Climatic Change

, Volume 116, Issue 1, pp 35–50 | Cite as

Modeling the transport of nutrients and sediment loads into Lake Tahoe under projected climatic changes

  • John Riverson
  • Robert Coats
  • Mariza Costa-Cabral
  • Michael Dettinger
  • John Reuter
  • Goloka Sahoo
  • Geoffrey Schladow
Article

Abstract

The outputs from two General Circulation Models (GCMs) with two emissions scenarios were downscaled and bias-corrected to develop regional climate change projections for the Tahoe Basin. For one model—the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory or GFDL model—the daily model results were used to drive a distributed hydrologic model. The watershed model used an energy balance approach for computing evapotranspiration and snowpack dynamics so that the processes remain a function of the climate change projections. For this study, all other aspects of the model (i.e. land use distribution, routing configuration, and parameterization) were held constant to isolate impacts of climate change projections. The results indicate that (1) precipitation falling as rain rather than snow will increase, starting at the current mean snowline, and moving towards higher elevations over time; (2) annual accumulated snowpack will be reduced; (3) snowpack accumulation will start later; and (4) snowmelt will start earlier in the year. Certain changes were masked (or counter-balanced) when summarized as basin-wide averages; however, spatial evaluation added notable resolution. While rainfall runoff increased at higher elevations, a drop in total precipitation volume decreased runoff and fine sediment load from the lower elevation meadow areas and also decreased baseflow and nitrogen loads basin-wide. This finding also highlights the important role that the meadow areas could play as high-flow buffers under climatic change. Because the watershed model accounts for elevation change and variable meteorological patterns, it provided a robust platform for evaluating the impacts of projected climate change on hydrology and water quality.

Supplementary material

10584_2012_629_MOESM1_ESM.doc (30 kb)
Online Resource 1(DOC 30 kb)
10584_2012_629_MOESM2_ESM.doc (53 kb)
Online Resource 2(DOC 53 kb)
10584_2012_629_MOESM3_ESM.doc (2.4 mb)
Online Resource 3(DOC 2448 kb)
10584_2012_629_MOESM4_ESM.doc (340 kb)
Online Resource 4(DOC 340 kb)
10584_2012_629_MOESM5_ESM.doc (5.9 mb)
Online Resource 5(DOC 6092 kb)

References

  1. Abbott MR, Denman KL, Powell TM, Richerson PJ, Richards RC, Goldman CR (1984) Mixing and the dynamics of the deep chlorophyll maximum in Lake Tahoe. Limnol Oceanogr 29:862–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson ML, Chen Z-Q, Kavvas ML, Feldman A (2002) Coupling HEC-HMS with atmospheric models for prediction of watershed runoff. J Hydrol Eng 7(4):312–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Betts RA, Bourcher O, Collins M, Cox P, Falloon P, Nicola G, Hemming D, Huntingford C, Jones C, Sexton D, Webb M (2007) Projected increase in continental runoff due to plant responses to increasing carbon dioxide. Nature 448:1037–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bicknell BR, Imhoff JC, Kittle JL, Donigan AS Jr, Johanson RC (1997) Hydrological Simulation Program - FORTRAN, User’s Manual for Version 11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, AthensGoogle Scholar
  5. Coats R, Reuter J, Dettinger M, Riverson J, Sahoo G, Schladow G, Wolfe B, Costa-Cabral M (2010) The effects of climate change on Lake Tahoe in the 21st century: Meteorology, hydrology, loading and lake response. Report for Jonathan Long, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Tahoe Environmental Science Center, Incline Village, NV, USA. http://terc.ucdavis.edu/publications/P030Climate_Change_Project_Final_Report_2010.pdf
  6. Coats R, Costa-Cabral M, Riverson J, Reuter J, Sahoo G, Schladow G, Wolfe B (2012) Projected 21st century trends in hydroclimatology of the Tahoe basin. This special issue.Google Scholar
  7. Costa-Cabral M, Roy S, Maurer EP, Mills WB, Chen L (2012) Snowpack and runoff response to climate change in Owens Valley and Mono Lake watersheds. Clim Chang, this special issue. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0529
  8. Crawford NH, Linsley RK (1966) Digital Simulation in Hydrology, Stanford Watershed Model 4. Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Das T, Dettinger MD, Cayan DR, Hidalgo HG (2011) Potential increase in floods in California’s Sierra Nevada under future climate projections. Clim Chang. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0298-z
  10. Delworth TL et al (2006) GFDL’s CM2 global coupled climate models. Part 1: Formulation and simulation characteristics. J Climate 19(5):643–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dettinger M (2012) Projections and downscaling of 21st century temperatures, precipitation, radiative fluxes and winds for the Southwestern US, with focus on the Lake Tahoe Basin. This special issue.Google Scholar
  12. Dettinger MD, Cayan DR, Meyer MK, Jeton AE (2004) Simulated hydrologic responses to climate variations and change in the Merced, Carson, and American River Basins, Sierra Nevada, California, 1900-2009. Clim Chang 62:283–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elsner ME, Cuo L, Voisin N, Deems JS, Hamlet AF, Vano JA, Mickelson K, Lee S-Y, Lettenmaier DP (2010) Implications of 21st century climate change for the hydrology of Washington State. Clim Chang 102:225–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hawkins E, Sutton R (2009) The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions. Bull Amer Meteor Soc 90:1095–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heyvaert A, Reuter JE, Thomas J, Schladow SG (2007) Particle Size Distribution in Stormwater Runoff Samples at Tahoe. Technical Memo dated March 2, 2007. Prepared for Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board by Desert Research Institute and UC Davis – Tahoe Environmental Research Center.Google Scholar
  16. Hidalgo HG, Dettinger MD, Cayan DR (2008) Downscaling with Constructed Analogues: Daily Precipitation and Temperature Fields Over the United States. California Climate Change Center, p. 48.Google Scholar
  17. Jassby AD, Reuter JE, Goldman CR (2003) Determining long-term water quality change in the presence of climatic variability, Lake Tahoe (USA). Can Jour Fish Aquat Sci 60:1452–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson TE, Butcher JB, Parker A, Weaver CP (2012) Investigating the sensitivity of U.S. streamflow and water quality to climate change: U.S. EPA Global Change Research Program’s 20 Watersheds Project. J Water Resour Plann Manage 138:453–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leakey ADB, Ainsworth EA, Bernacchi CJ, Rogers A, Long SP, Ort DR (2009) Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: six important lessons from FACE. Jour Exp Botany 60:2859–2876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. LWRQCB, NDEP (2010) Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load Technical Report. Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, South Lake Tahoe, California, and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Carson City, Nevada, Carson City, NV, p. 340 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Maurer E, Duffy P (2005) Uncertainty in projections of streamflow changes due to climate change in California. Geophys Res Ltt 32:L03704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meehl GA, Covey C, Delworth T, Latif M, McAvaney B, Mitchell JFB, Stouffer RJ, Taylor KE (2007) The WCRP CMIP3 multimodel dataset: A new era in climate change research. Bul Am Meterol Soc 88:1383–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mote P, Brekke L, Duffy PB, Maurer E (2011) Guidelines of constructing climate change scenarios. EOS: Trans Am Geophy Union 92:257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nakicenovic N et al (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge Univ. Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Penman HL (1948) Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil, and grass. P Roy Soc London A 193:120–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pierce DW, Barnett TP, Santer B, Gleckler P (2009) Selecting global climate models for regional climate change studies. Proc Nat Academy Sci 106:8441–8446Google Scholar
  27. Riverson J, Barreto C, Shoemaker L, Reuter J, Roberts D (2005) Development of the Lake Tahoe watershed model: lessons learned through modeling in a subalpine environment. World Water and Environmental Resource Congress – 2005, Anchorage, Alaska.Google Scholar
  28. Roberts D, Reuter J (2007) Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load Technical Report California and Nevada. Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and Nevada Division of Ennvironmental Protection, South Lake TahoeGoogle Scholar
  29. Rowe TG, Saleh DK, Watkins SA, Kratzer CR (2002) Streamflow and Water-Quality Data for Selected Watersheds in the Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada, through September 1998. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resource Investigation (WRI 02-4030). U.S. Geological Survey, Carson CityGoogle Scholar
  30. Sahoo GB, Schladow SG, Reuter JE, Coats RN, Dettinger M, Riverson J, Wolfe B, Costa-Cabral M (2012) The response of Lake Tahoe to climate change. This special issue.Google Scholar
  31. Shen J, Parker A, Riverson J (2005) A new approach for a Windows-based watershed modelling system based on a database-supporting architecture. Jour Environ Modelling and Software 20:1127–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simon A, Langendoen EJ, Bingner RL, Wells R, Heins A, Jokay N, Jaramillo I (2003) Lake Tahoe Basin Framework Implementation Study: Sediment Loadings and Channel Erosion. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Sedimentation Laboratory.Google Scholar
  33. Slotto RA, Crouse MY (1996) HYSEP: A Computer Program for Streamflow Hydrograph Separation and Analysis. U.S. Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  34. Smith D, Kuschnicki J (2009) Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load. Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and Nevada Division of Ennvironmental Protection, South Lake TahoeGoogle Scholar
  35. Stewart IT, Cayan D, Dettinger M (2004) Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in western North America under a “business as usual” climate change scenario. Clim Chang 62:217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tetra Tech (2007) Watershed Hydrologic Modeling and Sediment and Nutrient Loading Estimation for the Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load. Final Modeling Report. Prepared for the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  37. Wood AW, Maurer EP, Kumar A, Lettenmaier DP (2002) Long-range experimental hydrologic forecasting for the eastern United States. J Geophys Res 107:4429. doi:4410.1029/2001JD000659 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wood AW, Leung LR, Sridhar V, Lettenmaier DP (2004) Hydrologic implications of dynamical and statistical approaches to downscaling climate model outputs. Clim Chang 62:189–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zou GY, Donner A (2008) Construction of confidence limits about effect measures: A general approach. Statistics in Medicine 27:1693–1702CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Riverson
    • 1
  • Robert Coats
    • 2
  • Mariza Costa-Cabral
    • 3
  • Michael Dettinger
    • 4
  • John Reuter
    • 5
  • Goloka Sahoo
    • 5
  • Geoffrey Schladow
    • 5
  1. 1.Tetra TechFairfaxUSA
  2. 2.Hydroikos Ltd.BerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Hydrology Futures, LLCSeattleUSA
  4. 4.U.S. Geological SurveyLa JollaUSA
  5. 5.UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research CenterDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations