Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 62, Issue 1–3, pp 319–336 | Cite as

Elevational Dependence of Projected Hydrologic Changes in the San Francisco Estuary and Watershed

  • Noah Knowles
  • Daniel R. Cayan
Article

Abstract

California's primary hydrologic system, the San Francisco Estuary and its upstream watershed, is vulnerable to the regional hydrologic consequences of projected global climate change. Previous work has shown that a projected warming would result in a reduction of snowpack storage leading to higher winter and lower spring-summer streamflows and increased spring-summer salinities in the estuary. The present work shows that these hydrologic changes exhibit a strong dependence on elevation, with the greatest loss of snowpack volume in the 1300–2700 m elevation range. Exploiting hydrologic and estuarine modeling capabilities to trace water as it moves through the system reveals that the shift of water in mid-elevations of the Sacramento river basin from snowmelt to rainfall runoff is the dominant cause of projected changes in estuarine inflows and salinity. Additionally, although spring-summer losses of estuarine inflows are balanced by winter gains, the losses have a stronger influence on salinity since longer spring-summer residence times allow the inflow changes to accumulate in the estuary. The changes in inflows sourced in the Sacramento River basin in approximately the 1300–2200 m elevation range thereby lead to a net increase in estuarine salinity under the projected warming. Such changes would impact ecosystems throughout the watershed and threaten to contaminate much of California's freshwater supply.

Keywords

Projected Change Elevation Range Projected Global Climate Change Modeling Capability Hydrologic System 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. CDWR: 1998, California Water Plan, Bulletin, 160–98.Google Scholar
  2. CDWR: cited 1999, DAYFLOW Data, [Available online from http://iep.water.ca.gov/dayflow/]Google Scholar
  3. Dai, A., Wigley, T. M. L., Boville, B. A., Kiehl, J. T., and Buja, L. E.: 2001, ‘Climates of the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries Simulated by the NCAR Climate System Model’, J. Climate 14, 485–519.Google Scholar
  4. Dettinger, M. D., Cayan, D. R., Meyer, M. K., and Jeton, A. E.: 2004, ‘Simulated Hydrologic Responses to Climate Variations and Change in the Merced, Carson, and American River Basins, Sierra Nevada, California, 1900-2099’, Clim. Change 62, 283–317.Google Scholar
  5. Felzer, B.: 1999, ‘Hydrological Implications of GCM Results for the U.S. National Assessment’, Specialty Conference on Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change to Water Resources of the United States, Atlanta, GA, pp. 69–72.Google Scholar
  6. Flick, R. E. and Cayan, D. R.: 1984, ‘Extreme Sea Levels on the Coast of California’, ASCE, 19th Coastal Engineering Conference Proceedings, Houston, TX, pp. 886–897.Google Scholar
  7. Georgakakos, K. and Baumer, O. W.: 1996, ‘Measurement and Utilization of On-Site Soil Moisture Data’, J. Hydrology 184, 131–152.Google Scholar
  8. Georgakakos, K. P. and Bras, R. L.: 1982, ‘Real-Time, Statistically Linearized, Adaptive Flood Routing’, Water Resour. Res. 18, 513–524.Google Scholar
  9. Georgakakos, K. P. and Bras, R. L.: 1984, ‘A Hydrologically Useful Station Precipitation Model 1. Formulation’, Water Resour. Res. 20, 1585–1596.Google Scholar
  10. Gleick, P. H.: 1987, ‘The Development and Testing of a Water Balance Model for Climate Impact Assessment: Modeling the Sacramento Basin’, Water Resour. Res. 23, 1049–1061.Google Scholar
  11. Gleick, P. H. and Chalecki, E. L.: 1999, ‘The Impacts of Climatic Changes for Water Resources of the Colorado and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins’, J. Amer. Water Resour. Assoc. 35, 1429–1441.Google Scholar
  12. IPCC: 2001, Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.Google Scholar
  13. Jeton, A. E., Dettinger, M. D., and Smith, J. L.: 1996, Potential Effects of Climate Change on Streamflow, Eastern and Western Slopes of the Sierra Nevada, California and Nevada, U.S.Dept. of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey; U.S. Geological Survey Earth Science Information Center Open-File Report Section Distributor, 44 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Knowles, N.: 2000, Modeling the Hydroclimate of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary and Watershed, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  15. Knowles, N., 2002: ‘Natural and Human Influences on Freshwater Inflows and Salinity in the San Francisco Estuary at Monthly to Interannual Scales’, Water Resour. Res. 38, 25-1 to 25-11.Google Scholar
  16. Knowles, N. and Cayan, D.: 2002, ‘Potential Effects of Global Warming on the Sacramento/San Joaquin Watershed and the San Francisco Estuary’, Geophys. Res. Lett. 29.Google Scholar
  17. Knowles, N., Cayan, D., Ingram, L., Peterson, D. H., and Uncles, R. J.: 1997, ‘Diagnosing the Flood of 1997 in San Francisco Bay with Observations and Model Results’, Interagency Ecological Program Newsletter 10, http://iep.water.ca.gov/report/newsletter/Google Scholar
  18. Knowles, N., Cayan, D., Peterson, D. H., and Uncles, R. J.: 1998, ‘Simulated Effects of Delta Outflow on the Bay: 1998 Compared to Other Years’, Interagency Ecological Program Newsletter 11, 29–31, http://iep.water.ca.gov/report/newsletter/Google Scholar
  19. Lettenmaier, D. P. and Gan, T. Y.: 1990, ‘Hydrologic Sensitivities of the Sacramento-San-Joaquin River Basin, California, to Global Warming’, Water Resour. Res. 26, 69–86.Google Scholar
  20. Peterson, D., Cayan, D., Dileo, J., Noble, M., and Dettinger, M.: 1995, ‘The Role of Climate in Estuarine Variability’, Amer. Sci. 83, 58–67.Google Scholar
  21. Roos, M., 1989: ‘Possible Climate Change and its Impact on Water Supply in California’, ‘89 Conference, Inst. of Electr. and Electron. Eng., Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  22. Snyder, M. A., Bell, J. L., Sloan, L. C., Duffy, P. B., and Govindasamy, B.: 2002, ‘Climate Responses to a Doubling of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide for a Climatically Vulnerable Region’, Geophys. Res. Lett. 29.Google Scholar
  23. Tarboton, D. G. and Luce, C. H.: 1996, Utah Energy Balance Snow Accumulation and Melt Model (UEB): Computer Model Technical Description and Users Guide.Google Scholar
  24. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: 1956, Snow Hydrology, Summary report of the Snow Investigations.Google Scholar
  25. VanRheenen, N. T., Wood, A.W., Palmer, R. N., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: 2004, ‘Potential Implications of PCM Climate Change Scenarios for Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin Hydrology and Water Resources’, Clim. Change 62, 257–281.Google Scholar
  26. Williams, P.: 1985, ‘An Overview of the Impact of Accelerated Sea Level Rise on San Francisco Bay’, Project No. 256.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noah Knowles
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daniel R. Cayan
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Climate Research Division, Scripps Institution of OceanographyUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaU.S.A.
  2. 2.Water Resources DivisionU.S. Geological SurveyMenlo ParkU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations