EPA/600/R-13/074
    United States                ARS/294076
    Environmental Protection              June 2013
    Agency                www.epa.gov/research
 Assessing Hydrologic
 Impacts of Future Land
Cover Change Scenarios
 in the San Pedro River
      (U.S./Mexico)
   RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

-------

-------
Assessing Hydrologic Impacts
 of Future  Land Cover Change
   Scenarios  in the San  Pedro
         River (U.S./Mexico)
 I.S. Burns1, W.G. Kepner2, G.S. Sidman1, D.C. Goodrich3, DP. Guertin1,
L.R. Levick1, W.W.S. Yee4, M.M.A. Scianni4, C.S. Meek4, and J.B. Vollmer4


        1University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources, Tucson, AZ
 2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Las Vegas, NV
  3USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Southwest Watershed Research Center, Tucson, AZ
       4U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, San Francisco, CA
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
             Office of Research and Development
                 Washington, DC 20460

-------

-------
Acknowledgements
This project was funded through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional
Applied Research Effort (RARE) Program, which is administered by the Office of Research and
Development's (ORD) Regional Science Program.

We would like to acknowledge the key reviewers of this report for their helpful suggestions.
Specifically, our thanks in particular go to Dr. W. Paul Miller, Senior Hydrologist, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Colorado Basin River Forecast Center, Salt
Lake City, UT; Dr. Britta G. Bierwagen, Physical Scientist, EPA/ORD, Global Change Research
Program, Washington, D.C.; and Timothy Keefer, Hydrologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)/Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Southwest Watershed Research Center, Tucson,
AZ.

This report has been subjected to both the EPA/ORD and USD A/ARS  peer and administrative
review processes and has been approved for publication. The Automated Geospatial Watershed
Assessment (AGWA) tool was jointly developed by EPA/ORD, USD A/ARS, and the University
of Arizona.  The Integrated Climate and Land Use Scenarios  (ICLUS)  database was developed
by EPA/ORD. AGWA and ICLUS are endorsed and recommended by  each of the respective
agencies, especially in regard to their integrated use.
                                         in

-------
IV

-------
                              Table of Contents







Acknowledgements	iii




List of Figures	vii




List of Tables	ix




List of Acronyms and Abbreviations	xi




Abstract	1




Introduction	1




Methods	4




Project/Watershed Extent	4




Land Cover	4




Soils	8




Precipitation	8




AGWA-SWAT Modeling	9




Results	9




Discussion	21




Conclusions	22




Appendix A	25




Appendix B	26




Appendix C	28




References	33

-------
VI

-------
                                 List of Figures

Figure 1.  Location Map of the Study Area Contrasting the Extent of the ICLUS
          Data Used in the Future Scenarios to the San Pedro Watershed	3

Figure 2.  Population Projections for ICLUS Scenarios by Decade	7

Figure 3.  Watershed Average Human Use Index (HUI) for All Scenarios	10

Figure 4.  Watershed Average Percent Change in Surface Runoff for All Scenarios	10

Figure 5.  Watershed Average Percent Change in Sediment Yield for All Scenarios	11

Figure 6.  Subwatershed #340 Average Human Use Index (HUI) for All Scenarios	11

Figure 7.  Subwatershed #340 Average Percent Change in Surface Runoff
          for all Scenarios	12

Figure 8.  Subwatershed #340 Average Percent Change in Sediment Yield
          for all Scenarios	12

Figure 9.  Subwatersheds #340 and #341 for Scenarios Al  and A2 from 2010 to
          2100 Depict How a Larger Absolute Change in One Scenario Can
          Undergo a Smaller Explicit Percent Change (Average Subwatershed
          Percent Change Divided by the Ratio of Changed Land Cover Area to
          Entire Subwatershed Area)	14

Figure 10. Change in Human Use Index (HUI), Sediment Yield, and Surface Runoff
          (Both Average and Explicit) in Percent from 2010 to 2100 for Scenario Al	15

Figure 11. Change in Human Use Index (HUI), Sediment Yield, and Surface Runoff
          (Both Average and Explicit) in Percent from 2010 to 2100 for Scenario A2	16

Figure 12. Change in Human Use Index (HUI), Sediment Yield, and Surface Runoff
          (Both Average and Explicit) in Percent from 2010 to 2100 for Scenario Bl	17

Figure 13. Change in Human Use Index (HUI), Sediment Yield, and Surface Runoff
          (Both Average and Explicit) in Percent from 2010 to 2100 for Scenario B2	18

Figure 14. Change in Human Use Index (HUI), Sediment Yield, and Surface Runoff
          (Both Average and Explicit) in Percent from 2010 to 2100 for Scenario BC	19

Figure 15. ArcMap Geoprocessing Model that Clipped, Projected, and Reclassified
          the ICLUS Data into Classified Land Cover for use in AGWA	25
                                         vn

-------
Vlll

-------
                                 List of Tables

Table 1.    Summary of the Types of Changes of the Different ICLUS Scenarios	5

Table 2.    Reclassification Table for 1992 NALC in Mexico to 2006 NLCD
          Land Cover Types	6

Table 3.    Explanation of ICLUS Housing Density Categories	6

Table 4.    Reclassification Table for ICLUS Housing Density Classes to 2006
          NLCD Land Cover Types	8
TableS.   Climate Stations Used from the NCDC	9

Table 6.   Change in Human Use Index Over Time	26

Table 7.   Change in Surface Runoff Over Time	26

Table 8.   Change in Sediment Yield Over Time	27

Table 9.   Land Cover Change for Scenario Al from Baseline 2010 to 2100.
          (Note: Largest Positive/Negative Changes are Highlighted Red/Orange;
          values in parenthesis are the percent change in cover type from the 2010
          base case)	28

Table 10.  Land Cover Change for Scenario A2 from Baseline 2010 to 2100.
          (Note: Largest Positive/Negative Changes are Highlighted Red/Orange;
          values in parenthesis are the percent change in cover type from the 2010
          base case)	29

Table 11.  Land Cover Change for Scenario Bl from Baseline 2010 to 2100.
          (Note: Largest Positive/Negative Changes are Highlighted Red/Orange;
          values in parenthesis are the percent change in cover type from the 2010
          base case)	30

Table 12.  Land Cover Change for Scenario Bl from Baseline 2010 to 2100.
          (Note: Largest Positive/Negative Changes are Highlighted Red/Orange;
          values in parenthesis are the percent change in cover type from the 2010
          base case)	31

Table 13.  Land Cover Change for Scenario BC from Baseline 2010 to 2100.
          (Note: Largest Positive/Negative Changes are Highlighted Red/Orange;
          values in parenthesis are the percent change in cover type from the 2010
          base case)	32
                                         IX

-------

-------
          Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACOE




AGWA




ARS




BC




BLM




CWA




DEM




DOD




DST




EPA




FWS




CIS




HD




HUI




ICLUS




IPCC




NALC




NCDC




NCGC




NED




NLCD




NOAA




NFS




NRCS
Army Corps of Engineers




Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment




Agricultural Research Service




Base Case




U.S. Bureau of Land Management




Clean Water Act




Digital Elevation Model




Department of Defense




Decision Support Tools




U.S. Environmental Protection Agency




U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service




Geographic Information System




Housing Density




Human Use Index




Integrated Climate and Land-Use Scenarios




Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change




North American Landscape Characterization




National Climatic Data Center




National Cartography and Geospatial Center




National Elevation Dataset




National Land Cover Database




National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration




National Park Service




Natural Resources Conservation Service
                           XI

-------
RARE          Regional Applied Research Effort




SRES           Special Report on Emissions Scenarios




SPRNCA        San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area




STATSGO      State Soil Geographic database




SWAT          Soil and Water Assessment Tool




USDA          U.S. Department of Agriculture




USFS           U.S. Forest Service




USGS           U.S. Geological Survey
                           xn

-------
Abstract
   Long-term land-use and land cover change and their associated impacts pose critical
challenges to sustaining vital hydrological ecosystem services for future generations. In this
study, a methodology was developed to characterize hydrologic impacts from future urban
growth through time. Future growth is represented by housing density maps generated in
decadal intervals from 2010 to 2100, produced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Integrated Climate and Land-Use Scenarios (ICLUS) project.  ICLUS developed future
housing density maps by adapting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) social, economic, and demographic storylines to
the conterminous United States.  To characterize hydrologic impacts from future growth, the
housing density maps were reclassified to National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2006 land
cover classes and used to parameterize the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) using the
Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment (AGWA) tool. The objectives of this project were
to 1) develop and describe a methodology for adapting the ICLUS data for use in AGWA as an
approach to evaluate basin-wide impacts of development on water-quantity and -quality, 2)
present initial results from the application of the methodology to evaluate water scenario
analyses related to a baseline condition and forecasted changes, and 3) discuss implications of
the analysis for the San Pedro River Basin, an arid international watershed on the U.S./Mexico
border.

Introduction
   Changes in land-use and land cover are critical in the determination of water availability,
quality, and demand. The consequences of human modification to the Earth's surface for
extraction of natural resources, agricultural production, and urbanization may rival those that are
anticipated via climate change (Vitousek  1994, Vorosmarty et al. 2000, Chapin et al. 2002,
DeFries and Eshleman 2004, Brauman et al. 2007, Whitehead et al. 2009,  Triantakonstantis and
Mountrakis 2012). Responding to change requires improvements in our ability to understand
vulnerabilities and to develop processes and metrics to better understand the consequences of
choice.  It also requires an ability to communicate highly technical information to risk managers
and decision makers.

   Scenario analysis provides the capability to explore pathways of change that diverge from
baseline conditions and lead to plausible future states or events. Scenario analysis has been used
extensively in studies related to environmental decision support (USDI 2012). Although a
number of scenario frameworks are available to assist in evaluating policy or management
options, most are designed to analyze alternative futures related to decision options, potential
impacts and benefits, long-term risks, and management opportunities (Steinitz et al. 2003,
Kepner et al. 2012, March et al. 2012).  They frequently are combined with process modelling
and are intended to bridge the gap between science and decision making and are effective across
a range of spatial and temporal scales (Liu et al. 2008a and 2008b, Mahmoud et al. 2009).

   This report describes a methodology to integrate a widely used watershed modeling tool and
a consistent national database with alternative future scenarios which can then be scaled to
regional applications.  This report further describes the cumulative impacts of housing densities

-------
parsed out at decadal intervals to the year 2100 on a hydrological ecosystem consisting primarily
of ephemeral and intermittent waters.

   Ephemeral waters are extremely important in the arid west and Arizona as a key source of
groundwater recharge (Goodrich et al. 2004) and providing important near channel alluvial
aquifer recharge to support aquatic ecosystems in downstream perennial and intermittent streams
(Bailie et al. 2007).  They also provide critical ecosystem services supporting numerous species
(Levick et al. 2008).  In addition, the beneficial uses of main-stem rivers cannot be meaningfully
protected if their supporting watersheds are degraded through significant hydrological and
ecological modifications (Brooks et al. 2007a and 2007b).  The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) supports a watershed approach to resource restoration and protection, exemplified
by the San Pedro River watershed, a globally-important watershed described in the case study
presented here.

   At present, issuance of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 404 permits are carried out in a project-by-project fashion with little consideration of
how multiple projects might collectively impact hydrology and biodiversity. However, the
cumulative impact of multiple projects on watershed function is a concern.  From Part 1 l(g) of
Part 230 - Section 404(B) (1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill
Material (Guidelines), ".. .cumulative impacts are the changes in an aquatic ecosystem that are
attributable to the collective effect of a number of individual  discharges of dredged or fill
material." Although the impact of a particular discharge may constitute a minor change in itself,
the cumulative effect of numerous such changes can result in degradation and impairment of the
water resources, interfering with the productivity and overall integrity of biological, chemical,
and physical processes of aquatic ecosystems. Section 230.11 of the Guidelines describes
special conditions for evaluation of proposed permits to be issued, which includes the evaluation
of potential individual and cumulative impacts of the category of activities to be regulated under
general permit.  The Guidelines constitute the substantive environmental criteria used in
evaluating activities regulated under Section 404. Section 404 requires a permit before dredged
or fill material may be discharged into the waters of the United States. The Guidelines state the
terms aquatic environment and aquatic ecosystem mean waters of the United States, including
wetlands, that serve as habitat for interrelated and interacting communities and populations of
plants and animals (part 230.3 [c]), and that "waters of the United States" includes tributaries
(part 230.3 [s]).

   In an effort to build an improved capability for environmental decision makers and managers
to plan and respond to potential change, the EPA, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Agricultural Research Service, and the University of Arizona have recently initiated two projects
under the Regional Applied Research Effort (RARE) Program.  The two case studies selected for
this project are the San Pedro River (U.S./Mexico) in EPA Region 9 and the South Platte River
Basin (CO, WY, and ME) in EPA Region 8.

   For the purpose of this report, the results are restricted to the San Pedro River. The intent is
to quantitatively evaluate hydrologic impacts of future developments at the basin scale, which
intrinsically addresses the cumulative impact of multiple housing development projects.  The
study area encompasses the entire  San Pedro Watershed (~11500 km2 or -4440 mi2) from

-------
Sonora, Mexico to the stream gage (USGS 09473500) in Winkelman, AZ (Figure 1). The San
Pedro River flows 230 km from its headwaters in Sonora, Mexico to its confluence with the Gila
River in central Arizona.  It is nationally known as one of the last free-flowing rivers in the
Southwest. It has significant ecological value, supporting one of the highest numbers of
mammal species in the world and providing crucial habitat and a migration corridor to several
hundred bird species. Vegetation ranges from primarily semi-desert grassland and Chihuahuan
desert scrub in the Upper San Pedro to primarily Sonoran desert scrub and semi-desert grassland
in the Lower San Pedro. The Upper San Pedro is home to the San Pedro Riparian National
Conservation Area (SPRNCA). It was designated as the first National Conservation Area for
riparian protection by Congress in 1988. The SPRNCA protects approximately 64 kilometers
(-40 miles) of river and is administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management (Kepner et al.  2004, Bagstad et al. 2012).
                                                                      FORT THOMAS
                                              _  Climate Stations
                                              ^\ Extent of ICLUS data
                                                 SPRNCA
                                            0  10  20
                                                      40
                                                           60
                                                             Miles
                                                                               A
Figure 1:   Location Map of the Study Area Contrasting the Extent of the ICLUS Data Used in the Future Scenarios to
         the San Pedro Watershed.

   An underlying premise of this project is that watershed assessments can be significantly
improved if environmental resource managers have Decision Support Tools (DSTs) that are
easy-to-use, access readily available data, and are designed to address hydrologic and water
quality processes that are influenced by development at both the project-and basin-wide scale.

-------
The Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment (AGWA; Miller et al. 2007;
http://www.epa.gov/esd/land-sci/agwa/index.htm and http: //www. tuc son. ar s. ag. gov/agwa) tool,
i.e. the DST used in this project, will assist the EPA and other agencies with permitting and
enforcement responsibilities under CWA Sections 401, 404 (FWS, NOAA, and ACOE), 402,
311 (US Coast Guard and states), and CWA 319 grant recipients (states, tribes, and local
organizations).  It is designed to identify areas that are most sensitive to environmental
degradation as well as areas of potential mitigation or enhancement opportunities, and thus
inform restoration, permitting, and enforcement strategies.  AGWA is recognized as one of the
world's primary watershed modeling systems (Daniel et al. 2011) providing the utility to
generate hydrologic responses at the subwatershed scale and spatially visualize results for
qualitative comparisons (also see
http://cfpub.epa.gov/crem/knowledge base/crem report.cfm?deid=75821).

Methods
   The methodology developed to ascertain local vulnerabilities and cumulative impacts
associated with basin-wide development is a multi-step process.  First, the project/watershed
extent must be defined to ensure that data are  obtained for the entire study area.  The various
land cover data must then be converted to a format compatible with AGWA. Next, soils and
precipitation data for the study area must be located and extracted.  Finally, AGWA is used to
parameterize and run the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT; Neitsch et al. 2002;
Srinivasan and Arnold 1994) for the baseline condition and future land cover/use scenarios.

Project/Watershed Extent
   Defining an accurate project and watershed extent is a critical first step that will minimize
difficulties later because this extent is used to locate other required data, including land cover,
soils, precipitation, and climate data. To  define the project extent, the project watershed is
delineated in AGWA and given a buffer distance of 500 meters.  The watershed is delineated
using a 10-meter digital elevation model (DEM) that has been hydrologically corrected to ensure
proper surface water drainage. In the United States (and for basins extending into Mexico), the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) The National Map Viewer and Download Platform
(http://nationalmap.gov/viewer.html) maintains the National Elevation Dataset (NED;
http://ned.usgs.gov/), which is a recommended source for DEM data. The delineated watershed
is buffered 500 meters to establish the project extent and ensure there are no gaps in coverage for
the land cover and soils data.

Land Cover
   The land cover data used in this report comes from an array of sources. Because the project
extent includes Mexico, a land cover dataset with coverage in Mexico must be used. The
National Land Cover Database 2006 (NLCD;  Fry et al. 2011), available nationally in the United
States, is used as the base land cover for the United States.  It does not include the Mexico
portion of the watershed however, so the North American Landscape Characterization Project
(NALC; EPA, 1993), which has national  coverage of both Mexico and the United States up to
1992, was used as source imagery for the derived land cover for Mexico (Kepner et al. 2000,
Kepner et al. 2003, Figure 1). The Integrated Climate and Land-Use Scenarios (ICLUS;
Bierwagen et al. 2010; EPA, 2009; EPA,  2010) project data were identified as an ideal dataset

-------
for projecting basin-wide development into the future because its national-scale housing-density
(HD) scenarios are consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001)
Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES; Nakicenovic and Swart 2000) greenhouse gas
emissions storylines (Table 1, Figure 2).  Though the NALC data has coverage for the entire
watershed the NLCD is used for the United States because it is the most current dataset available
and because others have utilized NLCD (from 2001 instead of 2006) with ICLUS data to project
future growth (Johnson et al. 2012).

Table 1: Summary of the Types of Changes of the Different ICLUS Scenarios.
National Scenario


Al


Bl



A2



B2

Base
Case

(2000)
medium population
growth; fast economic
development; high
global integration
medium population
growth; low domestic
migration resulting in
compact urban
development
high population
growth; greatest land
conversion; high
domestic migration
resulting in new
population centers
moderate economic
development; medium
population growth;
medium international
migration
U.S. Census medium
scenario

Demographic Model
Fertility

low


low



high



medium

medium


Domestic
Migration

high


low



high



low

medium


Net
International
Migration

high


high



low



low

medium


Spatial Allocation Model
Household
Size

smaller
(-15%)


smaller
(-15%)



larger
(+15%)



no change

no change


Urban
Form

no change


slight
compaction



no change



slight
compaction

no change


   Because the 2006 NLCD and 1992 NALC datasets have different classifications, the NALC
land cover is reclassified to match the NLCD land cover (Table 2).  The reclassified NALC
dataset of Mexico is then combined with the 2006 NLCD dataset of the U.S. resulting in a
derived NLCD dataset that covers the entire project extent. Note that the "Grasslands" class in
the NALC dataset was reclassified to "Scrub/Shrub" to be consistent with the observed
classification methodology of the NLCD. For applications entirely within the United States, the

-------
NLCD land cover will not need to be combined with other datasets, simplifying the process and
application of this methodology.
   The ICLUS HD data is combined with the NLCD/NALC data to project future development
by decade to 2100. The ICLUS data has five categories of housing density representing rural,
exurban, suburban, urban, and commercial/industrial (Table 3).

Table 2: Reclassiflcation Table for 1992 NALC in Mexico to 2006 NLCD Land Cover Types.
1992 NALC (Mexico)
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Land Cover Type
Forest
Oak Woodlands
Mesquite Woodlands
Grasslands
Desert Scrub
Riparian
Agricultural
Urban
Water
Barren
2006 NLCD
Code
42
41
52
52
52
90
82
22
11
31
Land Cover Type
Evergreen Forest
Deciduous Forest
Scrub/Shrub
Scrub/Shrub
Scrub/Shrub
Woody Wetlands
Cultivated Crops
Developed, Medium Intensity
Open Water
Barren Land
Table 3: Explanation of ICLUS Housing Density Categories.
Class
99
4
3
2
1
Acres Per
Housing Unit
NA
<0.25
0.25-2
2-40
>40
Housing Units
Per Acre
NA
>4
0.5-4
0.025-0.5
<0.025
Hectares Per
Housing Unit
NA
<0.1
0.1-0.81
0.81-16.19
>16.19
Housing Units
Per Hectare
NA
>10
1.23-10
0.06-1.23
<0.06
Density Category
Commercial/Industrial
Urban
Suburban
Exurban
Rural
   The ICLUS database produced 5 seamless, national-scale change scenarios for urban and
residential development (Table 1). The A2 Scenario is characterized by high fertility and low net
international migration; it represents the highest population scenario gain (690 million people by
2100). The Base Case (BC) and Scenario B2 are the middle scenarios, with medium fertility and
medium to low international migration.  Differences between BC and B2, as well as Al and Bl,
reflect how housing is allocated - sprawl vs. compact growth patterns.  As a result of this
distinction, the county populations in urban and suburban areas generally grow faster than in
rural areas in the base case, but the experiences of individual counties vary. Al and Bl, with
low fertility and high international migration are the lowest of the population scenarios. The
primary difference between these scenarios occurs at the domestic migration level, with an
assumption of high domestic migration under Al and low domestic migration under Bl.  The
effect of different migration assumptions becomes evident in the spatial model when the

-------
population is allocated into housing units across the landscape.  The Baseline forecast for 2100 is
450M people and Bl could be lower at 380M people. The A2 scenario results in the largest
changes in urban and suburban housing density classes and greater conversion of natural land-
cover classes into new population centers, or urban sprawl. The largest shift from suburban
densities to urban occurs in 2050 - 2100 for the A-family scenarios (Bierwagen et al. 2010,
Figure 2).  The ICLUS scenarios were developed using a demographic model to estimate future
populations through the year 2100 and then allocated to 1-hectare pixels by county for the
conterminous U.S. (EPA 2009, EPA 2010).  The final data sets provide decadal projections of
both housing density and impervious surface cover from the 2000 baseline year projected out to
the year 2100.
     800,000,000
                 Conterminous US Population Projections, 2005-2100
   700,000,000 -


   600,000,000 -
c
O
•5  500,000,000 -


   400,000,000 -


   300,000,000 -


   200,000,000
   a.
   o
   a.
—*— Base Case
-•-A1
-•-A2
    B1
Figure 2:  Population Projections for ICLUS Scenarios by Decade.

   The NLCD data has different land cover classes, a different projection, and is at a different
resolution (30m) than the ICLUS data (100m); therefore the ICLUS data were pre-processed for
use in this project.  Preprocessing includes clipping the ICLUS data to the boundary of Arizona,
projecting the ICLUS data to UTM Zone 12 NAD83, reclassifying the ICLUS data to NLCD
classes (Table 4) and resampling the ICLUS data from 100m to 30m. The resulting dataset was
then merged with the NLCD dataset so the ICLUS data replaced the NLCD data if there was a
change in land cover. The reclassification scheme was determined based on housing density
definitions, which were different between the two datasets. As a result the "Rural" land cover
type in the ICLUS data was defaulted to the NLCD class present at that location.  This
methodology was incorporated into a tool in ArcToolbox in ArcGIS for easy conversion of the
ICLUS datasets (Appendix A, Figure 15).

-------
Table 4:  Reclassiflcation Table for ICLUS Housing Density Classes to 2006 NLCD Land Cover Types.
ICLUS Data
Code
1
2
3
4
99
Land Cover Type
Rural
Exurban
Suburban
Urban
Commercial/Industrial
2006 NLCD
Code
-
22
23
24
24
Land Cover Type
Default to NLCD cover type
Developed, Low Intensity
Developed, Medium Intensity
Developed, High Intensity
Developed, High Intensity
   For the purposes of developing the methodology, only scenario Al (corresponding to
storyline Al in the SRES) of the ICLUS data was used in an interim report (Burns et al. 2012),
however all five ICLUS scenarios (Al, A2, Bl, B2, and BC) were used in this final report.

   Ten land cover datasets per scenario (50 total) are produced from the combination of the
NLCD/NALC datasets and the ICLUS datasets, representing the change in landscape attributed
to population and development changes by decade from 2010 to 2100. Tables 9 through 13 in
Appendix C contain the changes in land cover/use by decade for each of the ICLUS national
scenarios. For each scenario, the dataset from 2010 is used as the project baseline to which the
successive decadal datasets are compared.

Soils
   Soils data for the U.S. were obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) - National Cartography and Geospatial Center's (NCGC) State Soil Geographic
(STATSGO; USDA-NRCS 1994) database.  Soils data for Mexico were obtained from the San
Pedro Data Browser (Kepner et al. 2003, Boykin et al. 2012). STATSGO and the Mexico soils
have different soil definitions and the Mexico soils are not supported directly in AGWA, so the
Mexico soil types were matched and redefined to equivalent STATSGO soil types.  Because
neither dataset covered the entire project extent, the redefined Mexico soils were merged with
the STATSGO dataset to create a seamless coverage of the entire project extent. The mapping
scale of the two datasets is somewhat generalized with a mapping scale of 1:250,000, but
nonetheless they are suitable for this application given the watershed size and focus on
hydrologic response due to land cover change. For applications entirely within the United States,
the STATSGO dataset will not need modification or merging with other soil layers, simplifying
the process and application of this methodology.
Precipitation
   Precipitation data obtained from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC;
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/) were used to drive the SWAT model in AGWA. Climate stations in
the vicinity of the San Pedro Watershed were reviewed for periods of record and completeness of
the dataset. The review produced a total of seven climate stations in Arizona with the recorded
precipitation needed for the SWAT model (Table 5, Figure 1). Values of "-99" were used in
place of missing data in the period of record to flag SWAT to use its built-in stochastic weather
generator to determine how much precipitation to supply for the missing records.  The period of
record is from 1971-2001.

-------
Table 5:  Climate Stations Used from the NCDC.
Cooperative Station ID
21330
22139
23150
26119
27530
28619
29562
Station Name
Cascabel
Coronado National Monument Headquarters
Fort Thomas
Oracle 2 SE
San Manuel
Tombstone
Y Lightning Ranch
AGWA-SWAT Modeling
   The AGWA tool was used to model the San Pedro Watershed with the SWAT model. The
AGWA tool is a user interface and framework that couples two watershed-scale hydrologic
models, the KINematic Runoff and EROSion model (KINEROS2; Semmens et al. 2008) and the
Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT; Arnold et al.  1994), within a geographic information
system (GIS). The coupling of hydrologic models and GIS within the AGWA tool performs
model parameterization, execution, and watershed assessment at multiple temporal and spatial
scales,  and visualization of model simulation results (Daniel et al. 2011).  Current outputs
generated through use of the AGWA tool are runoff (volumes and peaks) and sediment yield,
plus nitrogen and phosphorus with the SWAT model. Simulations were parameterized using a
10m DEM and derived flow direction and accumulation, the modified STATSGO soils, the
seven precipitation stations in Table  5, and the ten land  cover datasets produced by combining
the NLCD/NALC dataset (Table 2) with the decadal ICLUS datasets. AGWA facilitates the
identification of areas more susceptible/sensitive to environmental degradation and also areas for
potential  mitigation or enhancement by mapping spatially distributed modeling results back onto
the watershed.

Results
   All scenarios resulted in an increase to the Human Use Index (HUI) metric averaged over the
entire watershed. HUI (adapted from Ebert and Wade, 2004) is the percent area in use by
humans.  It includes NLCD land cover classes "Developed, Open Space"; "Developed, Low
Intensity"; "Developed, Medium Intensity";  "Developed, High Intensity"; "Pasture/Hay"; and
"Cultivated Crops".  The ICLUS A2 scenario resulted in the largest increase of the HUI, 2.21%
in year 2100 for the entire watershed (see Figure 3 and Appendix B - Table 6).

   Similarly to the increases in HUI over the entire watershed, both simulated runoff and
sediment yield increased at the watershed outlet over time for all scenarios; scenario A2
experienced the largest percent change in surface runoff and sediment yield, 1.04% and 1.19%,
respectively (see Figure 4, Figure 5,  and Appendix B - Table 7 and Table 8). Percent change was
calculated using the following equation:

                              (I decade] - I base])
                               1       'J  L    -i±-xlOO
                                    [baset]

                                           9

-------
where [decadet] represents simulation results for a decade from 2020 through 2100 for a given
scenario (/') and [baset] represents the baseline 2010 decade for the same scenario.
                    HIM Change 2010-2100 (Entire Watershed)
     2.50%
                                                                          ScenarioAl
                                                                          Scenario A2
                                                                          Scenario Bl
                                                                          Scenario B2
                                                                          Basel ineBC
     0.00%
         2010  2020  2030  2040  2050  2060  2070  2080  2090  2100
Figure 3:  Watershed Average Human Use Index (HUI) for All Scenarios.
             Change in Surface Runoff 2010-2100 {Entire
                                  Watershed)
     1.20%
                                                                          ScenarioAl
                                                                          Scenario A2
                                                                          Scenario Bl
                                                                          Scenario B2
                                                                          Basel ineBC
         2010  2020  2030  2040  2050  2060  2070  2080  2090  2100
Figure 4:  Watershed Average Percent Change in Surface Runoff for All Scenarios.
                                         10

-------
               Change in Sediment Yield 2010-2100 (Watershed Outlet)
     1.40%

   o 1.20%
   
-------
             Change in Surface Runoff 2010-2100 (Subwatershed #340)
  6.00%

o 5.00%
o
g 4.00%
o
* 3.00%
OJ
on
ro 2.00%
.c
u
S 1.00%
     0.00%
                                                                             ScenarioAl

                                                                             Scenario A2

                                                                             Scenario Bl
                                                                             Scenario B2

                                                                             Basel ineBC
          2010   2020  2030   2040   2050   2060  2070  2080   2090   2100
Figure 7:  Subwatershed #340 Average Percent Change in Surface Runoff for All Scenarios.
             Change in Sediment Yield 2010-2100 (Subwatershed #340)
                                                                          •  ScenarioAl

                                                                         ^•— Scenario A2

                                                                          A  Scenario Bl

                                                                          )(  Scenario B2

                                                                         —*—Basel ineBC
      2010   2020   2030   2040   2050   2060   2070   2080   2090   2100
Figure 8:  Subwatershed #340 Average Percent Change in Sediment Yield for All Scenarios.

   Figure 9 highlights subwatersheds #340 and #341 and the percent change in surface runoff
between 2010 and 2100 for scenarios Al and A2.  Subwatersheds #340 and #341 represent the
lower (#340) and upper (#341) divisions of Walnut Gulch, a long-term experimental watershed
operated by the USDA Agricultural Service near Tombstone,  AZ. Scenarios Al and A2 have
different growth characteristics, and though scenario A2 has a much larger population than Al in
2100, the percent change in surface runoff depicted in the figure is unexpected because scenario
Al has a higher percent change than scenario A2.  Specifically, though the absolute change in
surface runoff for scenario A2 is larger than the absolute  change in surface runoff for scenario
Al (bottom of Figure 9), the change occurs on a larger area resulting in an explicit percent
change that is smaller for scenario A2 than scenario Al (top of Figure 9).  The explicit percent
change is calculated by dividing the effective percent change, i.e. the average percent change
over the entire Subwatershed, by the ratio of changed land cover area to entire Subwatershed area.
Explicit percent change emphasizes that local change may be  much greater than average
watershed or even average Subwatershed percent change  can describe.
                                           12

-------
   Figure 10 through Figure 14 (and Tables 9 through 13 in Appendix C) depict the percent
change of FUJI, channel sediment yield, and subwatershed surface runoff from 2010 to 2100 for
each of the 5 ICLUS scenarios. The changes in FUJI relate well to the changes in sediment yield
and surface runoff. The figures show the impact of growth locally on one level with the
subwatersheds and in greater detail with the explicit percent change in the growth areas in
contrast to averaging the impacts over the entire watershed as presented in Table 7 and Table 8.
                                          13

-------
Figure 9:  Subwatersheds #340 and #341 for Scenarios Al and A2 from 2010 to 2100 depict how a larger Absolute Change in one scenario can undergo a smaller
        Explicit Percent Change (Average Subwatershed Percent Change divided by the Ratio of Changed Land Cover Area to Entire Subwatershed Area).
  0  •  2345
                                                Tombstone Watershed
                                        Change in Surface Runoff 2010-2100
  ^Scenario A1
   Percent Change
                                                                                                      Scenario A2
                                                                                                 Percent Change
                                                    Percent Change (%)
                                                            0-11.73
                                                            11.74-39.09
                                                            39.1 - 50.32
                                                            50.33-65.96
                                                            65.97-38.43
                                                             44-124.59
                                                    Absolute Change (mm)
                                                           0-0.16
                                                           0.17- 0.38
                                                           0.39- 0.69
                                                           0.7-1.17
                                                           1.18- 1.52
                                                           1.53- 3.2
Absolute Change
Scenario A1
Absolute Change
      Scenario A2
                                                            14

-------
Figure 10: Change in Human Use Index (HUI), Sediment Yield, and Surface Runoff (Both Average and Explicit) in Percent from 2010 to 2100 for Scenario Al.
       0510  20  30  40  50
                         I Kilometers
                        30    40    50
       0  5 10
                  20
                                   I Miles
      San Pedro Watershed
Change between  2010 and 2100
         N
        A
      Scenario A1
        Subwatersheds
        Human Use Index (%)
        |   | 0 - 0.44
        |   | 0.45-1.81
        |   | 1.82-4.93
        j^H 4.94-7.89
        ^B 7.9-13.96
  Streams
  Sediment (% Change}
      -0.15-0.53
      0.54-1.30
      1.31-216
 ^^2.17-3.72
 ^^•3.73-7.39
Subwatersheds   Growth Areas
Runoff (% Change) Runoff (% Change)
    | 0.00-0.27
    ] 0.28-0.97
    I 0.98-£39
    | 240 - 6.45
    I 6.46-10.01
0-11.73
11.74-42.51
42.52-57.65
57.66-70.84
70.85-12459
                                                                       15

-------
Figure 11:  Change in Human Use Index (HUI), Sediment Yield, and Surface Runoff (Both Average and Explicit) in Percent from 2010 to 2100 for Scenario A2.
        0 5 10  20  30  40  50
                         i Kilometers
                        30    40    50
       0  5  10
                  20
      San  Pedro Watershed
Change between  2010 and 2100
        Subwatersheds
        Human Use Index (%)
        |    | 0-0.44
        |    | 0.45-1.81
        |    | 1.82-4.93
        ^B 4.94-7.89
        •• 7.9-13.96
  Streams
  Sediment (% Change)
      -0.15-0.53
      0.54-1.30
      1.31 -216
 ^^217-3.72
 ^^3.73-7.39
         N
        A
Scenario A2
Subwatersheds   Growth Areas
Runoff (% Change) Runoff (% Change)
|    [0.00-0.27    |    [0-11.73
    | 0.28-0.97    |    [11.74-42.51
^H 0.98-2.39    ^| 42.52 - 57.65
^B 240 -6.45    ^B 57.66 - 70.84
••'3.46-10.01    ^•70.85-124.59
                                                                      16

-------
Figure 12:  Change in Human Use Index (HUI), Sediment Yield, and Surface Runoff (Both Average and Explicit) in Percent from 2010 to 2100 for Scenario Bl.
        0 5 10  20  30  40  50
                         i Kilometers
                        30    40    50
       0  5  10
                  20
      San  Pedro Watershed
Change between  2010 and 2100
        Subwatersheds
        Human Use Index (%)
        |    | 0-0.44
        |    | 0.45-1.81
        |    | 1.82-4.93
        ^B 4.94-7.89
        •• 7.9-13.96
  Streams
  Sediment (% Change)
      -0.15-0.53
      0.54-1.30
      1.31 -Z16
 ^^217-3.72
 ^^3.73-7.39
         N
       A
                          Scenario B1
Subwatersheds   Growth Areas
Runoff (% Change) Runoff (% Change)
                 ^| 0-11.73
                 ^| 11.74-42.51
                 ^ 42.52-57.65
                B 57.66-70.84
                • 70.85-124.59
|    | 0.00-0.27
|    | 0.28-0.97
^B 0.98-239
^H 2-40-6-45
^M 6.46-10.01
                                                                       17

-------
Figure 13:  Change in Human Use Index (HUI), Sediment Yield, and Surface Runoff (Both Average and Explicit) in Percent from 2010 to 2100 for Scenario B2.
        0510  20  30  40  50
                         i Kilometers
                        30    40    50
       0  5  10
                  20
      San Pedro Watershed
Change between  2010 and 2100
        Subwatersheds
        Human Use Index (%)
        |    | 0 - 0.44
        |    | 0.45-1.81
        |    | 1.82-493
        ^H 4.94-7.89
        ^H 7.9-13.96
  Stream s
  Sediment (% Change)
      -0.15-0.53
      0.54-1.30
      1.31-216
 ^—•217-3.72
 ^^•3.73-7.39
         N
        A
                          Scenario  B2
Subwatersheds   Growth Areas
Runoff (% Change) Runoff (% Change)
                 ^ 0-11.73
                 ^| 11.74-42.51
                 ^ 42.52-57.65
                 B 57.66-70.84
                 • 70.85-124.59
|    | 0.00-0.27
|    | 0.28-0.97
^B 0.98-239
^^ 2.40-6.45
^H 6.46-10.01
                                                                       18

-------
Figure 14:  Change in Human Use Index (HUI), Sediment Yield, and Surface Runoff (Both Average and Explicit) in Percent from 2010 to 2100 for Baseline BC.
        0510  20  30  40 50
                         i Kilometers
                        30    40    50
       0  5  10
                  20
      San Pedro Watershed
Change between  2010 and  2100
        Subwatersheds
        Human Use Index (%)
        |    | 0 - 0.44
        |    | 0.45-1.81
        |    | 1.82-493
        ^H 4.94-7.89
        ^H 7.9-13.96
  Stream s
  Sediment (% Change)
      -0.15-0.53
      0.54-1.30
      1.31-216
 ^—•217-3.72
 ^^•3.73-7.39
         N
        A
                          Scenario BC
Subwatersheds   Growth Areas
Runoff (% Change) Runoff (% Change)
                 ^ 0-11.73
                 ^| 11.74-42.51
                 ^ 42.52-57.65
                B 57.66-70.84
                • 70.85-124.59
|    | 0.00-0.27
|    | 0.28-0.97
^B 0.98-239
^^ 2.40-6.45
^H 6.46-10.01
                                                                       19

-------
20

-------
Discussion
   The results produced by the AGWA-SWAT modeling represent a qualitative assessment of
anticipated hydrologic change resulting from the ICLUS Al, A2, Bl, B2, and BC scenarios.
Historical rainfall and climate data are used to drive the SWAT model, so anticipated climate
change is not accounted for in the results, although climate change may amplify or reduce the
results presented here. Quantitative assessments of anticipated hydrologic impacts resulting
from the ICLUS scenarios would require calibration for the baseline (2010) for each scenario and
additional information to parameterize future decades, including but not limited to the design and
placement of flood mitigation measures (detention basins, riparian buffers, water harvesting,
recharge wells, open space infiltration galleries, etc.) that would be a required component of any
future development.

   The methodology presented herein uses HUI as an easily quantifiable metric for land cover
change resulting from urban growth; however it does  not distinguish between different types of
human use.  Different types of human use, ranging from "Developed, Open Space" to
"Developed, High Intensity" to "Cultivated Crops" have different hydrologic properties associated
with them, so despite the observed relationship between increasing HUI and increasing surface
runoff and sediment yield in the results, HUI cannot be used as a surrogate for actual hydrologic
modeling, which more closely captures the actual land cover properties and the complex
interactions and feedbacks that occur across a watershed.

   All the ICLUS scenarios show limited impact to the landscape at the watershed scale which
is also reflected by limited hydrologic impacts at the same scale. Impacts are more pronounced
at the subwatershed level where the effects of growth are not averaged out by the large
percentage of undevelopable lands (i.e. BLM, Forest Service, National Monuments, etc.) in the
watershed. Impacts are the highest when mapped below the subwatershed level, explicitly onto
the areas that experienced change.  The greatest changes in surface runoff occur in
subwatersheds where the change in HUI was also greatest;  accordingly, the smallest changes in
surface runoff occur in areas where the change in HUI was smallest.  Sediment yield in the
channels is largely driven by surface runoff, so channels immediately downstream of
subwatersheds with high changes in HUI and surface  runoff experience the largest changes in
sediment yield.  The results emphasize the importance of investigating localized impacts to
natural resources at appropriate scales as the impacts at the subwatershed scale and below can be
much greater than at the basin scale.  They also highlight the effective modulation of local
changes by large undevelopable areas. Because the San Pedro Watershed is large compared to
the area of developable land within it, the changes occurring on developable subwatersheds need
to be examined at a larger scale (i.e. smaller drainage area). At the subwatershed scale,
unacceptable hydrologic impacts may be observed that would otherwise be captured at the basin
scale if development was occurring basin-wide. Instead, basin-wide impacts are effectively
averaged out by undevelopable lands. Thus any interests in cumulative effect should be
addressed at the subwatershed versus basin scale for this western watershed or others like it
which contain large tracts of land in the public domain,  and are therefore not subject to direct
urbanization impacts.
                                           21

-------
Conclusions
   Hydrologic impacts of future growth through time were evaluated by using reclassified
ICLUS housing density data by decade from 2010 to 2100 to represent land cover in AGWA.
AGWA is a GIS tool initially developed to investigate the impacts of land cover change to
hydrologic response at the watershed scale to help identify vulnerable regions and evaluate the
impacts of management. AGWA allows for assessment of basin-wide changes and cumulative
effects at the watershed outlet as well as more localized changes at the subwatershed level and
below (explicit change mapped onto growth areas).

   ICLUS datasets were used for a number of reasons, including but not limited to their
availability (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/global/recordisplay.cfm?deid=205305): their use in a
similar EPA research effort (Johnson et al. 2012); the relative simplicity of their reclassification
to a product supported by AGWA; and the significant science behind the product (IPCC and
SRES consistent storylines).  Reclassification was necessary to convert from housing density
classes to "developed" type classes in the 2006 National Land Cover Database. All land cover
classes of the NLCD are supported in AGWA via look-up tables which allow for translation  of
land cover classes into hydrologic parameters necessary to parameterize the hydrologic models.

   Changes in land cover/use under the A2 scenario result in the greatest hydrologic impacts
due to a higher population growth rate and a larger natural land cover conversion rate.  The
results of the analyses for all scenarios  over the 2010 - 2100 year period (Tables 7 and 8)
indicate changes in the range of 0.2% (Bl scenario) to 1.04% (A2 scenario) on average surface
runoff across the watershed, and changes in the range of 0.2% (Bl scenario) to 1.19% (A2
scenario) on sediment yield at the watershed outlet. Investigating the results at the subwatershed
scale (smaller drainage areas for subwatershed #340), the changes in sediment yield are greater,
ranging  from 0.56% (Bl scenario) to 7.39% (A2 scenario) and the change in surface runoff
ranges from 0.43% (Bl scenario) to 4.91% (A2 scenario).

    Local changes to hydrology and sediment delivery at the subwatershed level and below are
relevant because at those scales the impacts tend to be much more significant. Additionally,
since the hydrologic impacts are tied to changes in land cover, and because the San Pedro
Watershed has large amounts of land that cannot be developed, the hydrologic impacts at a
watershed scale are expected to be limited.  The localized impact of development found in this
study may be representative for much of the western arid and semi-arid U.S., where 47.3% of the
11 coterminous  western states (AZ,  CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, OR, UT, WA, and WY) is
managed as federal public lands by BLM, FWS, NFS, USFS, and DOD (Gorte et al. 2012).
Despite  the constraints that limit developable areas, hydrologic changes at the watershed scale
are still expected to occur.

   Simulated increases in percent change of surface runoff and sediment yield closely tracked
increases in the  HUI metric; consequently growth and development should be moderated to
prevent large increases in surface runoff and sediment yield, which could degrade water quality
from sediment and pollutant transport, erode and alter the stream channel, degrade or destroy
habitat, decrease biological diversity, and increase flooding. The effects of growth may be
magnified or mitigated by climate change, though this is not accounted for in this analysis.
                                           22

-------
       Scenario analysis is an important framework to help understand and predict potential
impacts caused by decisions regarding conservation and development. For the EPA and other
stakeholders, hydrologic modeling systems (e.g. AGWA) integrated with internally-consistent
national scenario spatial data (i.e. ICLUS) provide an important set of tools that can help inform
land use planning and permitting, mitigation, restoration, and enforcement strategies.
                                           23

-------
24

-------
                                                Appendix A
                        Resam^e from
                        ICLUS 100m
                        Resolution to
                        NLCD2006 30m
Figure 15.  ArcMap Geoprocessing Model that Clipped, Projected, and Reclassifled the ICLUS Data into Classified Land
          Cover for use in AGW.
                                                  25

-------
Table 6:   Change in Human Use Index over Time.
                                            Appendix B

HUI
Base
2010
Change in Human Use Index from base
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
Subwatershed #340
Scenario Al
Scenario A2
Scenario Bl
Scenario B2
Baseline BC
14.69%
14.69%
14.69%
14.69%
14.69%
3.32%
3.23%
0.48%
0.40%
1.44%
3.66%
3.72%
0.49%
1.44%
3.56%
4.00%
4.98%
1.44%
3.28%
3.72%
4.31%
5.97%
1.44%
5.19%
4.72%
4.31%
6.67%
1.44%
5.87%
5.56%
4.31%
8.07%
1.44%
6.76%
6.28%
4.31%
10.22%
1.44%
7.38%
6.74%
4.31%
11.92%
1.44%
8.70%
7.77%
4.31%
13.96%
1.44%
9.12%
8.84%
Watershed
Scenario Al
Scenario A2
Scenario Bl
Scenario B2
Baseline BC
5.23%
5.09%
5.15%
5.09%
5.12%
0.36%
0.41%
0.22%
0.23%
0.34%
0.57%
0.66%
0.33%
0.37%
0.57%
0.69%
0.88%
0.39%
0.47%
0.74%
0.76%
1.10%
0.41%
0.52%
0.89%
0.79%
1.33%
0.42%
0.55%
1.04%
0.81%
1.54%
0.43%
0.58%
1.19%
0.83%
1.73%
0.43%
0.61%
1.33%
0.84%
1.95%
0.43%
0.66%
1.44%
0.85%
2.21%
0.43%
0.73%
1.54%
Table 7:   Change in Surface Runoff over Time.

Surface
Runoff Base
2010
Percent Change in Surface Runoff from Base
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
Subwatershed #340 Outlet
Scenario Al
Scenario A2
Scenario Bl
Scenario B2
Baseline BC
19.4 mm
19.4mm
19.4mm
19.4 mm
19.4mm
1.18%
1.13%
0.17%
0.13%
0.43%
1.32%
1.36%
0.17%
0.43%
1.22%
1.45%
1.67%
0.43%
1.18%
1.36%
1.53%
1.94%
0.43%
1.61%
1.62%
1.53%
2.25%
0.43%
1.94%
1.85%
1.53%
2.61%
0.43%
2.38%
2.08%
1.53%
3.25%
0.43%
2.74%
2.25%
1.53%
3.92%
0.43%
3.49%
2.47%
1.53%
4.91%
0.43%
4.30%
2.93%
Watershed Average
Scenario Al
Scenario A2
Scenario Bl
Scenario B2
Baseline BC
42.98 mm
42.95 mm
42.96 mm
42.96 mm
42.96 mm
0.15%
0.17%
0.08%
0.08%
0.13%
0.23%
0.29%
0.13%
0.14%
0.24%
0.29%
0.38%
0.16%
0.19%
0.32%
0.33%
0.47%
0.18%
0.21%
0.38%
0.34%
0.59%
0.19%
0.24%
0.45%
0.36%
0.70%
0.19%
0.26%
0.52%
0.37%
0.80%
0.20%
0.29%
0.59%
0.38%
0.91%
0.20%
0.34%
0.65%
0.39%
1.04%
0.20%
0.38%
0.71%
                                                  26

-------
Table 8:  Change in Channel Sediment Yield over Time.

Sediment
Yield Base
2010
Percent Change in Sediment Yield from Base
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
Subwatershed #340 Outlet
Scenario Al
Scenario A2
Scenario Bl
Scenario B2
Baseline BC
28.55 t
28.55 t
28.55 t
28.55 t
28.55 t
2%
1.93%
0.21%
0.18%
0.56%
2.28%
2.31%
0.21%
0.56%
2.07%
2.45%
2.73%
0.56%
2%
2.31%
2.56%
3.08%
0.56%
2.56%
2.66%
2.56%
3.64%
0.56%
3.08%
3.15%
2.56%
4.13%
0.56%
3.68%
3.43%
2.56%
5.04%
0.56%
4.31%
3.64%
2.56%
5.95%
0.56%
5.57%
3.96%
2.56%
7.39%
0.56%
7.15%
4.66%
Watershed Outlet
Scenario Al
Scenario A2
Scenario Bl
Scenario B2
Baseline BC
25220 1
25200 t
25210 t
25200 t
25200 t
0.16%
0.24%
0.12%
0.12%
0.16%
0.24%
0.32%
0.12%
0.20%
0.24%
0.36%
0.44%
0.16%
0.20%
0.36%
0.40%
0.56%
0.20%
0.24%
0.44%
0.40%
0.60%
0.20%
0.24%
0.52%
0.44%
0.75%
0.20%
0.28%
0.60%
0.48%
0.91%
0.20%
0.32%
0.60%
0.48%
0.95%
0.20%
0.36%
0.67%
0.52%
1.19%
0.20%
0.44%
0.79%
                                                     27

-------
                                                                Appendix C
Table 9:
Land Cover Change for Scenario Al from Baseline 2010 to 2100. (Note: Largest Positive/Negative Changes are Highlighted Red/Orange; values in parenthesis
are the percent change in cover type from the 2010 base case).
Scenario Al
Land Cover Type
Open Water
Developed, Open Space
Developed, Low Intensity
Developed, Medium Intensity
Developed, High Intensity
Barren Land
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Scrub/Shrub
Grasslands/Herbaceous
Pasture/Hay
Cultivated Crops
Woody Wetlands
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
Base
(km2)
2010
3.70
66.66
384.80
45.80
20.57
46.78
369.00
767.11
9.46
9523.18
104.83
12.33
70.38
57.91
3.90
Change from Base (km2)
2020
-0.05
(-1.24%)
-2.4
(-3.61%)
41.69
(10.84%)
4.17
(9.11%)
0.2
(0.95%)
-0.01
(-0.02%)
0
(0%)
-0.59
(-0.08%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-38.54
(-0.4%)
-1.22
(-1.17%)
-0.17
(-1.39%)
-2.11
(-3%)
-0.91
(-1.57%)
-0.06
(-1.48%)
2030
-0.08
(-2.04%)
-3.38
(-5.08%)
64.09
(16.66%)
7.41
(16.19%)
0.35
(1.72%)
-0.07
(-0.15%)
0
(0%)
-1.11
(-0.14%)
-0.02
(-0.19%)
-60.98
(-0.64%)
-1.86
(-1.78%)
-0.29
(-2.36%)
-2.63
(-3.74%)
-1.35
(-2.33%)
-0.09
(-2.42%)
2040
-0.08
(-2.09%)
-3.77
(-5.65%)
77.2
(20.06%)
8.6
(18.78%)
0.41
(2%)
-0.1
(-0.21%)
0
(0%)
-1.37
(-0.18%)
-0.02
(-0.19%)
-73.64
(-0.77%)
-2.25
(-2.15%)
-0.37
(-3.01%)
-2.96
(-4.21%)
-1.57
(-2.71%)
-0.1
(-2.47%)
2050
-0.09
(-2.31%)
-4.01
(-6.01%)
85.21
(22.14%)
9.5
(20.74%)
0.41
(2%)
-0.1
(-0.22%)
0
(0%)
-1.43
(-0.19%)
-0.02
(-0.19%)
-81.71
(-0.86%)
-2.42
(-2.31%)
-0.4
(-3.23%)
-3.1
(-4.41%)
-1.74
(-3%)
-0.11
(-2.88%)
2060
-0.09
(-2.31%)
-4.07
(-6.11%)
85.74
(22.28%)
11.77
(25.7%)
0.41
(2%)
-0.13
(-0.28%)
0
(0%)
-1.45
(-0.19%)
-0.02
(-0.19%)
-84.33
(-0.89%)
-2.42
(-2.31%)
-0.4
(-3.23%)
-3.11
(-4.42%)
-1.81
(-3.12%)
-0.11
(-2.88%)
2070
-0.14
(-3.67%)
-4.16
(-6.24%)
87.07
(22.63%)
13.41
(29.28%)
0.41
(2%)
-0.32
(-0.68%)
0
(0%)
-1.45
(-0.19%)
-0.02
(-0.19%)
-86.78
(-0.91%)
-2.42
(-2.31%)
-0.43
(-3.51%)
-3.11
(-4.42%)
-1.96
(-3.38%)
-0.11
(-2.88%)
2080
-0.14
(-3.89%)
-4.17
(-6.26%)
88.4
(22.97%)
13.95
(30.46%)
0.4
(1.96%)
-0.63
(-1.34%)
0
(0%)
-1.45
(-0.19%)
-0.02
(-0.19%)
-88.3
(-0.93%)
-2.42
(-2.31%)
-0.45
(-3.63%)
-3.11
(-4.42%)
-1.96
(-3.38%)
-0.11
(-2.88%)
2090
-0.16
(-4.33%)
-4.18
(-6.27%)
85.55
(22.23%)
18.43
(40.25%)
0.4
(1.93%)
-0.95
(-2.02%)
0
(0%)
-1.45
(-0.19%)
-0.02
(-0.19%)
-89.59
(-0.94%)
-2.42
(-2.31%)
-0.45
(-3.63%)
-3.11
(-4.42%)
-1.96
(-3.38%)
-0.11
(-2.88%)
2100
-0.18
(-4.75%)
-4.18
(-6.27%)
83.74
(21.76%)
21.31
(46.52%)
0.4
(1.93%)
-1.09
(-2.33%)
0
(0%)
-1.45
(-0.19%)
-0.02
(-0.19%)
-90.48
(-0.95%)
-2.42
(-2.31%)
-0.45
(-3.63%)
-3.11
(-4.42%)
-1.96
(-3.38%)
-0.11
(-2.88%)
                                                                       28

-------
Table 10:
Land Cover Change for Scenario A2 from Baseline 2010 to 2100. (Note: Largest Positive/Negative Changes are Highlighted Red/Orange; values in parenthesis
are the percent change in cover type from the 2010 base case).
Scenario A2
Land Cover Type
Open Water
Developed, Open Space
Developed, Low Intensity
Developed, Medium
Intensity
Developed, High Intensity
Barren Land
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Scrub/Shrub
Grasslands/Herbaceous
Pasture/Hay
Cultivated Crops
Woody Wetlands
Emergent Herbaceous
Wetlands
Base(km2)
2010
3.74
67.46
368.85
44.59
20.59
46.83
369.00
767.34
9.46
9538.10
105.03
12.35
70.90
58.23
3.94
Change from Base (km2)
2020
-0.09
(-2.34%)
-2.78
(-4.17%)
48.74
(12.67%)
3.58
(7.82%)
0.14
(0.66%)
-0.06
(-0.13%)
0
(0%)
-0.61
(-0.08%)
0
(-0.02%)
-43.96
(-0.46%)
-1.2
(-1.15%)
-0.16
(-1.29%)
-2.4
(-3.42%)
-1.08
(-1.86%)
-0.11
(-2.75%)
2030
-0.12
(-3.14%)
-4.16
(-6.23%)
76.08
(19.77%)
7.46
(16.28%)
0.31
(1.48%)
-0.12
(-0.25%)
0
(0%)
-1.25
(-0.16%)
-0.02
(-0.19%)
-70.78
(-0.74%)
-2.06
(-1.96%)
-0.31
(-2.47%)
-3.31
(-4.7%)
-1.6
(-2.77%)
-0.13
(-3.3%)
2040
-0.12
(-3.16%)
-5
(-7.51%)
99.76
(25.92%)
10.39
(22.7%)
0.37
(1.8%)
-0.16
(-0.35%)
0
(0%)
-1.65
(-0.22%)
-0.02
(-0.19%)
-94.06
(-0.99%)
-2.93
(-2.8%)
-0.42
(-3.38%)
-4.02
(-5.71%)
-1.98
(-3.42%)
-0.16
(-4.01%)
2050
-0.12
(-3.21%)
-5.54
(-8.32%)
123.66
(32.13%)
13.9
(30.34%)
0.4
(1.95%)
-0.17
(-0.37%)
0
(0%)
-1.99
(-0.26%)
-0.05
(-0.49%)
-118
(-1.24%)
-3.53
(-3.37%)
-0.77
(-6.2%)
-5.06
(-7.19%)
-2.53
(-4.36%)
-0.2
(-5.03%)
2060
-0.15
(-3.99%)
-6.12
(-9.17%)
143.26
(37.23%)
22
(48.04%)
0.41
(1.99%)
-0.17
(-0.37%)
0
(0%)
-2.74
(-0.36%)
-0.05
(-0.51%)
-142.37
(-1.5%)
-4.12
(-3.93%)
-1.35
(-10.96%)
-5.63
(-8%)
-2.79
(-4.81%)
-0.2
(-5.05%)
2070
-0.15
(-4.09%)
-6.63
(-9.95%)
157.66
(40.97%)
33.38
(72.89%)
0.43
(2.1%)
-0.2
(-0.43%)
0
(0%)
-3.56
(-0.46%)
-0.06
(-0.62%)
-165.29
(-1.74%)
-4.54
(-4.33%)
-1.78
(-14.4%)
-6.24
(-8.86%)
-2.81
(-4.85%)
-0.21
(-5.47%)
2080
-0.2
(-5.45%)
-7.02
(-10.53%)
164.3
(42.7%)
50.73
(110.77%)
0.52
(2.53%)
-0.44
(-0.94%)
0
(0%)
-4.03
(-0.53%)
-0.11
(-1.13%)
-186.31
(-1.96%)
-4.86
(-4.63%)
-2.53
(-20.53%)
-7.03
(-9.99%)
-2.81
(-4.86%)
-0.21
(-5.47%)
2090
-0.23
(-6.21%)
-7.66
(-11.49%)
166.67
(43.31%)
75.05
(163.88%)
0.57
(2.77%)
-1
(-2.15%)
0
(0%)
-4.5
(-0.59%)
-0.13
(-1.32%)
-209.77
(-2.2%)
-5.14
(-4.91%)
-3.44
(-27.88%)
-7.38
(-10.49%)
-2.82
(-4.87%)
-0.21
(-5.47%)
2100
-0.36
(-9.73%)
-8.1
(-12.15%)
161.1
(41.87%)
112.34
(245.29%)
0.78
(3.81%)
-1.73
(-3.69%)
0
(0%)
-4.7
(-0.61%)
-0.13
(-1.34%)
-238.25
(-2.5%)
-5.65
(-5.39%)
-4.04
(-32.73%)
-8.22
(-11.68%)
-2.84
(-4.91%)
-0.21
(-5.47%)
                                                                            29

-------
Table 11:
Land Cover Change for Scenario Bl from Baseline 2010 to 2100. (Note: Largest Positive/Negative Changes are Highlighted Red/Orange; values in parenthesis
are the percent change in cover type from the 2010 base case).
Scenario Bl
Land Cover Type
Open Water
Developed, Open Space
Developed, Low Intensity
Developed, Medium
Intensity
Developed, High Intensity
Barren Land
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Scrub/Shrub
Grasslands/Herbaceous
Pasture/Hay
Cultivated Crops
Woody Wetlands
Emergent Herbaceous
Wetlands
Base
(km2)
2010
3.70
67.09
376.05
45.25
20.55
46.78
369.00
767.27
9.46
9531.24
105.00
12.34
70.69
58.06
3.93
Change from Base (km2)
2020
0
(0%)
-1.41
(-2.12%)
24.24
(6.3%)
2.94
(6.43%)
0.15
(0.71%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
-0.51
(-0.07%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-22.94
(-0.24%)
-0.72
(-0.69%)
-0.04
(-0.36%)
-1.11
(-1.58%)
-0.52
(-0.89%)
-0.07
(-1.73%)
2030
-0.01
(-0.39%)
-1.97
(-2.96%)
36.5
(9.49%)
5.17
(11.28%)
0.22
(1.06%)
-0.01
(-0.01%)
0
(0%)
-0.61
(-0.08%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-34.96
(-0.37%)
-1.34
(-1.28%)
-0.12
(-0.95%)
-1.94
(-2.76%)
-0.82
(-1.41%)
-0.1
(-2.65%)
2040
-0.01
(-0.39%)
-2.3
(-3.45%)
41.35
(10.75%)
7.59
(16.58%)
0.36
(1.75%)
-0.03
(-0.06%)
0
(0%)
-0.94
(-0.12%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-41.44
(-0.44%)
-1.42
(-1.35%)
-0.12
(-0.99%)
-2.03
(-2.89%)
-0.9
(-1.55%)
-0.11
(-2.75%)
2050
-0.01
(-0.39%)
-2.37
(-3.56%)
42.38
(11.01%)
9.54
(20.82%)
0.37
(1.79%)
-0.04
(-0.08%)
0
(0%)
-1.35
(-0.18%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-43.48
(-0.46%)
-1.45
(-1.38%)
-0.12
(-0.99%)
-2.24
(-3.18%)
-1.09
(-1.89%)
-0.12
(-3.09%)
2060
-0.01
(-0.39%)
-2.37
(-3.56%)
42.56
(11.06%)
10.27
(22.42%)
0.39
(1.91%)
-0.04
(-0.09%)
0
(0%)
-1.52
(-0.2%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-44.16
(-0.46%)
-1.46
(-1.39%)
-0.12
(-0.99%)
-2.27
(-3.22%)
-1.13
(-1.95%)
-0.13
(-3.3%)
2070
-0.01
(-0.39%)
-2.39
(-3.58%)
42.38
(11.01%)
10.92
(23.85%)
0.39
(1.91%)
-0.04
(-0.09%)
0
(0%)
-1.55
(-0.2%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-44.6
(-0.47%)
-1.46
(-1.39%)
-0.12
(-0.99%)
-2.27
(-3.22%)
-1.13
(-1.95%)
-0.13
(-3.3%)
2080
-0.01
(-0.39%)
-2.39
(-3.58%)
42.1
(10.94%)
11.34
(24.76%)
0.39
(1.91%)
-0.04
(-0.09%)
0
(0%)
-1.55
(-0.2%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-44.73
(-0.47%)
-1.46
(-1.39%)
-0.12
(-0.99%)
-2.27
(-3.22%)
-1.13
(-1.95%)
-0.13
(-3.3%)
2090
-0.01
(-0.39%)
-2.4
(-3.61%)
41.28
(10.73%)
12.47
(27.24%)
0.39
(1.91%)
-0.04
(-0.09%)
0
(0%)
-1.55
(-0.2%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-45.03
(-0.47%)
-1.46
(-1.39%)
-0.12
(-0.99%)
-2.27
(-3.22%)
-1.13
(-1.95%)
-0.13
(-3.3%)
2100
-0.01
(-0.39%)
-2.4
(-3.61%)
40.88
(10.62%)
12.88
(28.12%)
0.39
(1.91%)
-0.04
(-0.09%)
0
(0%)
-1.55
(-0.2%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-45.03
(-0.47%)
-1.46
(-1.39%)
-0.12
(-0.99%)
-2.27
(-3.22%)
-1.13
(-1.95%)
-0.13
(-3.3%)
                                                                           30

-------
Table 12:
Land Cover Change for Scenario B2 from Baseline 2010 to 2100. (Note: Largest Positive/Negative Changes are Highlighted Red/Orange; values in parenthesis
are the percent change in cover type from the 2010 base case).
Scenario B2
Land Cover Type
Open Water
Developed, Open Space
Developed, Low Intensity
Developed, Medium
Intensity
Developed, High Intensity
Barren Land
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Scrub/Shrub
Grasslands/Herbaceous
Pasture/Hay
Cultivated Crops
Woody Wetlands
Emergent Herbaceous
Wetlands
Base
(km2)
2010
3.72
67.57
368.84
44.43
20.55
46.78
369.00
767.37
9.46
9537.61
105.14
12.37
71.41
58.22
3.95
Change from Base (km2)
2020
-0.02
(-0.49%)
-1.6
(-2.4%)
26.48
(6.88%)
3.14
(6.86%)
0.12
(0.58%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
-0.52
(-0.07%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-24.48
(-0.26%)
-0.71
(-0.68%)
-0.06
(-0.51%)
-1.67
(-2.38%)
-0.58
(-1.01%)
-0.09
(-2.26%)
2030
-0.03
(-0.88%)
-2.42
(-3.63%)
42.18
(10.96%)
5.65
(12.33%)
0.2
(0.98%)
-0.01
(-0.01%)
0
(0%)
-0.7
(-0.09%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-39.46
(-0.41%)
-1.48
(-1.41%)
-0.15
(-1.22%)
-2.68
(-3.81%)
-0.98
(-1.68%)
-0.12
(-3.07%)
2040
-0.04
(-0.97%)
-2.98
(-4.46%)
50.07
(13.01%)
9.64
(21.06%)
0.44
(2.15%)
-0.03
(-0.07%)
0
(0%)
-0.92
(-0.12%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-50.14
(-0.53%)
-1.72
(-1.64%)
-0.18
(-1.44%)
-2.93
(-4.16%)
-1.1
(-1.9%)
-0.13
(-3.35%)
2050
-0.04
(-1.02%)
-3.14
(-4.71%)
52.95
(13.76%)
12.75
(27.83%)
0.51
(2.49%)
-0.04
(-0.09%)
0
(0%)
-1.37
(-0.18%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-54.95
(-0.58%)
-1.76
(-1.68%)
-0.18
(-1.47%)
-3.21
(-4.56%)
-1.37
(-2.36%)
-0.15
(-3.83%)
2060
-0.04
(-1.02%)
-3.27
(-4.9%)
50.28
(13.07%)
19.07
(41.64%)
0.73
(3.54%)
-0.08
(-0.16%)
0
(0%)
-1.69
(-0.22%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-58.25
(-0.61%)
-1.83
(-1.74%)
-0.18
(-1.47%)
-3.22
(-4.58%)
-1.37
(-2.36%)
-0.15
(-3.83%)
2070
-0.09
(-2.31%)
-3.32
(-4.98%)
41.4
(10.76%)
31.1
(67.9%)
0.85
(4.11%)
-0.14
(-0.3%)
0
(0%)
-1.71
(-0.22%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-61.27
(-0.64%)
-1.88
(-1.8%)
-0.18
(-1.47%)
-3.22
(-4.58%)
-1.37
(-2.36%)
-0.15
(-3.83%)
2080
-0.09
(-2.31%)
-3.46
(-5.19%)
23.97
(6.23%)
52.38
(114.38%)
0.94
(4.57%)
-0.18
(-0.39%)
0
(0%)
-1.73
(-0.23%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-64.97
(-0.68%)
-1.91
(-1.83%)
-0.18
(-1.47%)
-3.23
(-4.6%)
-1.38
(-2.39%)
-0.15
(-3.83%)
2090
-0.23
(-6.08%)
-3.64
(-5.47%)
-0.28
(-0.07%)
82.56
(180.26%)
0.96
(4.65%)
-0.18
(-0.39%)
0
(0%)
-1.75
(-0.23%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-70.43
(-0.74%)
-1.98
(-1.89%)
-0.22
(-1.81%)
-3.26
(-4.63%)
-1.38
(-2.39%)
-0.15
(-3.83%)
2100
-0.25
(-6.77%)
-3.78
(-5.67%)
-17.79
(-4.62%)
107.91
(235.63%)
1.04
(5.07%)
-0.24
(-0.52%)
0
(0%)
-1.81
(-0.24%)
-0.01
(-0.07%)
-77.87
(-0.82%)
-1.99
(-1.9%)
-0.22
(-1.81%)
-3.41
(-4.85%)
-1.43
(-2.47%)
-0.15
(-3.83%)
                                                                          31

-------
Table 13:  Land Cover Change for Baseline BC from Baseline 2010 to 2100.  (Note: Largest Positive/Negative Changes are Highlighted Red/Orange; values in parenthesis
          are the percent change in cover type from the 2010 base case).
Scenario BC
Land Cover Type
Open Water
Developed, Open Space
Developed, Low Intensity
Developed, Medium
Intensity
Developed, High Intensity
Barren Land
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Scrub/Shrub
Grasslands/Herbaceous
Pasture/Hay
Cultivated Crops
Woody Wetlands
Emergent Herbaceous
Wetlands
Base
(km2)
2010
3.74
67.28
372.25
44.77
20.56
46.83
369.00
767.33
9.46
9534.95
104.96
12.35
70.83
58.14
3.94
Change from Base (km2)
2020
-0.07
(-2%)
-2.28
(-3.43%)
40.45
(10.51%)
3.04
(6.63%)
0.16
(0.76%)
-0.06
(-0.13%)
0
(0%)
-0.53
(-0.07%)
0
(-0.02%)
-36.53
(-0.38%)
-1.19
(-1.13%)
-0.14
(-1.11%)
-2.02
(-2.87%)
-0.71
(-1.23%)
-0.09
(-2.35%)
2030
-0.1
(-2.82%)
-3.44
(-5.16%)
65.79
(17.1%)
5.81
(12.68%)
0.21
(1.03%)
-0.09
(-0.2%)
0
(0%)
-1.03
(-0.13%)
-0.02
(-0.19%)
-60.7
(-0.64%)
-1.78
(-1.7%)
-0.26
(-2.1%)
-2.91
(-4.13%)
-1.36
(-2.35%)
-0.12
(-3.11%)
2040
-0.12
(-3.16%)
-4.29
(-6.44%)
84.62
(21.99%)
8.37
(18.27%)
0.34
(1.67%)
-0.13
(-0.27%)
0
(0%)
-1.32
(-0.17%)
-0.02
(-0.19%)
-79.33
(-0.83%)
-2.4
(-2.29%)
-0.34
(-2.76%)
-3.56
(-5.06%)
-1.67
(-2.88%)
-0.15
(-3.92%)
2050
-0.12
(-3.16%)
-4.83
(-7.25%)
100.71
(26.17%)
10.28
(22.45%)
0.39
(1.91%)
-0.16
(-0.35%)
0
(0%)
-1.74
(-0.23%)
-0.04
(-0.37%)
-95.08
(-1%)
-2.8
(-2.67%)
-0.49
(-3.94%)
-4.07
(-5.78%)
-1.91
(-3.29%)
-0.16
(-4.15%)
2060
-0.13
(-3.43%)
-5.24
(-7.87%)
117.86
(30.63%)
12.07
(26.36%)
0.4
(1.96%)
-0.17
(-0.36%)
0
(0%)
-1.98
(-0.26%)
-0.05
(-0.49%)
-111.86
(-1.17%)
-3.31
(-3.15%)
-0.65
(-5.28%)
-4.73
(-6.72%)
-2.04
(-3.52%)
-0.19
(-4.75%)
2070
-0.15
(-3.99%)
-5.52
(-8.28%)
133.25
(34.63%)
14.3
(31.22%)
0.42
(2.06%)
-0.17
(-0.36%)
0
(0%)
-2.52
(-0.33%)
-0.05
(-0.51%)
-127.87
(-1.34%)
-3.5
(-3.34%)
-0.92
(-7.46%)
-4.98
(-7.08%)
-2.1
(-3.63%)
-0.19
(-4.75%)
2080
-0.15
(-3.99%)
-5.87
(-8.8%)
144.52
(37.56%)
20.08
(43.85%)
0.44
(2.13%)
-0.23
(-0.49%)
0
(0%)
-2.84
(-0.37%)
-0.05
(-0.51%)
-143.4
(-1.51%)
-3.85
(-3.67%)
-1.15
(-9.31%)
-5.21
(-7.4%)
-2.12
(-3.65%)
-0.19
(-4.75%)
2090
-0.21
(-5.57%)
-6.2
(-9.29%)
152.91
(39.74%)
25.51
(55.69%)
0.43
(2.11%)
-0.48
(-1.03%)
0
(0%)
-3.09
(-0.4%)
-0.05
(-0.51%)
-155.34
(-1.63%)
-4.18
(-3.98%)
-1.44
(-11.65%)
-5.56
(-7.9%)
-2.13
(-3.68%)
-0.19
(-4.75%)
2100
-0.23
(-6.11%)
-6.39
(-9.59%)
153.97
(40.01%)
36.23
(79.1%)
0.43
(2.08%)
-1.02
(-2.18%)
0
(0%)
-3.54
(-0.46%)
-0.06
(-0.62%)
-165.19
(-1.73%)
-4.32
(-4.12%)
-1.73
(-14.03%)
-5.83
(-8.28%)
-2.13
(-3.69%)
-0.19
(-4.75%)
                                                                          32

-------
References
Arnold, J.G., Williams, J.R., Srinivasan, R., King, K.W. and Griggs, R.H. 1994. SWAT: Soil
       Water Assessment Tool. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
       Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Temple, TX.

Bagstad, K.J., Semmens, D., Winthrop, R., Jaworski, D., and Larson, J. 2012. Ecosystem
       Services Valuation to Support Decision-making on Public Lands - A Case Study of the
       San Pedro River Watershed, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
       Report 2012-5251. 93pp. http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5251/

Bailie, M., Hogan, J., Ekwurzel, B., Wahi, A. K., and Eastoe, C.J. 2007. Quantifying Water
       Sources to a Semiarid Riparian Ecosystem, San Pedro River, Arizona, J. Geophys. Res.,
       doi: 10.1029/2006JG000263.

Bierwagen, E.G., Theobald, D.M., Pyke, C.R., Choate, A., Groth, P., Thomas, J.V., and
       Morefield, P. 2010.  National Housing and Impervious Surface Scenarios for Integrated
       Climate Impact Assessments.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
       United States of America. Vol. 107, No. 49 20887-20892.

Boykin, K.G, Schrader, T.S., Guy, R.K., Kepner, W.G, Ernst, A.E., el Sadek, A.N., and Yee,
       W.W.S. 2012. San Pedro River Basin Data Browser. EPA/600/R-12/550. 19 Pp.

Brauman, K.A., Daily, G.C., Duarte, T.K., and Mooney, H.A. 2007. The Nature  and Value of
       Ecosystem Services: An Overview Highlighting Hydrologic Services.  Annual Review of
       Environmental Resources 32:67-98.

Brooks, P.D., Haas, P. A., and Huth, A.K. 2007a.  Seasonal Variability in the Concentration and
       Flux of Organic Matter and Inorganic Nitrogen in a Semiarid Catchment,  San Pedro
       River, Arizona. J. Geophysical Res., 112, G03S04, doi:  10.1029/2006JG000275.

Brooks, P.D., and Lemon, M.M. 2007b.  Spatial Variability in Dissolved Organic Matter and
       Inorganic Nitrogen Concentrations in a Semiarid Stream, San Pedro River, Arizona, J.
       Geophysical Res., 112,  G03S05,  doi:10.1029/2006JG000262.

Burns, IS., Levick, L.R. Kepner, W.G., Goodrich, B.C.,  and Guertin, D.P. 2012.
       Investigating Impacts of Future Scenarios on Runoff and Sediment Yield: A
       Methodology and Application on the Upper, Middle, and Lower San Pedro Watershed.
       Interim Report for Project DW12923288:  Spatially Integrated Environmental Modeling
       to Support Ecosystem Services and CWA Jurisdictional Assessment. 26 pp.

Chapin, F.S., Matson, P. A., and Mooney, H.A. 2002. Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem
       Ecology.  Springer Science, New York, New York, USA.

Daniel, E.B., Camp, J.V., LeBoueuf, E.F., Penrod, J.R., Dobbins, J.P., and Abkowitz, M.D.
       2011. Watershed Modeling and its Applications: A State-of-the-Art Review.  The Open
       Hydrology Journal 5:26-50.
                                          33

-------
DeFries, R.S., and Eshleman, K.N. 2004. Land-use Change and Hydrologic Processes:  A Major
       Focus for the Future. Hydrological Processes 18:2183-2186.

Ebert, D.W., and Wade, T.G. 2004. Analytical Tools Interface for Landscape Assessments
       (ATtlLA).  EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research
       Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division, Landscape Ecology Branch, Las Vegas,
       NV (EPA/600/R-04/083), 39 pp.

Fry, J., Xian, G., Jin, S., Dewitz, J., Homer, C., Yang, L., Barnes, C., Herold, N., and Wickham,
       J. 2011.  Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous
       United States, PE&RS, Vol. 77(9):858-864.

Goodrich, D.C., Williams, D.G., Unkrich, C.L., Hogan, J.F., Scott, R.L., Hultine, K.R., Pool, D.,
       Goes, A.L., and Miller, S.N. 2004.  Comparison of Methods to Estimate Ephemeral
       Channel Recharge, Walnut Gulch, San Pedro River Basin, Arizona. In: Groundwater
       Recharge in a Desert Environment: The Southwestern United States, J.F. Hogan, F.M.
       Phillips and B.R. Scanlon (eds.), Water Science and Applications Series, Vol. 9,
       American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 77-99.

Gorte, R.W., Vincent, C.H., Hanson, L.A., and Rosenblum, M.R. 2012.  Federal Land
       Ownership: Overview and Data. Congressional Research Service R42346. 24pp.
       http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
       the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
       (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) p 881.

Johnson, T.E., Butcher, J.B, Parker, A., and Weaver, C.P. 2012.  Investigating the Sensitivity of
       U.S. Streamflow and Water Quality to Climate Change:  The U.S. EPA Global Change
       Research Program's "20 Watersheds" Project. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
       2012.138:453-464.

Kepner, W.G., Ramsey, M.M., Brown, E.S., Jarchow, M.E., Dickinson, K.J.M., and Mark, A.F.
       2012. Hydrologic Futures: Using Scenario Analysis to Evaluate Impacts of Forecasted
       Land Use Change on Hydrologic Services. Ecosphere Volume 3:7 Article 69. 25 pp.
       http://www.esajournals.Org/doi/pdf/10.1890/ESll-00367.l

Kepner, W.G., Semmens, D. J., Bassett, S. D., Mouat, D. A., and Goodrich, D. C. 2004.
       Scenario Analysis for the  San Pedro River, Analyzing Hydrological Consequences of a
       Future Environment. Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 94:115-127.

Kepner, W.G., Semmens, D.J., Heggem, D.T., Evanson, E.J., Edmonds, C.M., Scott,  S.N., and
       Ebert, D.W. 2003.  The San Pedro River Geo-data Browser and Assessment Tools.
       EPA/600/C-03/008; ARS/152432. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office  of
       Research and Development, Las Vegas, NV.
                                         34

-------
Kepner, W.G., C. J. Watts, C.M. Edmonds, J. K. Maingi, S.E. Marsh, and G. Luna 2000. A
       Landscape Approach for Detecting and Evaluating Change in a Semi-arid Environment.
       Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 64, No. 1: 179-195.

Levick, L.R., Fonseca, J., Goodrich, D.C., Hernandez, M., Semmens, D.J., Stromberg, J., Leidy,
       R., Scianni, M., Guertin, D.P., Tluczek, M., and Kepner, W.G. 2008. The Ecological and
       Hydrological Significance of Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams in the Arid and Semi-
       arid American Southwest. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and USDA/ARS,
       EPA/600/R-08/134, ARS/233046, 116 pp.

Liu, Y., Gupta, H., Springer, E., and Wagener,  T. 2008a.  Linking Science with Environmental
       Decision Making: Experiences from an Integrated Modeling Approach to Supporting
       Sustainable Water Resources Management. Environmental Modelling and Software
       23:846-858.

Liu, Y., Mahmoud, M., Hartmann, H., Stewart, S., Wagener, T., Semmens, D.J., Stewart, R.,
       Gupta, H., Dominguez, D., Hulse, D., Letcher, R., Rashleigh, B., Street, R., Ticehurst, J.,
       Twery, M., Van Delden, H., Waldick, R.,  White, D., Winter, L., and Smith, C. 2008b.
       Formal Scenario Development for Environmental Impact Assessment Studies. Chapter 9,
       A. Jakeman, A. Voinov, A. Rizzoli, and S. Chen (ed.), Environmental Modelling,
       Software and Decision Support. Elsevier Science, New York, NY, pp. 145-162.

Mahmoud M., Liu, Y., Hartmann, H., Stewart,  S., Wagener, T.,  Semmens, D., Stewart, R.,
       Gupta, H., Dominguez, D., Dominguez, F., Hulse, D., Letcher, R., Rashleigh, B., Smith,
       C., Street, R., Ticehurst, J., Twery, M., van Delden, H., Waldick, R., White, D., and
       Winter, L. 2009. A formal framework for scenario development in support of
       environmental decision-making. Environmental Modeling &  Software 24:798-808.

March, H., Therond, O., and Leenhardt, D.  2012. Water Futures: Reviewing Water-scenario
       Analyses through an Original Interpretative Framework.  Ecological Economics 82
       (2012)126-137.

Miller, S.N., Semmens, D.J., Goodrich, D.C., Hernandez, M., Miller, R.C., Kepner, W.G., and
       Guertin, D.P. 2007.  The Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment Tool.
       Environmental Modelling & Software, 22(3):365-377.

Nakicenovic N., and Swart R., Eds. 2000.  Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (Cambridge
       University Press, Cambridge, UK) p 570.

Neitsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G, Kiniry,  J.R., Williams, J.R., and King, K.W. 2002.  "Soil and Water
       Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation, Version 2000."  USDA Agricultural
       Research  Service (ARS) Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Texas
       Agricultural Experiment Station, Blackland Research Center, Temple, TX.

Semmens D.J., Goodrich, D.C., Unkrich, C.L., Smith, R.E., Woolhiser, D.A., Miller, S.N. 2008.
       KINEROS2 and the AGWA Modelling Framework. In:  Hydrological Modelling in Arid
       and  Semi-Arid Areas. London: Cambridge University Press,  pp. 49-69.
                                          35

-------
Srinivasan, R., and Arnold, J.G. 1994.  Integration of a Basin-scale Water Quality Model with
       GIS.  Journal of American Water Resources Association, 30, 453-462.

Steinitz, C., Arias, H., Bassett, S., Flaxman, M., Goode, T., Maddock T. Ill, Mouat, D., Peiser,
       R. and Shearer, A. 2003.  Alternative Futures for Changing Landscapes. The Upper San
       Pedro River Basin in Arizona and Sonora, Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.

Triantakonstantis, D. and Mountrakis, G. 2012.  Urban Growth Prediction:  A Review of
       Computational Models and Human Perceptions. J. Geographic Information System
       4:555-587.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) 1994.
       State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Data Base:  Data Use Information, National
       Cartography and GIS Center, Fort Worth, Texas.

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), Bureau of Reclamation 2012. Colorado River Basin
       Water Supply and Demand Study (Study Report and Technical Reports A-G).
       http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/fmalreport/index.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1993. North American Landscape
       Characterization (NALC) Research Brief. EPA/600/S-93/0005, Office of Research and
       Development, Washington, DC, 8pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2009. Land-Use Scenarios: National-Scale
       Housing-Density Scenarios Consistent with Climate Change  Storylines. U.S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Global Change Research Program, National Center
       for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-08/076F
       (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/global/recordisplay.cfm?deid=203458).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010. ICLUS VI.3 User's Manual: ARCGIS Tools for
       Modeling U.S. Housing Density Growth. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Global
       Change Research Program, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington,
       DC. EPA/600/R-09/143F
       (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/gl obal/recordisplay.cfm?deid=205305).

Vitousek, P.M. 1994. Beyond Global Warming: Ecology and Global Change. Ecology
       75(7):1861-1876.

Vorosmarty, J., Green, P., Salisbury, J., Lammers, R.B. 2000. Global Water Resources:
       Vulnerability from Climate Change and Population Growth. Science 289, 284-288.

Whitehead, P.G., Wilby, R.L., Battarbee, R.W.,  Kernan, M., and Wade, A.J. (2009). "A Review
       of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Surface Water Quality." Hydrol. Sci.,
       54(1), 101-123.
                                          36

-------

-------
&EPA
      United States
      Environmental Protection
      Agency

      Office of Research
      and Development (8101R)
      Washington, DC 20460

      Official Business
      Penalty for Private Use
      $300

      EPA/600/R-13/074
      USDA/ARS/294076
      June 2013
      www.epa.gov
Please make all necessary changes on the below label, detach
or copy and return to the address in the upper left hand corner.

If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE CD;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left hand corner.
PRESORTED STANDARD
 POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 EPA PER MIT No, G-35
                                              Recycled/Recyclable
                                              Printed with vegetable-based ink on
                                              paper that contains a minimum of
                                              50% post-consumer fiber content
                                              processed chlorine free

-------