Climatic Change

, 91:335 | Cite as

Climate warming, water storage, and Chinook salmon in California’s Sacramento Valley

  • David Yates
  • Hector Galbraith
  • D. Purkey
  • A. Huber-Lee
  • J. Sieber
  • J. West
  • S. Herrod-Julius
  • B. Joyce
Article

Abstract

The Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawns and rears in the cold, freshwater rivers and tributaries of California’s Central Valley, with four separate seasonal runs including fall and late-fall runs, a winter run, and a spring run. Dams and reservoirs have blocked access to most of the Chinook’s ancestral spawning areas in the upper reaches and tributaries. Consequently, the fish rely on the mainstem of the Sacramento River for spawning habitat. Future climatic warming could lead to alterations of the river’s temperature regime, which could further reduce the already fragmented Chinook habitat. Specifically, increased water temperatures could result in spawning and rearing temperature exceedences, thereby jeopardizing productivity, particularly in drought years. Paradoxically, water management plays a key role in potential adaptation options by maintaining spawning and rearing habitat now and in the future, as reservoirs such as Shasta provide a cold water supply that will be increasingly needed to counter the effects of climate change. Results suggest that the available cold pool behind Shasta could be maintained throughout the summer assuming median projections of mid-21st century warming of 2°C, but the maintenance of the cold pool with warming on the order of 4°C could be very challenging. The winter and spring runs are shown to be most at risk because of the timing of their reproduction.

References

  1. Berman CH (1990) The effect of elevated holding temperatures on adult spring Chinook salmon reproductive success. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  2. Bisson PA, Davis GE (1976) Production of juvenile Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytyscha, in a heated model stream. NOAA Fish Bull 74(4):763–774Google Scholar
  3. California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (1988) Water temperature effects on Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) with emphasis on the Sacramento River. A Literature Review. DWR Northern District, January, 1988Google Scholar
  4. CALSIM II, (2000) Water Resource Simulation Model Manual, California Department of Water Resources, 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814Google Scholar
  5. Doherty J (2002) Model Independent Parameter Estimation, (PEST), User’s Manual, 5th Addition, Watermark Numerical Computing, 7944 Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda MD. 20814Google Scholar
  6. Field CB, Daily GC, Davis FW, Gaines S, Matson PA, Melack J, Miller NL (1999) Confronting climate change in California. The Union of Concerned Scientists and The Ecological Society of America, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  7. Hallock RJ, Elwell RF, Fry DH (1970) Migrations of adult king salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha in the San Joaquin Delta as demonstrated by the use of sonic tags. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  8. Hayhoe K, et al. (2004) Emissions pathways, climate change and impacts on California, 2004. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 34Google Scholar
  9. Hinze JA, Culver AN, Rice GV (1956) Annual Report: Nimbus salmon and steelhead hatchery, fiscal year 1955–56, California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fish. Admin. Rep. No. 56–25, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  10. Hsu NS, Cheng KW (2002) Network flow optimization model for Basin-Scale water supply planning. J Water Resour Plan Manage 128(2):102–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leitritz E, Lewis RC (1976) Trout and salmon culture. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bull, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. Marine KR, Cech JJ (1998) Effects of elevated water temperature on some aspects of the physiological and ecological performance of juvenile Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha: implications for management of California’s Chinook salmon stocks. Stream Temperature Monitoring and Assessment Workshop, January, 1998. Sacramento, California, Forest Science Project. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  13. Maurer EP (2007) Uncertainty in hydrologic impacts of climate change in the Sierra Nevada, California under two emissions scenarios. Clim Change 82(3–4):309–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maurer EP, Wood AW, Adam JC, Lettenmaier DP, Nijssen B (2002) A long-term hydrologically-based data set of land surface fluxes and states for the conterminous United States. J Climate 15(22):3237–3251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McCullough DA (1999) A review and synthesis of effects of alterations to the water temperature regime on freshwater life stages of salmonids with special reference to Chinook Salmon. U.S. EPA, Region 10, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  16. Meehan WR, Bjornn TC (1991) Salmonid distributions and life histories. In: Meehan WR (ed) Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitat. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar
  17. Moyle PB, Van Dyck PC, Tomelleri J (2002) Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  18. NOAA (2001) Status review of Chinook Salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-35Google Scholar
  19. San Francisco Estuary Project (SFEP) (1992) State of the estuary. A report on conditions and problems in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary. SFEP, Oakland, CAGoogle Scholar
  20. Tebaldi C, Smith R, Nychka D, Mearns L (2005) Quantifying uncertainty in projections of regional climate change: a Bayesian approach to the analysis of multi-model ensembles. J Clim 18(10):1524–1540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. United States Department of Interior (USDOI) (1996) Recovery plan for the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta native fishes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  22. Vogelmann JE, Howard SM, Yang L, Larson CR, Wylie BK, Van Driel N (2001) Completion of the 1990s total impervious area for the conterminous United States from landsat thematic mapper data and ancillary data sources. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 67:650–652Google Scholar
  23. Westphal K, Vogel R, Kirshen P, Chapra S (2003) Decision support system for adaptive water supply management. J Water Resour Plan Manage 129(3):165–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yates D, Sieber J, Purkey D, Huber-Lee A (2005a) WEAP21 a demand, priority, and preference driven water planning model: part 1, model characteristics. Water Int 30(4):487–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yates D, Purkey D, Galbraith H, Huber-Lee A, Sieber J (2005b) WEAP21 a demand, priority, and preference driven water planning model: part 2, aiding freshwater ecosystem service evaluation. Water Int 30(4):501–512Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Yates
    • 1
  • Hector Galbraith
    • 2
  • D. Purkey
    • 4
  • A. Huber-Lee
    • 3
  • J. Sieber
    • 4
  • J. West
    • 5
  • S. Herrod-Julius
    • 5
  • B. Joyce
    • 4
  1. 1.National Center for Atmospheric ResearchBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Galbraith Environmental SciencesDummerstonUSA
  3. 3.International Food Policy Research InstituteWashingtonUSA
  4. 4.Stockholm Environment Institute-US CenterMedfordUSA
  5. 5.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations