Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 754–774 | Cite as

Implications for Future Survival of Delta Smelt from Four Climate Change Scenarios for the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, California

  • Larry R. Brown
  • William A. Bennett
  • R. Wayne Wagner
  • Tara Morgan-King
  • Noah Knowles
  • Frederick Feyrer
  • David H. Schoellhamer
  • Mark T. Stacey
  • Michael Dettinger
Article

Abstract

Changes in the position of the low salinity zone, a habitat suitability index, turbidity, and water temperature modeled from four 100-year scenarios of climate change were evaluated for possible effects on delta smelt Hypomesus transpacificus, which is endemic to the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. The persistence of delta smelt in much of its current habitat into the next century appears uncertain. By mid-century, the position of the low salinity zone in the fall and the habitat suitability index converged on values only observed during the worst droughts of the baseline period (1969–2000). Projected higher water temperatures would render waters historically inhabited by delta smelt near the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers largely uninhabitable. However, the scenarios of climate change are based on assumptions that require caution in the interpretation of the results. Projections like these provide managers with a useful tool for anticipating long-term challenges to managing fish populations and possibly adapting water management to ameliorate those challenges.

Keywords

Delta smelt Hypomesus transpacificus San Francisco Estuary Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Climate change Delta Estuary 

References

  1. Anderson, J., F.I. Chung, M. Anderson, L. Brekke, D. Easton, et al. 2008. Progress on incorporating climate change into management of California’s water resources. Climatic Change 87(suppl. 1): 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, H.G. Hidalgo, C. Bonfils, B.D. Santer, T. Das, G. Bala, A.W. Wood, T. Nozawa, A.A. Mirin, D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger. 2008. Human-induced changes in the hydrology of the western United States. Science 319: 1080–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baskerville-Bridges, B., J.C. Lindberg, and S.I. Doroshov. 2004a. The effect of light intensity, alga concentration, and prey density on the feeding behavior of delta smelt larvae. American Fisheries Society Symposium 39: 219–228.Google Scholar
  4. Baskerville-Bridges, B., J.C. Lindberg, J.V. Eenennaam, S.I. Doroshov. 2004b. Delta smelt research and culture program 5-Year Summary, 1998–2003. Final report to CALFED Bay-Delta Program, Sacramento, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Beamish, R.J. (ed.). 1995. Climate change and northern fish populations. Canadian Special Publication in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 121.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, W.A. 2005. Critical assessment of the delta smelt population in the San Francisco estuary, California. Online San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 3(2). http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol3/iss2/art1
  7. Bennett, W.A., and P.B. Moyle. 1996. Where have all the fishes gone? Interactive factors producing fish declines in the Sacramento San Joaquin Estuary. In San Francisco Bay: the ecosystem, ed. J.T. Hollibaugh, 519–542. San Francisco: Pacific Division American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, W.A., J.A. Hobbs, and S.J. Teh. 2008. Interplay of environmental forcing and growth-selective mortality in the poor year-class success of delta smelt in 2005. Final report to the POD Management Team of the Interagency Ecological Program for the San Francisco Estuary, Sacramento, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Brekke, L. 2008. Sensitivity of future Central Valley Project and State Water Project Operations to potential climate change and associated sea level rise. US Bureau of Reclamation, Final report. Appendix R of OCAP biological assessment on the continued long-term operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project. http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/ocapBA_2008.html
  10. Brekke, L.D., M.D. Dettinger, E.P. Maurer, and M. Anderson. 2008. Significance of model credibility in projection distributions for regional hydroclimatological impacts of climate change. Climatic Change 89: 371–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brekke, L.D., E.P. Maurer, J.D. Anderson, M.D. Dettinger, E.S. Townsley, et al. 2009. Assessing reservoir operations risk under climate change. Water Resources Research 45: W04411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brekke, L.D., N.L. Miller, K.E. Bashford, N.W.T. Quinn, and J.A. Dracup. 2004. Climate change impacts uncertainty for water resources in the San Joaquin River Basin, California. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40: 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown, L.R., and P.B. Moyle. 2005. Native fish communities of the Sacramento–San Joaquin watershed, California: a history of decline. American Fisheries Society Symposium 45: 75–98.Google Scholar
  14. Castillo, G., J. Morinaka, J. Lindberg, R. Fujimura, B. Baskerville-Bridges, J. Hobbs, G. Tigan, and L. Ellison. 2010. Pre-screen loss and fish facility efficiency for delta smelt at the south Delta’s State Water Project California. Sacramento: Final report to CALFED Science Program.Google Scholar
  15. Cayan, D., M. Tyree, M. Dettinger, H. Hidalgo, T. Das, E. Maurer, P. Bromirski, N. Graham, and R. Flick. 2009. Climate change scenarios and sea level rise estimates for California, 2008 Climate Change Scenarios Assessment. California Energy Commission Report CEC-500-2009-014-D, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  16. Cayan, D.R., E.P. Maurer, M.D. Dettinger, M. Tyree, and K. Hayhoe. 2008. Climate change scenarios for the California region. Climatic Change 87(Suppl. 1): 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cherkauer, K.A., L.C. Bowling, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2003. Variable infiltration capacity cold land process model updates. Global and Planetary Change 38: 151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chu, C., N.E. Mandrak, and C.K. Minns. 2005. Potential impacts of climate change on the distributions of several common and rare freshwater fishes in Canada. Diversity and Distributions 11: 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cloern, J.E., N. Knowles, L.R. Brown, D. Cayan, M.D. Dettinger, et al. 2011. Projected evolution of California’s San Francisco Bay-Delta-River System in a century of climate change. PLoS One 6(9): e24465. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Conomos, T.J. (ed.). 1979. San Francisco Bay: the urbanized estuary. Investigation into the natural history of San Francisco Bay and Delta with reference to the influence of man. San Francisco: Pacific Division American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  21. Dege, M., and L.R. Brown. 2004. Effect of outflow on spring and summertime distribution and abundance of larval and juvenile fishes in the upper San Francisco Estuary. American Fisheries Society Symposium 39: 49–66.Google Scholar
  22. Delworth, T.L., A.J. Broccoli, A. Rosati, R.J. Stouffer, V. Balaji, J.A. Beesly, W.F. Cooke, K.W. Dixon, J. Dunne, K.A. Dunne, J.W. Durachta, K.L. Findell, P. Ginoux, A. Gnanadeiskan, C.T. Gordon, S.M. Griffies, R. Gidgel, M.J. Harrison, I.M. Held, R.S. Hemler, L.W. Horowitz, S.A. Klein, T.R. Knutson, P.J. Kushner, A.R. Langenhorst, H.-C. Lee, S.-J. Lin, J. Lu, S.L. Malyshev, P.C.D. Milly, V. Ramaswamy, J. Russell, M.D. Schwarzkopf, E. Shevliakova, J.J. Sirutis, M.J. Spelman, W.F. Stern, M. Winton, A.T. Wittenberg, B. Wyman, F. Zeng, and R. Zhang. 2006. GFDL’s CM2 global coupled climate models, Part I: Formulation and simulation characteristics. Journal of Climate 19: 643–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dettinger, M.D. 2012. Projections and downscaling of 21st Century temperatures, precipitation, radiative fluxes and winds for the southwestern US, with focus on Lake Tahoe. Climatic Change 116: 17–33. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0501-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dettinger, M.D. 2005. From climate-change spaghetti to climate-change distributions for 21st Century California. Online San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 3(1), http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2pg6c039
  25. Dettinger, M.D., H. Hidalgo, T. Das, D.R. Cayan and N. Knowles. 2009. Projections of potential flood regime changes in California. California Energy Commission Report CEC-500-2009-050-F, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  26. Dracup, J.A., S. Vicuna, R. Leonardson, L. Dale,and M. Hanneman. 2005. Climate change and water supply reliability. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-053Google Scholar
  27. Draper, A.J., A. Munevar, S.K. Arora, E. Reyes, N.L. Parker, F.I. Chung, and L.E. Peterson. 2004. CalSim: Generalized model for reservoir system analysis. Journal of Water Resource Planning and Management 130: 480–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Feyrer, F., L.R. Brown, R.L. Brown, and J.J. Orsi (eds.). 2004. Early life history of fishes in the San Francisco Estuary and Watershed, American Fisheries Society Symposium 39. Bethesda: American Fisheries Society.Google Scholar
  29. Feyrer, F., K. Newman, M. Nobriga, and T. Sommer. 2010. Modeling the effects of future outflow on the abiotic habitat of an imperiled estuarine fish. Estuaries and Coasts 34: 120–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Feyrer, F., M. Nobriga, and T. Sommer. 2007. Multi-decadal trends for three declining fish species: habitat patterns and mechanisms in the San Francisco Estuary, California, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64: 723–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fleenor, W., E. Hanak, J. Lund, and J. Mount. 2008. Delta hydrodynamics and water quality with future conditions. In Comparing futures for the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. Technical Appendix C, ed. J. Lund, E. Hanak, W. Fleenor, W. Bennett, R. Howitt, J. Mount, and P.B. Moyle. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.Google Scholar
  32. Glysson, D.G. 1987. Sediment–transport curves. US Geological Survey Open File Report 87-218.Google Scholar
  33. Grimaldo, L.F., T. Sommer, N. Van Ark, G. Jones, E. Holland, P. Moyle, B. Herbold, and P. Smith. 2009. Factors affecting fish entrainment into massive water diversions in a tidal freshwater estuary: Can fish losses be managed? North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29: 1253–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hidalgo, H., M. Dettinger, and D. Cayan. 2008. Downscaling with constructed analogues—Daily precipitation and temperature fields over the United States. California Energy Commission PIER Final Project Report CEC-500-2007-123, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  35. Helsel, D.R., and R.M. Hirsch. 2002. Statistical methods in water resources techniques of water resources investigations, Book 4, chapter A3. Reston: US Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  36. Hollibaugh, J.T. (ed.). 1996. San Francisco Bay: The ecosystem. San Francisco: Pacific Division American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  37. IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007—impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Israel, J., A. Drauch, and M. Gingras. 2009. Life history conceptual model, white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus). Delta Regional Ecosystem Restoration Implementation Plan. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game.Google Scholar
  39. Jassby, A.D. 2008. Phytoplankton in the upper San Francisco Estuary: recent biomass trends, their causes and their trophic significance. Online San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 6(1). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/71h077r1
  40. Jassby, A.D., J.E. Cloern, and B.E. Cole. 2002. Annual primary production: patterns and mechanisms of change in a nutrient-rich tidal ecosystem. Limnology and Oceanography 47: 698–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jassby, A.D., W.J. Kimmerer, S.G. Monismith, C. Armor, J.E. Cloern, T.M. Powell, J.R. Schubel, and T.J. Vendlinski. 1995. Isohaline position as a habitat indicator for estuarine populations. Ecological Applications 5: 272–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kimmerer, W.J. 2002a. Physical, biological, and management responses to variable freshwater flow into the San Francisco Estuary. Estuaries 25: 1275–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kimmerer, W.J. 2002b. Effects of freshwater flow on abundance of estuarine organisms: Physical effects or trophic linkages. Marine Ecology Progress Series 243: 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Knowles, N. 2010. Potential inundation due to rising sea levels in the San Francisco Bay region. Online San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 8(1). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8ck5h3qn
  45. Knowles, N. 2000. Modeling the hydroclimate of the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary and watershed. PhD dissertation, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.Google Scholar
  46. Knowles, N., and D.R. Cayan. 2004. Elevational dependence of projected hydrologic changes in the San Francisco Estuary and watershed. Climatic Change 62: 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Knowles, N., and D.R. Cayan. 2002. Potential effects of global warming on the Sacramento/San Joaquin watershed and the San Francisco Estuary. Geophysical Research Letters 29: 38-1–38-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Knowles N, D. Cayan, D.H. Peterson, and R.J. Uncles. 1998. Simulated effects of delta outflow on the Bay: 1998 compared to other years. Interagency Ecological Program Newsletter 11:29–31.Google Scholar
  49. Knowles, N., M.D. Dettinger, and D.R. Cayan. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the western United States. Journal of Climate 19: 4545–4559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lesser, G.R., J.A. Roelvink, A.A.T.M. van Kester, and G.S. Stelling. 2004. Development and validation of a three dimensional morphological model. Coastal Engineering 51:883–915.Google Scholar
  51. Liang, X., D.P. Lettenmaier, E. Wood, and S.J. Burges. 1994. A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models. Journal of Geophysical Research 99: 14415–14428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lund, J.R., E. Hanak, W.E. Fleenor, W.A. Bennett, R.E. Howitt, J.F. Mount, and P.B. Moyle. 2010. Comparing futures for the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Maurer, E.P., H.G. Hidalgo, T. Das, M.D. Dettinger, and D.R. Cayan. 2010. The utility of daily large-scale climate data in the assessment of climate change impacts on daily streamflow in California. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 14: 1125–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McClusky, D.D., and M. Elliott. 2004. The estuarine ecosystem: Ecology, threats, and management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McCullough, D.A. 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. EPA 910-R-99-010. Seattle: US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10.Google Scholar
  56. Meehl, G.A., C. Covey, T. Delworth, M. Latif, M. McAvaney, J.F.B. Mitchell, R.J. Stouffer, and K.E. Taylor. 2007. The global coupled model dataset: A new era in climate change research. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 88: 1383–1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. Revised and expanded. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  58. Moyle, P.B., and W.A. Bennett. 2008. The future of the Delta ecosystem and its fish. In Comparing futures for the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. Technical Appendix D, ed. J. Lund, E. Hanak, W. Fleenor, W. Bennett, R. Howitt, J. Mount, and P. Moyle. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.Google Scholar
  59. Moyle, P., W. Bennett, J. Durand, W. Fleenor, B. Gray, E. Hanak, J. Lund, and J. Mount. 2012. Where the wild things aren’t, making the Delta a better place for native species. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.Google Scholar
  60. Moyle, P.B., W.A. Bennett, W.E. Fleenor, and J.R. Lund. 2010. Habitat variability and complexity in the upper San Francisco Estuary. Online San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 8(3). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0kf0d32x
  61. Mount, J. and R.Twiss. 2005. Subsidence, sea level rise, seismicity in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. Online San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 3(1). http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/4k44725p
  62. Nakicenovic, N., J. Alcamo, G. Davis, B. de Vries, J. Fenham, S. Gaffin, K. Gregory, A. Grubler, T.Y. Jung, T. Kram, E.L. La Rovere, L. Michaelis, S. Mori, T. Morita, W. Pepper, H. Pitcher, L. Price, K. Riahi, A. Roerhl, H.H. Rogner, A. Sankovsk, M. Schlesinger, P. Shukla, S. Smith, R. Swart, S. van Rooijen, N. Victor, and Z. Dadi. 2000. Special report on emissions scenarios, 599. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Nobriga, M.L., T. Sommer, F. Feyrer, and K. Fleming. 2008. Long-term trends in summertime habitat suitability for delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus. Online San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 6(1). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5xd3q8tx
  64. NRC (National Research Council). 2012. Sustainable water and environmental management in the California Bay-Delta. National Research Council. Washington: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  65. Orr, M., Crooks, S., and Williams, P.B. 2003. Will restored tidal marshes be sustainable? Online San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 1(1). http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/8hj3d20t
  66. Perry, A.L., P.J. Low, J.R. Ellis, and J.D. Reynolds. 2005. Climate change and distribution shifts in marine fishes. Science 308: 1912–1915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Peterson, M.S. 2003. A conceptual view of environment–habitat–production linkages in tidal river estuaries. Reviews in Fisheries Science 11: 291–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Peterson, D., D. Cayan, J. Dileo, M. Noble, and M. Dettinger. 1995. The role of climate in estuarine variability. American Scientist 83: 58–67.Google Scholar
  69. Raupach, M.R., G. Marland, P. Ciais, C. Le Quéré, J.G. Canadell, G. Klepper, and C.B. Field. 2007. Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 10288–10293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Roessig, J.M., C.M. Woodley, J.J. Cech, and J. Hansen. 2004. Effects of global climate change in marine and estuarine fishes and fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 14: 251–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sommer, T., C. Armor, R. Baxter, R. Breuer, L. Brown, M. Chotkowski, S. Culberson, F. Feyrer, M. Gingras, B. Herbold, W. Kimmerer, A. Mueller-Solger, M. Nobriga, and K. Souza. 2007. The collapse of pelagic fishes in the upper San Francisco Estuary. Fisheries 32(6): 270–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sommer, T., F. Mejia, M. Nobriga, F. Feyrer, and L. Grimaldo. 2011. The spawning migration of delta smelt in the upper San Francisco Estuary. Online San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 9(2). http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/86m0g5sz
  73. Stralberg, D., M. Brennan, J.C. Callaway, J.K. Wood, L.M. Schile, D. Jongsomjit, M. Kelly, V.T. Parker, and S. Crooks. 2011. Evaluating tidal marsh sustainability in the face of sea-level rise: a hybrid modeling approach applied in San Francisco Bay. PLoS One 6(11): e27388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Swanson, C., T. Reid, P.S. Young, and J.J. Cech Jr. 2000. Comparative environmental tolerances of threatened delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) and introduced wakasagi (H. nipponensis) in an altered California estuary. Oecologia 123: 384–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Systat 11. 2004. SYSTAT for Windows, Version 11. SYSTAT Software Inc., RichmondGoogle Scholar
  76. Thomson, J.R., W.J. Kimmerer, L.R. Brown, K.B. Newman, R. Mac Nally, W.A. Bennett, F. Feyrer, and E. Fleishman. 2010. Bayesian change-point analysis of abundance trends for pelagic fishes in the upper San Francisco Estuary. Ecological Applications 20: 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vicuna, S., E.P. Maurer, B. Joyce, J.A. Dracup, and D. Purkey. 2007. The sensitivity of California water resources to climate change scenarios. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43: 482–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wagner, R.W. 2012. Temperature and tidal dynamics in a branching estuarine system. PhD dissertation. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  79. Wagner, R.W., M. Stacey, L.R. Brown, and M. Dettinger. 2011. Statistical models of temperature in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta under climate-change scenarios and ecological implications. Estuaries and Coasts 34: 544–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Washington, W.M., J.W. Weatherly, G.A. Meehl, A.J. Semtner Jr., T.W. Bettge, A.P. Craig, W.G. Strand Jr., J.M. Arblaster, V.B. Wayland, R. James, and Y. Zhang. 2000. Parallel climate model (PCM) control and transient simulations. Climate Dynamics 16: 755–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wiley, M.J., D.W. Hyndman, B.C. Pijanowski, A.D. Kendall, C. Riseng, E.S. Rutherford, S.T. Cheng, M.L. Carlson, J.A. Tyler, R.J. Stevenson, P.J. Steen, P.L. Richards, P.W. Seelbach, J.M. Koches, and R.R. Rediske. 2010. A multi-modeling approach to evaluating climate and land use change impacts in a Great Lakes River Basin. Hydrobiologia 657: 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wood, R.J., D.F. Boesch, and V.S. Kennedy. 2002. Future consequences of climate change for the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and its fisheries. American Fisheries Society Symposium 32: 171–184.Google Scholar
  83. Wright, S.A., and D.H. Schoellhamer. 2004. Trends in the sediment yield of the Sacramento River, California, 1957–2001. Online San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 2(2). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/891144f4
  84. Yates, D., H. Galbraith, D. Purkey, A. Huber-Lee, J. Sieber, J. West, S. Herrod-Julius, and B. Joyce. 2008. Climate warming, water storage, and Chinook salmon in California’s Sacramento Valley. Climatic Change 91: 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Larry R. Brown
    • 1
  • William A. Bennett
    • 2
  • R. Wayne Wagner
    • 3
  • Tara Morgan-King
    • 1
  • Noah Knowles
    • 5
  • Frederick Feyrer
    • 6
  • David H. Schoellhamer
    • 1
  • Mark T. Stacey
    • 4
  • Michael Dettinger
    • 7
  1. 1.US Geological SurveySacramentoUSA
  2. 2.Center for Watershed Sciences, Bodega Marine LaboratoryUniversity of California, DavisBodega BayUSA
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  4. 4.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  5. 5.US Geological SurveyMenlo ParkUSA
  6. 6.Bay Delta OfficeUS Bureau of ReclamationSacramentoUSA
  7. 7.US Geological Survey, Scripps Institute of OceanographyUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations