Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) | September 14th, 2007

Integrated studies of coupled human and natural systems reveal new and complex patterns and processes not evident when studied by social or natural scientists s

Integrated studies of coupled human and natural systems reveal new and complex patterns and processes not evident when studied by social or natural scientists separately. Synthesis of six case studies from around the world shows that couplings between human and natural systems vary across space, time, and organizational units. They also exhibit nonlinear dynamics with thresholds, reciprocal feedback loops, time lags, resilience, heterogeneity, and surprises. Furthermore, past couplings have legacy effects on present conditions and future possibilities.

Compliance with D-1641 San Joaquin River October Flow Requirements

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | October 9th, 2023

Components of a Biological Opinion

Publisher not available | January 29th, 2015

A biological opinion is the document prepared by NOAA Fisheries or USFWS (referred to commonly as the Services) as part of the formal consultation process, to be issued a

A biological opinion is the document prepared by NOAA Fisheries or USFWS (referred to commonly as the Services) as part of the formal consultation process, to be issued at the culmination of this consultation process. This chapter provides a brief overview of the components of a biological opinion. In general, a biological opinion is required when an action (e.g., construction activity) is estimated to adversely affect an ESA-listed plant or animal species. Depending upon the species in question, NOAA Fisheries or USFWS issues a biological opinion on the effects of the proposed action on the affected ESA-listed species. If the agency concludes that the species will be unaffected, the proposed action receives a no-jeopardy biological opinion and continues as planned. If the proposed action is found to jeopardize a species, the federal government may propose alternatives, require additional mitigation measures or deny the project. If the proponent can modify the project to align with proposed alternatives and/or satisfy the recommended mitigation requirements, the proposed action can proceed.

Compounding effects of climate change and WUI expansion quadruple the likelihood of extreme-impact wildfires in California

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | February 21st, 2025

Previous research has examined individual factors contributing to wildfire risk, but the compounding effects of these factors remain underexplored. Here, we introduce the

Previous research has examined individual factors contributing to wildfire risk, but the compounding effects of these factors remain underexplored. Here, we introduce the “Integrated Human-centric Wildfire Risk Index (IHWRI)” to quantify the compounding effects of fire-weather intensification and anthropogenic factors—including ignitions and human settlement into wildland—on wildfire risk. While climatic trends increased the frequency of high-risk fire-weather by 2.5-fold, the combination of this trend with wildland-urban interface expansion led to a 4.1-fold increase in the frequency of conditions conducive to extreme-impact wildfires from 1990 to 2022 across California. More than three-quarters of extreme-impact wildfires—defined as the top 20 largest, most destructive, or deadliest events on record—originated within 1 km from the wildland-urban interface. The deadliest and most destructive wildfires—90% of which were human-caused—primarily occurred in the fall, while the largest wildfires—56% of which were human-caused—mostly took place in the summer. By integrating human activity and climate change impacts, we provide a holistic understanding of human-centric wildfire risk, crucial for policy development.

Comprehensive Groundwater Cleanup Strategy for Historical Chromium Discharges from PG&E's Hinkley Compressor Station, San Bernardino County, Final Environmental Impact Report Volume I: Comments on Draft EIR and Responses

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | April 20th, 2013

Click here for Volume II

Click here for Volume II

Concentrations for total dissolved solids, arsenic, boron, fluoride, and nitrite-nitrate for wells sampled in the Mojave Water Agency Management Area

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | July 1st, 2001

Concentrations for total dissolved solids, arsenic, boron, fluoride, and nitrite-nitrate for wells sampled in the Mojave Water Agency Management Area, California, 1991-97

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | January 31st, 2001

Concentrations, Loads, and Associated Trends of Nutrients Entering the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, California

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | December 15th, 2021

Statistical modeling of water-quality data collected at the Sacramento River at Freeport and San Joaquin River near Vernalis, California, USA, was used to examine trends

Statistical modeling of water-quality data collected at the Sacramento River at Freeport and San Joaquin River near Vernalis, California, USA, was used to examine trends in concentrations and loads of various forms of dissolved and particulate nitrogen and phosphorus that entered the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) from upstream sources between 1970 and 2019. Ammonium concentrations and loads decreased at the Sacramento River site from the mid-1970s through 1990 because of the consolidation of wastewater treatment and continuously reduced from the mid-1970s to 2019 at the San Joaquin River site. Current ammonium concentrations are mostly below 4 µM (0.056 mg N L–1) at both sites, a concentration above which reductions in phytoplankton productivity or changes in algal species composition may occur. The Sacramento River at Freeport site is located upstream of the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District’s treatment facility’s discharge point; nutrient water quality there is representative of upstream sources. Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate plus ammonium) concentrations and loading differed at both sites. At the Sacramento River location, concentrations decrease in the summer agricultural season, reducing the molar ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus. In contrast, inorganic nitrogen concentrations increase in the San Joaquin River during the agricultural season as a result of irrigation runoff, increasing the molar ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus. This increase suggests a possible nitrogen limitation in the northern Delta and a phosphorus limitation in the southern Delta, as indicated by the molar ratios of bioavailable nitrogen to bioavailable phosphorus. Planned upgrades to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP) will reduce inorganic nitrogen inputs to the northern Delta. Consequently, the supply of bioavailable nitrogen throughout the upper estuary should diminish. Source modeling of nitrogen and phosphorus identifies agriculture, atmospheric deposition, and wastewater effluent as sources of total nitrogen in the Central Valley. In contrast, geologic sources, agriculture, and wastewater discharge are the primary sources of phosphorus.

Concepts and evolution of urban hydrology

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | October 24th, 2024

Conceptual and Numerical Models of Dissolved Solids in the Colorado River, Hoover Dam to Imperial Dam, and Parker Dam to Imperial Dam, Arizona, California, and Nevada

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | August 28th, 2018

Conceptual and numerical models were developed to understand and simulate monthly flow-weighted dissolved-solids concentrations in the Colorado River at Imperial

Conceptual and numerical models were developed to understand and simulate monthly flow-weighted dissolved-solids concentrations in the Colorado River at Imperial Dam. The ability to simulate dissolved-solids concentrations at this location will help the Bureau of Reclamation satisfy the binational agreement on the volume and salinity of Colorado River water delivered to Mexico. A robust spatial- and temporal-resolution dataset that consists of river discharge and dissolved-solids concentration and load information between January 1990 and September 2016 for 10 sites on canals, drains, tributaries, and the main stem of the Colorado River between Hoover and Imperial Dams was generated. Daily mean dissolved-solids concentrations were estimated and monthly mean dissolved-solids loads were computed for each site. Spatial and temporal load patterns, and historical and current controls on loads and concentrations, were analyzed in order to develop a conceptual model of dissolved- solids transport between Hoover and Imperial Dams. Two numerical models describing the relations between dissolved- solids concentrations and components controlling dissolved-solidsconcentrations and loads were developed, calibrated, and verified. Between January 1990 and September 2016, there was a 98.8-million-acre-feet loss of water and a 57.0-million-ton loss of dissolved-solids load from the Colorado River between Hoover and Imperial Dams. Between Hoover and Parker Dams, about 69.0 million acre-feet of water was lost and 51.1 million tons of dissolved solids were lost; between Parker and Imperial Dams, about 29.8 million acre-feet of water was lost and 5.9 million tons of dissolved solids were lost. Water was removed from the river at a relatively consistent rate over the 25-year study period through water transfers to California and Arizona, evapotranspiration from crop irrigation, transpiration processes of riparian vegetation, and evaporation from the river main stem. Dissolved solids were removed from the river between Hoover and Parker Dams at a relatively constant rate through water transfers to California and Arizona, and water pumped from the river for irrigation within the Mohave Valley. A small amount of dissolved solids are gainedby the river from inflow from the Bill Williams River. Between Parker and Imperial Dams, however, dissolved solids were not removed from the river at a consistent rate over the study period. Dissolved solids were generally removed from the river from 1990 to 2012, then gained by the river from 2012 to 2015, and then removed from the river from 2015 through 2016. Dissolved solids are assumed to be removed from the river and accumulated within the floodplain sediments and aquifers during irrigation processes; some dissolved solids may also be removed from the river through uptake by crops and riparian vegetation. Dissolved solids accumulated on the landscape and in the floodplain aquifer during irrigation are transported to the river during periods when the hydraulic gradient between the floodplain aquifer and the river is increased, causing a gain in dissolved solids in the river. Dissolved-solids gains in the river occur during periods of relatively low river discharge, such as during the winter months and during drier climatic conditions. Two numerical models were developed and coefficientswere estimated by using data from a May 2008-September 2016 calibration period. One model simulates concentrations at Imperial Dam based on the Colorado River system downstream from Parker Dam, and the other model simulates concentrations at Imperial Dam based on the Colorado River system downstreamfrom Hoover Dam. Both models simulated monthly flow-weighted concentrations of dissolved solids for the Colorado River at Imperial Dam, which corresponded well with observed concentrations for the entire study period. The models are more sensitive to input variables of monthly discharge of the ColoradoRiver below Parker Dam and monthly flow-weighted dissolved-solids concentrations of the Colorado River below Hoover Dam and Parker Dam than to the rate of change in concentration with respect to time and the combined discharge of the Colorado River Indian Reservation Main Canal and the Palo Verde Canal. The calibrated models can be used to run scenarios of future monthlyflow-weighted dissolved-solids concentrations in the ColoradoRiver at Imperial Dam. Although the models are expected to provide concentration estimates within 18 milligrams per liter (Parker Dam to Imperial Dam model) to 22 milligrams per liter (Hoover Dam to Imperial Dam model), 95 percent of the time, the error of future scenarios increases as uncertainty in the estimated future input variables increases.