Future Climate Conditions in Fresno County and Surrounding ... · Future Climate Conditions in...
Transcript of Future Climate Conditions in Fresno County and Surrounding ... · Future Climate Conditions in...
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([email protected];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.