Interagency Ecological Program Science Strategy 2020 – 2024: Investment Priorities for Interagency Collaborative Science

Interagency Ecological Program (IEP) | April 20th, 2019

The IEP Science Strategy is one of three organizing documents that together set the course for annual (IEP Annual Work Plan), 5-year (IEP Science Strategy), and 5

The IEP Science Strategy is one of three organizing documents that together set the course for annual (IEP Annual Work Plan), 5-year (IEP Science Strategy), and 5+ year (IEP Strategic Plan) organization planning for the Program. The Science Strategy is where the Science Management and Coordinators Teams articulate what they understand as the most pressing suite of subjects requiring additional data collection for management-relevant purposes for the IEP 9-Agency collective. The Science Strategy serves the additional purpose of providing a 5-year focus of planning effort to even-out short-term (annual) imperatives that change depending on mutable Agency directives.

Interagency Ecological Program Science Strategy: Needs for near-term science in five areas of emphasis

Interagency Ecological Program (IEP) | March 4th, 2016

The mission of the Interagency Ecological Program (IEP) is to provide and integrate relevant and timely ecological information for management of the Bay-Delta ecosystem a

The mission of the Interagency Ecological Program (IEP) is to provide and integrate relevant and timely ecological information for management of the Bay-Delta ecosystem and the water that flows through it. This is accomplished through collaborative and scientifically sound monitoring, research, modeling, and synthesis efforts for various aspects of the aquatic ecosystem. Building on the IEP Strategic Plan, which identifies the long-term goals and strategies to be implemented by the IEP to achieve its mission, the IEP Science Strategy provides direction to interagency science used to inform the management and ecological interests of IEP agencies in the near-term, and is one of a number of inputs used to shape the IEP Annual Work Plans. While the IEP Strategic Plan states that the Science Strategy be drafted for a 3-5 year horizon, a shorter 2-year timeframe for this first IEP Science Strategy has been adopted to allow for a more flexible internal development and review process, as well as feedback from the Bay-Delta research and stakeholder community.

Interagency Ecological Program’s Ability to Provide Science Supporting Management of the Delta

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | November 15th, 2019

Interagency Fish Passage Steering Committee 2014 Annual Report Focusing on the Shasta Dam Fish Passage Evaluation

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | July 1st, 2014

Interbasin flow in the Great Basin with special reference to the southern Funeral Mountains and the source of Furnace Creek springs, Death Valley, California, U.S.

Journal of Hydrology (Elsevier) | May 5th, 2009

Interbasin flow in the Great Basin has been established by scientific studies during the past century. While not occurring uniformly between all basins, its occurrence is

Interbasin flow in the Great Basin has been established by scientific studies during the past century. While not occurring uniformly between all basins, its occurrence is common and is a function of the hydraulic gradient between basins and hydraulic conductivity of the intervening rocks. The Furnace Creek springs in Death Valley, California are an example of large volume springs that are widely accepted as being the discharge points of regional interbasin flow. The flow path has been interpreted historically to be through consolidated Paleozoic carbonate rocks in the southern Funeral Mountains. This work reviews the preponderance of evidence supporting the concept of interbasin flow in the Death Valley region and the Great Basin and addresses the conceptual model of pluvial and recent recharge [Nelson, S.T., Anderson, K., Mayo, A.L., 2004. Testing the interbasin flow hypothesis at Death Valley, California. EOS 85, 349; Anderson, K., Nelson, S., Mayo, A., Tingey, D., 2006. Interbasin flow revisited: the contribution of local recharge to high-discharge springs, Death Valley, California. Journal of Hydrology 323, 276–302] as the source of the Furnace Creek springs. We find that there is insufficient modern recharge and insufficient storage potential and permeability within the basin-fill units in the Furnace Creek basin for these to serve as a local aquifer. Further, the lack of high sulfate content in the spring waters argues against significant flow through basin-fill sediments and instead suggests flow through underlying consolidated carbonate rocks. The maximum temperature of the spring discharge appears to require deep circulation through consolidated rocks; the Tertiary basin fill is of insufficient thickness to generate such temperatures as a result of local fluid circulation. Finally, the stable isotope data and chemical mass balance modeling actually support the interbasin flow conceptual model rather than the alternative presented in Nelson et al. [Nelson, S.T., Anderson, K., Mayo, A.L., 2004. Testing the interbasin flow hypothesis at Death Valley, California. EOS 85, 349] and Anderson et al. [Anderson, K., Nelson, S., Mayo, A., Tingey, D., 2006. Interbasin flow revisited: the contribution of local recharge to high-discharge springs, Death Valley, California. Journal of Hydrology 323, 276– 302]. In light of these inconsistencies, interbasin flow is the only readily apparent explanation for the large spring discharges at Furnace Creek and, in our view, is the likely explanation for most large volume, low elevation springs in the Great Basin. An understanding of hydrogeologic processes that control the rate and direction of ground-water flow in eastern and central Nevada is necessary component of regional water-resource planning and management of alluvial and bedrock aquifers.

Interbasin Ground-Water Flow in Southern Nevada

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology | March 1st, 1974

Interbasin water transfers in the United States and Canada

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | January 13th, 2023

Interbasin water transfers (IBTs) can have a significant impact on the environment, water availability, and economies within the basins importing and exporting water, as

Interbasin water transfers (IBTs) can have a significant impact on the environment, water availability, and economies within the basins importing and exporting water, as well as basins downstream of these water transfers. The lack of comprehensive data identifying and describing IBTs inhibits understanding of the role IBTs play in supplying water for society, as well as their collective hydrologic impact. We develop three connected datasets inventorying IBTs in the United States and Canada, including their features, geospatial details, and water transfer volumes. We surveyed the academic and gray literature, as well as local, state, and federal water agencies, to collect, process, and verify IBTs in Canada and the United States. Our comprehensive IBT datasets represent all known transfers of untreated water that cross subregion (US) or subdrainage area (CA) boundaries, characterizing a total of 641 IBT projects. The infrastructure-level data made available by these data products can be used to close water budgets, connect water supplies to water use, and better represent human impacts within hydrologic and ecosystem models.

Interim instream flow criteria for the protection of fishery resources in the Scott River watershed, Siskiyou County

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | February 6th, 2017

This document describes the methods and results of an analysis using historical flow data and regional regression relationships to develop interim instream flow criteria

This document describes the methods and results of an analysis using historical flow data and regional regression relationships to develop interim instream flow criteria suitable for anadromous fish in the Scott River watershed in Siskiyou County. The Scott River watershed provides aquatic habitat for four species of anadromous fish; Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Coho Salmon (O. kisutch), steelhead trout (O. mykiss), and Pacific Lamprey (Lampetra tridentata). Specifically, the Scott River is one of the most important Coho Salmon spawning and rearing tributaries in the Klamath River watershed. Instream flow requirements can be generated from flow standard setting techniques or from the results of site specific studies. The interim instream flow criteria presented for the Scott River were developed using flow standard setting techniques. Stream flow standards derived from standard setting techniques are designed to identify the environmental resource in need of flow protection, identify biologically significant criterion that can be used to measure potential flow related impacts, and specify the amount of flow required to protect the resource. Most individual standards evaluate only one or more, but not all the criterion needed to fully evaluate the flow needs of an aquatic species. This limitation can lead to prescribing a single minimum threshold or “flat-line” affect (Poff et al. 1997). The seasonal and inter-annual variability in the hydrograph must be maintained to protect stream ecology and provide an ecosystem based standard (Annear 2004). To account for the seasonal and the inter-annual hydrologic variability of the Scott River, the Department applied a detailed hydrologic analysis along with application of three standard setting methods to evaluate the life history flow needs of salmonids in the Scott River near Fort Jones. Adult fish passage was estimated using the equation developed by R2 Resources (R2 2008) for the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) North Coast Instream Flow Policy (SWRCB 2014), spawning and juvenile rearing were evaluated using the Hatfield and Bruce regional equations (Hatfield and Bruce 2000), and the results were adjusted monthly based on estimates of unimpaired hydrology using Tessmann’s adaptation (Tessmann 1980) of the Tennant or Montana Method (Tennant 1975).

Interpretation of Hydrostratigraphy and Water Quality from AEM Data Collected in the Northern Salinas Valley, CA

Marina Coast Water District | March 15th, 2018

Groundwater management, in the Monterey area of California, requires an accurate understanding of the hydrostratigraphy of the coastal aquifer system, as well as an unde

Groundwater management, in the Monterey area of California, requires an accurate understanding of the hydrostratigraphy of the coastal aquifer system, as well as an understanding of the groundwater quality variability within that system. The hydraulic properties of, and connectivity between, the individual units in the aquifer system determine potential routes for the movement of groundwater within and between aquifers. An understanding of the distribution of water quality within the aquifer system and an understanding of the hydrostratigraphy of the system are needed to evaluate the current state of groundwater resources, and to assess the potential impact of any proposed activity on the groundwater resources in the area. The focus of this study is the Northern Salinas Valley. Figure 1 shows the specific region of interest outlined in pink. The orange contour shows the extent of saltwater intrusion into the uppermost aquifers in this area, as determined from well data by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency as the regions where groundwater contains concentrations of chloride greater than 500 mg/L. But there is some question as to whether this contour accurately captures the extent of saltwater intrusion into these aquifers. The detection of water with anomalously low concentrations of total dissolved solids in five newly constructed monitoring well clusters suggests the presence of isolated lenses of fresher groundwater in the Dune Sand Aquifer and Perched Dune Sand Aquifer (outlined in light blue) and in the 180-Foot Aquifer (outlined in dark blue) (Hopkins Groundwater Consultants, 2016). The locations of seven wells from the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) are also shown in Figure 1 as red diamonds, and wells owned by the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) are shown as green circles. The two groundwater subbasins in the region of interest—the Monterey Subbasin and the 180/400 Aquifer Subbasin—are outlined in purple and blue, respectively. The objective of this study was to use the geophysical method, airborne electromagnetics (AEM), to evaluate the current understanding of the hydrostratigraphy in this area and to interpret the distribution of groundwater quality indicated by available well data. To evaluate the understanding of the hydrostratigraphy, a hydrostratigraphic model of the region of interest was first built using existing data, and was then updated with the information supplied by the AEM data. This approach was followed for two separate initial models. The first initial model was based on the North Marina Groundwater Model (NMGWM), developed by Geoscience Support Services as part of the MPWSP. The second initial model was built in-house using lithology data and hydrostratigraphic interpretations from a variety of previously published reports. Our interpretation of the distribution of groundwater quality in the region is based on statistical relationships built between water quality samples and borehole geophysical data collected in the wells shown in Figure 1.

Interpreting Water Supply Forecasts

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | January 24th, 2012

For each Central Valley Project (CVP) allocation announcement, two forecasts are issued for each contract type by location within the CVP. Unless otherwise specified, all

For each Central Valley Project (CVP) allocation announcement, two forecasts are issued for each contract type by location within the CVP. Unless otherwise specified, all runoff forecasts are based on runoff volumes that would occur naturally without any upstream influences. For the February through May period, the runoff volume estimates are based on the observed inflow to date and current snow pack measurements made at the end of each preceding month. Water users need to know what the different forecasts represent if they are to use the information appropriately when making operational decisions. Following are explanations of each of the forecasts.