, SC, PA) 1972 2 11.3 BBetsy (FL, LA) 1965 3 10.8 BBetsy (FL, LA) 1965 3 10.8 BFrances (FL) 2004 2 8.9 BFrances (FL) 2004 2 8.9 BCamille (MS, LA, VA) 1969 5 8.9 BCamille (MS, LA, VA) 1969 5 8.9 BDiane (East Coast) 1955 1 6.9 BDiane (East Coast) 1955 1 6.9 BJeanne (FL) 2004 3 6.9 BJeanne (FL) 2004 3 6.9 B
1919
Flood Damages as Percent of GDP(Based on damages and GDP data in 2000 dollars)
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
1900
1903
1906
1909
1912
1915
1918
1921
1924
1927
1930
1933
1936
1939
1942
1945
1948
1951
1954
1957
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
Dir
ect f
lood
dam
ages
as
perc
ent o
f GD
P
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Tota
l flo
od d
amag
es a
s pe
rcen
t of G
DP
Direct damages as percent of GDPTotal damages as percent of GDP
MississippiRiver Valley
Ohio & Lower Mississippi River
Basins
Kansas &Missouri Rivers
HurricaneDiane
Hurricane Agnes
Teton DamFailure
Midwest Floods
138%
61%
99%
2020
Hurricanes & Global Warming?Hurricanes & Global Warming?2004, 2005 Atlantic hurricane seasons broke many 2004, 2005 Atlantic hurricane seasons broke many recordsrecords2006 predicted to have 15 named storms; 10 2006 predicted to have 15 named storms; 10 hurricane strength; 4hurricane strength; 4--5 major making landfall in US 5 major making landfall in US 2006 A BUST !!! Not much happened (FEMA, Corps 2006 A BUST !!! Not much happened (FEMA, Corps and other agencies spent $millions anticipating)and other agencies spent $millions anticipating)Debate among US meteorologists:Debate among US meteorologists:
A. 25A. 25--40 yr cycle ?40 yr cycle ? (e.g. (e.g. LandseaLandsea & Gray) or & Gray) or B. part of global warming cycleB. part of global warming cycle (e.g. Emmanuel) (e.g. Emmanuel)
Herein lies the problem for water engineersHerein lies the problem for water engineers-- how to how to translate vague climate scenarios, scientific disputes translate vague climate scenarios, scientific disputes and flawed predictions into design criteria for and flawed predictions into design criteria for reliable structures and response systems?reliable structures and response systems?
2121
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1854
1858
1862
1866
1870
1874
1878
1882
1886
1890
1894
1898
1902
1906
1910
1914
1918
1922
1926
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
Total number of tropical cyclones
Number of hurricanes
Number of hurricanes which center's madeU.S. landfall
Source: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
Note: Prior to 1970, tropical cyclones were not monitored by satellites; meaning that those cyclones that did not hit the land of the United States were not systematically recorded.
MANY STRONG WEAKER MANY STRONG WEAKER
Cycle of Hurricanes* (James O’Brien)
2222
Changing Great Lakes Water LevelsChanging Great Lakes Water Levels
Water Level ShiftsWater Level ShiftsHighs Highs -- 70s70s--9090’’ssLows Lows -- 6060’’s, 1998s, 1998--20012001
ImpactsImpactsHigh LevelsHigh Levels
Erosion Erosion –– FloodingFlooding
-- Low LevelsLow LevelsHydropower Hydropower -- Navigation Navigation -- Recreational Boating Recreational Boating --EnvironmentEnvironment
Actions Actions -- Review of IJC OrdersReview of IJC Orders$20 M St. Lawrence$20 M St. Lawrence--Ontario StudyOntario Study(completed)(completed)$15 M Upper Lakes Study (2006$15 M Upper Lakes Study (2006--2011)2011)
Unknown Unknown -- Climate ChangeClimate Change
4 0 0
5 0 0
6 0 0
7 0 0
8 0 0
9 0 0
1 0 0 0
TOTA
L S
UP
PLY
(10
m3
/s)
1 8 6 0 1 8 7 0 1 8 8 0 1 8 9 0 1 9 0 0 1 9 1 0 1 9 2 0 1 9 3 0 1 9 4 0 1 9 5 0 1 9 6 0 1 9 7 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0
L A K E O N T A R IO T O T A L S U P P L Y 1 8 6 0 -2 0 0 0
2323
Ongoing Adaptation InitiativesOngoing Adaptation InitiativesGreat Lakes/IJCGreat Lakes/IJC
Great Lakes Water Quality AgreementGreat Lakes Water Quality AgreementLakewideLakewide Management Plans (Management Plans (LaMPsLaMPs))Remedial Action Plans (Remedial Action Plans (RAPsRAPs))Great Lakes Fisheries Strategic planGreat Lakes Fisheries Strategic planLake Levels Reference study 1993Lake Levels Reference study 1993Lake Ontario 1998 PlanLake Ontario 1998 PlanLake Superior Operation Criteria Study 2002Lake Superior Operation Criteria Study 2002IJC LOSLR Regulation Criteria Study (2000IJC LOSLR Regulation Criteria Study (2000--06)06)IJC Upper Lakes Study (2006IJC Upper Lakes Study (2006--11)11)Numerous wetlands, Numerous wetlands, BMPsBMPs, regulations, regulations
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
TOTA
L S
UP
PLY
(10
m3
/s)
1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
LAKE ONTARIO TOTAL SUPPLY 1860-2000
(Current Plan 1958D was not designed to handle the extreme low water of the 1960s or the high water of the 70s, 80s and 90s)
2525
LOSLR Study Board GuidelinesLOSLR Study Board GuidelinesContribute to Contribute to Ecological IntegrityEcological IntegrityMaximize economic and ecological net Maximize economic and ecological net benefitsbenefitsNo No disproportionate loss to any sector disproportionate loss to any sector (Equity)(Equity)Flexible in recognition of Flexible in recognition of unusual or unexpectedunusual or unexpectedconditionsconditionsAdaptable to Adaptable to climate changeclimate change and and climate climate variability (variability (AM Plan for key uncertainties)AM Plan for key uncertainties)Adapt Adapt to future advances in knowledge, science to future advances in knowledge, science and technologyand technology (Adaptive Management Plan)(Adaptive Management Plan)
DecisionDecision--making will be making will be transparent and transparent and representativerepresentative
2626
Spatial Comparison
Mean temperature change
73.5
74.0
74.5
75.0
75.5
76.0
1860
1863
1866
1869
1872
1875
1878
1881
1884
1887
1890
1893
1896
1899
1902
1905
1908
1911
1914
1917
1920
1923
1926
1929
1932
1935
1938
1941
1944
1947
1950
1953
1956
1959
1962
1965
1968
1971
1974
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
Lake Ontario Water LevelsLake regulation scenario
HHydrologydrologicic Scenarios Including Scenarios Including Climate ChangeClimate Change
2727
IERM IERM ““PI Time SeriesPI Time Series””DiagramDiagram
2828
Candidate Plans:Candidate Plans:A: Balanced EconomicsA: Balanced EconomicsB: Balanced EnvironmentalB: Balanced EnvironmentalD: Blended BenefitsD: Blended Benefits
Natural Flow PlanNatural Flow PlanE: Natural Flow E: Natural Flow
Interest Specific:Interest Specific:Ontario Riparian PlanOntario Riparian PlanRecreational Boating PlanRecreational Boating Plan
Reference Plans:Reference Plans:Plan 1998Plan 1998Plan 1958DDPlan 1958DDPlan 1958DPlan 1958D
International Lake Ontario International Lake Ontario ––St. Lawrence River StudySt. Lawrence River Study
Bluff Recession for Different Plans (same wave climate)
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
700 720 740 760 780 800 820
Distance (m)
Blu
ff He
ight
(m)
Climate 2090 1998 Plan 1958D without Dev. Input ProfileClimate 2050 Actual (1966-1995) Pre-Project LWD (m)
3030
Net Economic/Ecologic Benefits Net Economic/Ecologic Benefits of Alternative Plansof Alternative Plans
1.561.561.171.171.441.441.021.021.001.00Wetlands IndexWetlands Index
4.044.041.101.101.351.351.061.061.001.00Environmental Environmental IndexIndex
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Municipal WaterMunicipal Water
14.1614.161.821.825.975.973.503.500.000.00HydroelectricHydroelectric
--4.644.642.042.04--0.580.584.234.230.000.00Recreation BoatingRecreation Boating
4.134.132.312.312.202.200.410.410.000.00NavigationNavigation
--25.9625.960.320.32--1.111.11--0.620.620.000.00Shoreline DamagesShoreline Damages
--12.3012.306.526.526.486.487.527.520.000.00Net BenefitsNet Benefits
Plan EPlan EPlan DPlan DPlan BPlan BPlan APlan APlan Plan
58DD58DD
Avg. annual Avg. annual net benefits net benefits ($US million)($US million)
3131
Economic Robustness of Plans Economic Robustness of Plans w.r.tw.r.t Climate Change ScenariosClimate Change Scenarios
--21.3821.389.659.6511.7811.788.338.3313.9813.98C4 C4 -- Warm/WetWarm/Wet--2.462.4617.7717.772.612.6121.5321.53--81.6981.69C3 C3 -- Hot/WetHot/Wet
--34.0334.035.255.254.894.899.859.85--49.5249.52C2 C2 -- Warm/DryWarm/Dry--4.914.9120.0920.09--1.421.4234.8934.89--115.65115.65C1C1-- Hot/DryHot/Dry
--12.3012.306.526.526.486.487.527.5200Plan 1958DDPlan 1958DD
Plan EPlan EPlan DPlan DPlan BPlan BPlan APlan APlanPlan
1958D1958D
Avg. ann. Avg. ann. net benefits net benefits ($US million)($US million)
3232
Stochastic Scenarios: 4 representative centuries based on 50,000yrs
3333
3434
Stochastic Scenarios:Stochastic Scenarios:
(# Ecol PI(# Ecol PI’’s with gains or losses)s with gains or losses)
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Plan A
Net
# o
f PIs
w/ S
igni
fican
t Gai
ns
Historical (1900-2000)Stochastic #1 - Wettest CenturyStochastic #2 - Driest CenturyStochastic #3 - Like HistoricalStochastic #4 - Longest Drought
Plan A Plan D Plan B PreProject
3535
Summary/ConclusionsSummary/ConclusionsWater resources management has been and is inherently a Water resources management has been and is inherently a selfself--adapting enterpriseadapting enterprise –– hydrology & hydraulics, hydrology & hydraulics, planning, design & operations, technology is constantly planning, design & operations, technology is constantly adjusting. adjusting. Large events (e.g. Katrina, Miss R. Flood) force innovations Large events (e.g. Katrina, Miss R. Flood) force innovations --rate of adaptationrate of adaptation is the issue.is the issue.Continuous adjustmentContinuous adjustment (autonomous adaptation) to (autonomous adaptation) to climate variability, changes in water use patterns, values and climate variability, changes in water use patterns, values and demands (e.g. US water use has declined since 1975)demands (e.g. US water use has declined since 1975)IWRM/CZMIWRM/CZM is a keystone of, and prerequisite for purposeful is a keystone of, and prerequisite for purposeful strategic strategic ““no regretsno regrets”” approachapproachTighter regulationsTighter regulations ((e.g.TMDLe.g.TMDL’’ss) impose efficiencies and ) impose efficiencies and technological adaptation, Best Mgmt Practicetechnological adaptation, Best Mgmt Practice’’ssTechnological advancesTechnological advances, esp. in energy, , esp. in energy, agriculagricul. & biotech . & biotech will provide will provide ‘‘bufferingbuffering’’ in future in future –– society can/will adaptsociety can/will adapt
3636
Summary (ContSummary (Cont’’d)d)Need to Need to move beyondmove beyond IPCC broad impact analysis IPCC broad impact analysis to developing specific to developing specific evaluation frameworksevaluation frameworkswhich couple economics with hydrology to deal which couple economics with hydrology to deal explicitly with R&U of climate change and variabilityexplicitly with R&U of climate change and variabilityFocus on Focus on variabilityvariability –– informed by climate changeinformed by climate changeFocus on Focus on adaptationadaptation: planning & evaluating : planning & evaluating alternative approaches, models, tools, technologies alternative approaches, models, tools, technologies Focus on Focus on applied R&Dapplied R&D for analytical tools for for analytical tools for hydrology, hydrologic engineering under nonhydrology, hydrologic engineering under non--stationary climatestationary climateStandardizeStandardize use and tools of R&U analysis in use and tools of R&U analysis in planning & design of water infrastructureplanning & design of water infrastructureEmphasis on advances in shortEmphasis on advances in short--term term flood flood forecastingforecasting, and , and mesomeso--scale GCM modeling will scale GCM modeling will result in more reliable water managementresult in more reliable water management