Geology topics

Levi D. Brekke

Publications and source records attributed to Levi D. Brekke.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2017

Preliminary viability assessment of Lake Mendocino forecast informed reservoir operations

This report describes the preliminary viability assessment (PVA) of forecast informed reservoir operations (FIRO) for Lake Mendocino, which is located on the East Fork Russian River three miles east of Ukiah, California. The results described in this report represent the collective activities of the Lake Mendocino FIRO Steering Committee (SC) (SC members are named on the inside cover of the report). The SC consists of water managers and scientists from several federal, state, and local agencies, and universities who have teamed to evaluate whether current technology and scientific understanding can be utilized to improve reliability of meeting water management objectives of Lake Mendocino while not impairing flood protection. While the PVA provides an initial evaluation of the viability of FIRO as a concept, additional steps remain to complete the full viability assessment (FVA). Also, the PVA does not identify how FIRO strategies would be implemented. That effort would be the focus of the FVA, which builds off the analyses developed in the PVA. This report summarizes current Lake Mendocino operation and a preliminary analysis of FIRO alternatives, including analysis methods, results, and recommendations. A set of accompanying reports describes the analysis in detail. These are referred to herein as the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) report, the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) report, and the Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes (CW3E) report (SCWA 2017, USACE 2017, and CW3E 2017, respectively).

California↗

USGS2014

Understanding uncertainties in future Colorado River streamflow

The Colorado River is the primary water source for more than 30 million people in the United States and Mexico. Recent studies that project streamf low changes in the Colorado River all project annual declines, but the magnitude of the projected decreases range from less than 10% to 45% by the mid-twenty-first century. To understand these differences, we address the questions the management community has raised: Why is there such a wide range of projections of impacts of future climate change on Colorado River streamflow, and how should this uncertainty be interpreted? We identify four major sources of disparities among studies that arise from both methodological and model differences. In order of importance, these are differences in 1) the global climate models (GCMs) and emission scenarios used; 2) the ability of land surface and atmospheric models to simulate properly the high-elevation runoff source areas; 3) the sensitivities of land surface hydrology models to precipitation and temperature changes; and 4) the methods used to statistically downscale GCM scenarios. In accounting for these differences, there is substantial evidence across studies that future Colorado River streamflow will be reduced under the current trajectories of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions because of a combination of strong temperature-induced runoff curtailment and reduced annual precipitation. Reconstructions of preinstrumental streamflows provide additional insights; the greatest risk to Colorado River streamf lows is a multidecadal drought, like that observed in paleoreconstructions, exacerbated by a steady reduction in flows due to climate change. This could result in decades of sustained streamflows much lower than have been observed in the ~100 years of instrumental record.

Colorado River↗

USGS2013

Research strategies for addressing uncertainties

There is an immense volume of information pertaining to research needs for addressing climate change uncertainties and resolving key information gaps. Fortunately, multiple independent efforts to establish research priorities have yielded similar results. Input on research needs is being used to craft national scientific priorities and strategies that are being implemented regionally by agencies and organizations. A number of regionally based efforts are already underway to aggregate and synthesize climate-related management needs and research priorities. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and Climate Science Centers, funded by the Department of the Interior, are conducting strategic syntheses of common resource-management priorities and related science needs across the Southwest, and many of these priorities and needs are related to climate variability and change. The present Assessment includes many examples of the types of research that are needed to address key climate science uncertainties. The Assessment also includes examples of information needs related to understanding climate effects on systems (human, biophysical, ecosystems, and others) in the Southwest. Implementation of research strategies will increase understanding and improve the ability of the scientific community to anticipate the direction or magnitude of future climate-related change in these systems. The assembly of experts for the other chapters of this document provided a unique opportunity to draw upon the authors’ collective expertise to share knowledge about priority research strategies. The peer-reviewed information sources assessed in this chapter highlight research strategies and priorities established by the research community. Other sources cover priorities that are based primarily on management and policy needs. In the latter type, the sources represent the consensus of senior leaders of organizations, generally with substantial input and advice from the organizations’ technical and scientific experts.

Book chapter↗

USGS2013

Moving forward with imperfect information

This chapter summarized the scope of what is known and not known about climate in the Southwestern United States. There is now more evidence and more agreement among climate scientists about the physical climate and related impacts in the Southwest compared with that represented in the 2009 National Climate Assessment (Karl, Melillo, and Peterson 2009). However, there remain uncertainties about the climate system, the complexities within climate models, the related impacts to the biophysical environment, and the use of climate information on decision making. Uncertainty is introduced in each step of the climate planning-an-response process--in the scenarios used to drive the climate models, the information used to construct the models, and the interpretation and use of the model' data for planning and decision making (Figure 19.1). There are server key challenge, drawn from recommendations of the authors of this report, that contribute to these uncertainties in the Southwest: - There is a dearth of climate observations at high elevations and on the lands of Native nations. - There is limited understanding of the influence of climate change on natural variability (e.g. El Niño-Southern Oscillations, Pacific Decadal Oscillation), extreme events (droughts, floods), and the marine layer align coastal California. - Climate models, downscaling, and resulting projection of the physical climate are imperfect. Representing the influence of the diverse topography of the Southwest on regional climate is a particular challenge. - The impacts of climate change on key components of the natural ecosystems (including species and terrestrial ecosystems) are ill-defined. - The adaptive capacity of decision-making entities and legal systems to handle climate impacts is unclear. This creates a challenge for identifying vulnerabilities to climate in the Southwest. - Regulation, legislation, and political and social responses too climate all play important roles in our ability to adapt to climate impacts and mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. - Climate change is one of multiple stresses affecting the physical, biological, social, and economic systems of the Southwest, with population growth (and its related resource consumption, pollution, and land-sue changes) being particularly important.

Book chapter↗

USGS2009

Climate Change and Water Resources Management: A Federal Perspective

Many challenges, including climate change, face the Nation's water managers. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has provided estimates of how climate may change, but more understanding of the processes driving the changes, the sequences of the changes, and the manifestation of these global changes at different scales could be beneficial. Since the changes will likely affect fundamental drivers of the hydrological cycle, climate change may have a large impact on water resources and water resources managers. The purpose of this interagency report prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is to explore strategies to improve water management by tracking, anticipating, and responding to climate change. This report describes the existing and still needed underpinning science crucial to addressing the many impacts of climate change on water resources management.

Circular↗