Climatic Change

, Volume 102, Issue 1–2, pp 187–223 | Cite as

Climate change impacts on streamflow extremes and summertime stream temperature and their possible consequences for freshwater salmon habitat in Washington State

  • Nathan MantuaEmail author
  • Ingrid Tohver
  • Alan Hamlet


This study evaluates the sensitivity of Washington State’s freshwater habitat of Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) to climate change. Our analysis focuses on summertime stream temperatures, seasonal low flows, and changes in peak and base flows because these physical factors are likely to be key pressure points for many of Washington’s salmon populations. Weekly summertime water temperatures and extreme daily high and low streamflows are evaluated under multimodel composites for A1B and B1 greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Simulations predict rising water temperatures will thermally stress salmon throughout Washington’s watersheds, becoming increasingly severe later in the twenty-first century. Streamflow simulations predict that basins strongly influenced by transient runoff (a mix of direct runoff from cool-season rainfall and springtime snowmelt) are most sensitive to climate change. By the 2080s, hydrologic simulations predict a complete loss of Washington’s snowmelt dominant basins, and only about ten transient basins remaining in the north Cascades. Historically transient runoff watersheds will shift towards rainfall dominant behavior, undergoing more severe summer low flow periods and more frequent days with intense winter flooding. While cool-season stream temperature changes and impacts on salmon are not assessed in this study, it is possible that climate-induced warming in winter and spring will benefit parts of the freshwater life-cycle of some salmon populations enough to increase their reproductive success (or overall fitness). However, the combined effects of warming summertime stream temperatures and altered streamflows will likely reduce the reproductive success for many Washington salmon populations, with impacts varying for different life history-types and watershed-types. Diminishing streamflows and higher stream temperatures in summer will be stressful for stream-type salmon populations that have freshwater rearing periods in summer. Increased winter flooding in transient runoff watersheds will likely reduce the egg-to-fry survival rates for ocean-type and stream-type salmon.


Chinook Salmon Stream Temperature Coho Salmon Sockeye Salmon Salmon Population 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Battin J, Wiley MW, Ruckelshaus MH, Palmer RN, Bartz KK, Imaki H, Korb E (2007) Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:6720–6725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beamer EM, Pess GR (1999) Effects of peak flows on chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawning success in two Puget Sound river basins. In: Sakrison R, Sturtevant P (eds) Watershed management to protect declining species. Am Water Resour Assoc, Middleburg, pp 67–70Google Scholar
  3. Beechie TJ, Beamer EM, Wasserman L (1994) Estimating coho salmon rearing habitat and smolt production losses in a large river basin, and implications for habitat restoration. N Am J Fish Manag 14:797–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beechie TJ, Ruckelshaus M, Buhle E, Fullerton A, Holsinger L (2006) Hydrologic regime and the conservation of salmon life history diversity. Biol Conserv 130:560–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beechie TJ, Moir H, Pess G (2008a) Hierarchical physical controls on salmonid spawning location and timing. In: Sear D, DeVries P (eds) Salmonid spawning habitat in rivers: physical controls, biological responses, and approaches to remediation. Am Fish Soc, Symposium 65, Bethesda, pp 83–102Google Scholar
  6. Beechie T, Pess G, Roni P, Giannico G (2008b) Setting river restoration priorities: a review of approaches and a general protocol for identifying and prioritizing actions. North Am J Fish Manage 28(3):891–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Booth DB, Jackson CJ (1997) Urbanization of aquatic systems—degradation thresholds, stormwater detention, and the limits of mitigation. Water Resour Bull 33:1077–1090Google Scholar
  8. Crozier LG, Zabel RW (2006) Climate impacts at multiple scales: evidence for differential population responses in juvenile chinook salmon. J Anim Ecol 75:1100–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crozier LG, Zabel RW, Hamlet A (2008a) Predicting differential effects of climate change at the population level with life-cycle models of spring chinook salmon. Glob Chang Biol 14:236–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crozier LG, Lawson PW, Quinn TP, Hendry AP, Battin J, Mantua NJ, Eldridge W, Shaw RG (2008b) Evolutionary responses to climate change for organisms with complex life histories: Columbia River salmon as a case in point. Evol Appl 1(1):252–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeVries PE (1997) Riverine salmonid egg burial depths: review of published data and implications for scour studies. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:1685–1698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eaton JG, Scheller RM (1996) Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat in streams of the United States. Limnol Oceanogr 4l:109–1115Google Scholar
  13. Elsner MM, Cuo L, Voisin N, Deems JS, Hamlet AF, Vano JA, Mickelson KEB, Lee SY, Lettenmaier DP (2010) Implications of 21st century climate change for the hydrology of Washington State. Clim Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9855-0 Google Scholar
  14. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Biological evaluation of the revised Washington water quality standards. US EPA, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  15. Fabry VJ, Seibel BA, Feely RA, Orr JC (2008) Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes. ICES J Mar Sci 65:414–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farrell AP, Hinch SG, Cooke SJ, Patterson DA, Crossin GT, Lapointe M, Mathes MT (2008) Pacific salmon in hot water: applying aerobic scope models and biotelemetry to predict the success of spawning migrations. Physiol Biochem Zool 81(6):697–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goniea TM, Keefer ML, Bjornn TC, Peery CA, Bennett DH (2006) Behavioral thermoregulation and slowed migration by adult fall chinook salmon in response to high Columbia River water temperatures. Trans of the Am Fish Soc 135:408–419. doi: 10.1577/T04-113.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greene CM, Jensen DW, Beamer E, Pess GR, Steel EA (2005) Effects of environmental conditions during stream, estuary, and ocean residency on chinook salmon return rates in the Skagit River, WA. Trans of the Am Fish Soc 134:1562–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Healey MC (1991) In: Groot C, Margolis L (eds) Pacific Salmon Life Histories. Univ British Columbia Press, Vancouver, Canada, pp 313–393Google Scholar
  20. High B, Perry CA, Bennett DH (2006) Temporary staging of Columbia River summer steelhead in cool-water areas and its effect on migration rates. Trans Am Fish Soc 135:519–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hodgson S, Quinn TP (2002) The timing of adult sockeye salmon migration into fresh water: adaptations by populations to prevailing thermal regimes. Can J Zool 80:542–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holtby LB (1988) Effects of logging on stream temperatures in Carnation Creek, British Columbia, and associated impacts on the coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 45:502–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holtby LB, Healey MC (1986) Selection for adult size in female coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 43:1946–1959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hosking JRM (1990) L-moments: analysis and estimation of distributions using linear combinations of order statistics. J R Stat Soc Ser B 52:105–124Google Scholar
  25. Hosking JRM, Wallis JR (1993) Some statistics useful in regional frequency analysis. Water Resour Res 29(2):271–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) (2000) Influences of human activity on stream temperatures and existence of cold-water fish in streams with elevated temperature: report of a workshop. Tech. Rep. 2000-2 to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. Salem, OregonGoogle Scholar
  27. Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) (2007) Climate change impacts on Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife. ISAB Climate Chang Rep.–2.htm)
  28. Latterell JJ, Fausch KD, Gowan C, Riley SC (1998) Relationship of trout recruitment to snowmelt runoff flows and adult trout abundance in six Colorado mountain streams. Rivers 6:240–250Google Scholar
  29. Logerwell EA, Mantua NJ, Lawson P, Francis RC, Agostini V (2003) Tracking environmental processes in the coastal zone for understanding and predicting Oregon coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) marine survival. Fisheries Oceanogr 12(6):554–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lotspeich FB, Everest FH (1981) A new method for reporting and interpreting textural composition of spawning gravel. US Forest Service Research Note PNW-369Google Scholar
  31. Martin J (2006) Climate and development: salmon caught in the squeeze. In: Lackey R, Lach D, Duncan S (eds) Salmon 2100: the future of wild pacific salmon. Am Fish Soc, 629 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. 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. Water Resour Assess, US EPA 910-R-99-010, 291 pp, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  33. Miles EL, Snover AK, Hamlet AF, Callahan BM, Fluharty DL (1999) Pacific Northwest regional assessment: the impacts of climate variability and climate change on the water resources of the Columbia River Basin. Prepared for the Am Water Resour Assoc Specialty Conf on the Potential Consequences of Clim Variability and Chang to Water Resour of the US, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  34. Mohseni OS, Stefan HG, Erickson TR (1998) A nonlinear regression model for weekly stream temperatures. Water Resour Res 34:2685–2692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Montgomery DR, Buffington JM, Peterson NP, Schuett Hames D, Quinn TP (1996) Streambed scour, egg burial depths, and the influence of salmonid spawning on bed surface mobility and embryo survival. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:1061–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moore RD and Wondzell SM (2005) Physical hydrology and the effects of forest harvesting in the Pacific Northwest: a review. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41:753–784Google Scholar
  37. Mote PW, Salathé EP Jr (2010) Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Clim Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9848-z Google Scholar
  38. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models. J Hydro 10:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Naughton GP, Caudill CC, Keefer ML, Bjornn TC, Stuehrenberg LC, Peery CA (2005) Late-season mortality during migration of radio-tagged sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in the Columbia River. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:30–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Newell JA, Fresh KL, Quinn TA (2007) Arrival patterns and movements of adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus) in Lake Washington: implications for management of an urban fishery. North Am J Fish Manage 27(3):908–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Neal K (2002) Effects of global warming on trout and salmon in U.S. streams. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, 46 ppGoogle Scholar
  42. Pearcy WM (1992) Ocean ecology of North Pacific salmonids. Washington Sea Grant, Seattle, 179 ppGoogle Scholar
  43. Rand PS, Hinch SG, Morrison J, Foreman MGG, MacNutt MJ, Macdonald JS, Healey MC, Farrell AP, Higgs DA (2006) Effects of river discharge, temperature, and future climates on energetics and mortality of adult migrating Fraser River sockeye salmon. Trans Am Fish Soc 135:655–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reeves GH, Everest FH, Nickelson TE (1989) Identification of physical habitats limiting the production of Coho salmon in western Oregon and Washington. Technical Report PNW-GTR-245, US Dep of Agric, For Service, Pacific Northwest Res Sn, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  45. Richter A, Kolmes SA (2005) Maximum temperature limits for chinook, coho, and chum salmon, and steelhead trout in the pacific northwest. Rev in Fish Sci 13(1):23–49. doi: 10.1080/10641260590885861 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Salathé EP Jr, Leung LR, Qian Y, Zhang Y (2010) Regional climate model projections for the State of Washington. Clim Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9849-y Google Scholar
  47. Schindler DE, Rogers LA (2009) Responses of salmon populations to climate variations in freshwater ecosystems. In: Krueger CC, Zimmerman CE (eds) Pacific salmon: ecology and management of western Alaska’s populations. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 70, Bethesda, pp 1127–1142Google Scholar
  48. Seiler D, Neuhauser S, Kishimoto L (2003) 2002 Skagit River wild 01 chinook production evaluation annual report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, OlympiaGoogle Scholar
  49. SRES (Special Report on Emissions Scenarios) (2000) Nakicenovic, Nebojsa and Swart, Rob (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 612 pages. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Emissions ScenariosGoogle Scholar
  50. Tabor RA, Celedonia MT, Mejia F, Piaskowski RM, Low DL, Footen B, Park L (2004) Predation of juvenile chinook salmon by predatory fishes in three areas of the Lake Washington basin. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, LaceyGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang QJ (1997) LH moments for statistical analysis of extreme events. Water Resour Res 33(12):2841–2848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Waples RS, Pess GR, Beechie T (2008) Evolutionary history of pacific salmon in dynamic environments. Evol Appl 1(2):189–206. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2008.00023.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.JISAO/CSES Climate Impacts GroupUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.School of Aquatic and Fishery SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations